The First Chinese Aircraft Carrier

[Oldman1]

Not really.PLAN alreay operated the ships and boats that needed for the aircraft carrier battle group for many years.For example the SSN,the air defence destroyer,the anti sub frigate.The question here is not that it will take the PLAN 40 years to put those boats and ships together with a aircraft carrier,but how long it will need to make the whole battle group operational.The arguments here are that its the first time the PLAN operates so many ships,boats and fighters together,how effective it could be?But definatelly I dont think the PLAN will take 40 years to learn how to operate a battle group.
The 093 SSN:

The 052C air defence destroyer:

The Soviets couldn't accomplished it for the years of Cold War which was half century. Are you saying China can do that in just a few years to operate effectively as a carrier battle group? It takes a lot of ships, training and coordination to work effectively. One mistake and the carrier goes bye bye.

 

[cloneman]

The Soviets couldn't accomplished it for the years of Cold War which was half century. Are you saying China can do that in just a few years to operate effectively as a carrier battle group? It takes a lot of ships, training and coordination to work effectively. One mistake and the carrier goes bye bye.

It has no relavent with the soviet navy.Acturally I didnt say the PLAN could effectivelly operate a aircraft carrier battel group in few years.What I claimed is that your statement that the PLAN will need 40 years to have an effective battel group is totally wrong.I didnt give any time frame,you do.

 

[Alpha_Fox]

Thats why its called a Carrier Battle Group. Look it up and see how many ships and aircraft it required to protect one carrier. China can do it, but it would take them 40 years to do it.

Have you heard about China's ASBM then?
Anti-ship ballistic missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bye Bye to your carriers

 

[Oldman1]

It has no relavent with the soviet navy.Acturally I didnt say the PLAN could effectivelly operate a aircraft carrier battel group in few years.What I claimed is that your statement that the PLAN will need 40 years to have an effective battel group is totally wrong.I didnt give any time frame,you do.

Well time will tell if I'm wrong or not. I am using something from the past to put out as an example of how hard it is to run a carrier battle group.

 

[Oldman1]

Have you heard about China's ASBM then?
Anti-ship ballistic missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bye Bye to your carriers

LOL all the carrier has to do is go flank speed and change direction. As long as its not a nuke chances goes down to zero. Not to mention if the U.S. Air Force goes around and destroy the ABM platforms first before it even gets off the ground.

 

[Roybot]

Am sorry but what did I miss? The General is just talking about the Varyag, didn't we all know about it already

I don't think they are talking about a new Aircraft Carrier. All this chest thumping without even reading the news.

The head of China's General Staff of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has confirmed that China's first aircraft carrier is under construction.

Gen Chen Bingde refused to say when the carrier - a remodelled Soviet-era vessel, the Varyag - would be ready.

A member of his staff said the carrier would pose no threat to other nations.

The PLA - the largest army in the world - is hugely secretive about its defence programme.

The carrier was constructed in the 1980s for the Soviet navy but was never completed. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the rusting hull of the Varyag sat in dockyards in Ukraine.

The 300m (990ft) carrier, which is being built in the north-east port of Dalian, has been one of China's worst-kept secrets, analysts say.

 

[UKBengali]

The Soviets couldn't accomplished it for the years of Cold War which was half century. Are you saying China can do that in just a few years to operate effectively as a carrier battle group? It takes a lot of ships, training and coordination to work effectively. One mistake and the carrier goes bye bye.

It is too simplistic to think that just because the former Soviet Navy did not come close to the US Navy, then that automatically means that China cannot.

There are a few diferences between China and the former Soviet Union:

1. The Soviet Union GDP never became any larger than 40% of the size of the US at it's height in the late 1970s. Currently China is at around 75%, when measured in price-adjusted money, and China is still growing at 10% a year as opposed to the US having to print money to keep itself from going back into recession.

2. The Soviet Union had to deploy huge land and air forces in Europe to defend againts the US, UK, France, West Germany and the rest of Nato. This meant it had meagre resoucres to spend on it's Navy. In contrast the far less powerful Russia is China's only significant land opponent. Also the Soviet Union was nearly wholly self-sufficient in oil, gas and metals unlike the Chinese who will have to import natural resources from all over the world. China must build a navy powerful enough that no other country in the world can stop it from trading with other countries.

China has both the motive and the means to create a far more powerful navy than the Russians ever did. It cannot afford not a have a navy that is not on par with the US Navy.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Okay, that is a big *** carrier.

Best of luck to PLAN, still some way to catch to the USN - currently operates 11 aircraft carriers in total.

 

[gambit]

It is too simplistic to think that just because the former Soviet Navy did not come close to the US Navy, then that automatically means that China cannot.

There are a few diferences between China and the former Soviet Union:

1. The Soviet Union GDP never became any larger than 40% of the size of the US at it's height in the late 1970s. Currently China is at around 75%, when measured in price-adjusted money, and China is still growing at 10% a year as opposed to the US having to print money to keep itself from going back into recession.

2. The Soviet Union had to deploy huge land and air forces in Europe to defend againts the US, UK, France, West Germany and the rest of Nato. This meant it had meagre resoucres to spend on it's Navy. In contrast the far less powerful Russia is China's only significant land opponent. Also the Soviet Union was nearly wholly self-sufficient in oil, gas and metals unlike the Chinese who will have to import natural resources from all over the world. China must build a navy powerful enough that no other country in the world can stop it from trading with other countries.

China has both the motive and the means to create a far more powerful navy than the Russians ever did. It cannot afford not a have a navy that is not on par with the US Navy.

The issue is not 'cannot'. It is about 'a few years' and usually the phrase is accepted to be less than a decade. That is not possible for China. If there is a 'Top 10' most dangerous working environment that man (not nature) created, an aircraft carrier deck would be in the top 5. Deck operations and coordination is like learning how to fly: not from a book. The US have literally decades of experience in aircraft carrier deck operations and coordinations and you think the US is going to invite the PLAN for training soon? Deck operations and coordination must be learned from personal experience. Nowhere else. A PLAN aircraft carrier is no good against US, the UK, France, or India, no matter how powerful it may be, if the crew cannot handle aircrafts, from storage to movement to launch, as well as the other established naval powers who have such experience.

China's new aircraft carrier is at best a training program and intimidation against smaller Asian navies but not against the Japanese or the South Koreans who have plenty of experience in joint operations with the USN. They will know how to exploit weaknesses that will be evident because of inexperience and the USN will help them in finding those weaknesses.

 

[Ryan]

chinese brought the AC in the name of floating casino & turned it in to a real AC,,,

i think we should had brought admiral gorskov saying we will make it a floating hotel..

It might be more hilarious if you would make it a floating brothel house....

 

[UKBengali]

The issue is not 'cannot'. It is about 'a few years' and usually the phrase is accepted to be less than a decade. That is not possible for China. If there is a 'Top 10' most dangerous working environment that man (not nature) created, an aircraft carrier deck would be in the top 5. Deck operations and coordination is like learning how to fly: not from a book. The US have literally decades of experience in aircraft carrier deck operations and coordinations and you think the US is going to invite the PLAN for training soon? Deck operations and coordination must be learned from personal experience. Nowhere else. A PLAN aircraft carrier is no good against US, the UK, France, or India, no matter how powerful it may be, if the crew cannot handle aircrafts, from storage to movement to launch, as well as the other established naval powers who have such experience.

China's new aircraft carrier is at best a training program and intimidation against smaller Asian navies but not against the Japanese or the South Koreans who have plenty of experience in joint operations with the USN. They will know how to exploit weaknesses that will be evident because of inexperience and the USN will help them in finding those weaknesses.

You theory does not explain how the inexperienced US deafeated the Japanese battle groups in WW2. Only a declining empire harps on about "experience" to try to make their declining military look more powerful than it is.

Anyone who thinks that any country apart from the US will be able to take on a Chinese battlegroup based around the massive 100,000 tonne aircraft carriers(rumoured to be deployable by 2020) is living in a fantasy.

 

[CardSharp]

LOL all the carrier has to do is go flank speed and change direction. As long as its not a nuke chances goes down to zero. Not to mention if the U.S. Air Force goes around and destroy the ABM platforms first before it even gets off the ground.

Hmmm who to believe, random guy on the internet or the U.S. Naval Institute. Tough choices.

 

[Zabaniyah]

You theory does not explain how the inexperienced US deafeated the Japanese battle groups in WW2. Only a declining empire harps on about "experience" to try to make their declining military look more powerful than it is.

Anyone who thinks that any country apart from the US will be able to take on a Chinese battlegroup based around the massive 100,000 tonne aircraft carriers(rumoured to be deployable by 2020) is living in a fantasy.

Well, WWII era carrier operations are not the same as today's

Actually, gambit's point is pretty valid about the experience part if you take into the context of today. Aircraft carrier operations are really no child's play. They are expensive to operate too. And not only that, they can also be vulnerable, so they must always have escort and necessary support.

As far as ABMs go, I suspect the Americans would deploy laser technology for their navy at some point in the future. I maybe wrong

Sure, the Americans have problems - its not easy being a superpower and a democracy at the same time (one of the things I respect about the US of A). But that don't mean they would compromise their superpower status under any circumstances.

They have the cutting edge of technology, we won't find any better.

 

[gambit]

You theory does not explain how the inexperienced US deafeated the Japanese battle groups in WW2. Only a declining empire harps on about "experience" to try to make their declining military look more powerful than it is.

Anyone who thinks that any country apart from the US will be able to take on a Chinese battlegroup based around the massive 100,000 tonne aircraft carriers(rumoured to be deployable by 2020) is living in a fantasy.

I guess keyword searches are too difficult for some...

U.S. Navy - A Brief Carrier History: The Escort Carriers

The first CVE was USS Long Island (CVE 1), converted from a Maritime Commission freighter. Due to a shortage of merchant ship hulls, four escort carriers were built on Cimarron-class fleet oiler hulls. These four, USS Sangamon (CVE 26), USS Suwanee (CVE 27), USS Chenanago (CVE 28), and USS Santee (CVE 29), were so successful in anti-submarine work and in covering amphibious operations that, after participating in the landings in North Africa, they were deployed to the Pacific. There, the fleet was in desperate need of carriers.

These early ships paved the way for a tremendous building program of Jeeps in the United States. Between June 1941 and April 1945, 78 escort carriers would be built and launched — a remarkable feat of wartime naval construction.

First...As evident the US had aircraft carrier experience prior to WW II.

Second...Your argument is flawed in the sense that one combatant does not need to be an 'expert' fighter in order to defeat his opponent. Between two bumbling boxers, one of the pair will eventually prevail. The Imperial Japanese Navy got a lead on the USN simply because the US was in her isolationist mood and for the good portion of the naval war in the Pacific, the US was in the inferior position.

WW II was the first time that navies fought each other without setting sights on each other. If you want to call the USN and the Imperial Japanese Navy as those two bumbling boxers, many naval historians would agree with you. But this still does not detract from the reality that book knowledge cannot impart experience because if possible, it would not be called 'experience', would it?

Since the end of WW II, the US have not remained static in aircraft carrier operations, from designing to construction to deployment, and no one comes close. Not even China and China will not achieve parity in all areas in those few years.

 

[gambit]

Hmmm who to believe, random guy on the internet or the U.S. Naval Institute. Tough choices.

We have already gone through this. Assuming this weapon is deployed and I have no problems being that generous, not one of you Chinese boys have presented any credible rebuttals as to how the system vulnerabilities' than can render the missile impotent.