Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China building 3 aircraft carriers, heads for superpower status
WorldTribune ^ | 11 Aug 11 | Lev Navrozov

Posted on 08/12/2011 9:54:11 AM PDT by LSUfan

As a totalitarian society, PRC is a military camp, in which everyone is a soldier. It is easier in such a society to conceal the building of new weapons or pursuing a secret military agenda. The original Hong Kong news story of 2004, which said that China was reported to be building, with the assistance from Russia, 3 aircraft carriers (called Project 9935), floated around the Chinese forums. According to Key publishing LTD.Aviation Forums of 18th Feb. 2004, all 3 ships could be operational by 2008-2010. The Chinese article said that maintenance facilities had been built in Shanghai, Dailan, and Zhejiang. The author of the article was not sure “how reliable” the source was: “so there you go… 3ACs, setting up the scene to become superpower by 2020.”

According to Polmar’s Perspective, other articles cite alleged Chinese plans to build up to 6 aircraft carriers in the near term.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldtribune.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chicoms; china; navair; navy; redchina
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

1 posted on 08/12/2011 9:54:18 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Tough to tell from the article whether any of the reports are accurate, but it has seemed for some time that the Red Chinese are hell-bent for leather to build a bluewater Navy to challenge the 7th Fleet and dominate the Asia-Pacific region at the very least.


2 posted on 08/12/2011 9:56:45 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
will this be the equivalent of the great white fleet of the early 20th c that the u.s. sent around the world?
3 posted on 08/12/2011 9:57:48 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Ahhhh, good...3 targets now...

No problem...


4 posted on 08/12/2011 10:01:37 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (I'm jus' sayin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
China CANNOT overtake the US, without lotsa help from the US.

Help in the form of:

US becoming economically prostrate, with huge deficits and huge debt.

Forming useless commissions that will agree on nothing, forcing a large cut in Constitutionally-mandated defense spending.

Electing marxists to "lead us" to nirvana, as sinators, congresscritters, and to a lesser extent, marxist state reps/sinators.

5 posted on 08/12/2011 10:02:16 AM PDT by C210N (0bama, Making the US safe for Global Marxism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

The time to worry about the Chinese is when they start building lots of aircraft carriers. I guess we should start worrying. Maybe we can give them social security.


6 posted on 08/12/2011 10:03:23 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Aircraft Carriers are obsolete, we should scrap and reallocate the money to robot drone carriers.

We only have kept building carriers for the last 15 years due to politics.


7 posted on 08/12/2011 10:06:26 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

Ping


8 posted on 08/12/2011 10:09:29 AM PDT by neodad (Don't Tap, Just Drill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813

“Aircraft Carriers are obsolete, we should scrap and reallocate the money to robot drone carriers.

We only have kept building carriers for the last 15 years due to politics.”

I hate to agree...but as impressive as they are, I see big, slow targets unless there is some truly radical development in defensive weaponry. Anything anyone has can be overwhelmed or outrun.


9 posted on 08/12/2011 10:14:24 AM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

I say 2 Mk 48’s each, tops, and they are artificial reefs.


10 posted on 08/12/2011 10:19:16 AM PDT by EricT. (Is a country that would re-elect Baroke Hussein Owebama really worth saving?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

Even when I was in the Navy before they figured this out, we had a Battle Cruiser and two destroyers routinely take out an entire battle group.

The problem is, the formation is too large and easy to detect. It’s foot print is enormous.

It is considered a win as soon as you destroy the carrier too. So even when our ship was blown up in the war game, it was always after destroying the carrier.

The last war game that we were in, we killed them all except for one that fled. We only lost one Canadian Frigate.

It is a classic game of the guerrilla fighter vs the big slow main battle force with only one primary weapon.


11 posted on 08/12/2011 10:19:40 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EricT.

I say get a bunch of these and their entire Navy fleet is a bunch of artificial reefs.

It is incredibly hard to defend these ships...it is almost beyond even our ability and that is only with extreme sacrifice.


12 posted on 08/12/2011 10:22:23 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie
There will always always always (repeat 500 times) be a need for tactical air for a blue water navy. Anyone who thinks other wise is an idiot. It is not a question of who has the most aircraft carries it is who has the last aircraft carries.

Ok for the CV is dead/obsolete crowd, if the PLAN had 10 CVBG's and the USN had none, that situation would hunky dory with you guys? What a joke. Why don't you show your ignorance on a thread you might know something about.

13 posted on 08/12/2011 10:28:47 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: magslinger; Vroomfondel; SC Swamp Fox; Fred Hayek; NY Attitude; P3_Acoustic; investigateworld; ...
SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

14 posted on 08/12/2011 10:29:40 AM PDT by Vroomfondel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Tough to tell from the article whether any of the reports are accurate...

Well, they say all three ships will be operational in the 2008-2010 timeframe. Here it is 2011 and the first one has just set sail.

15 posted on 08/12/2011 10:31:29 AM PDT by Vroomfondel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dila813
It is incredibly hard to defend these ships...it is almost beyond even our ability and that is only with extreme sacrifice.

A $5,000.00 tow missile can knock out a $1M dollar M-1 Abrams tank. we should stop building tanks too. You guys are stupid. A 30 cent bullet can kill a us soldier we should just disband the entire Army. WTF?

16 posted on 08/12/2011 10:31:38 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ken21

“will this be the equivalent of the great white fleet of the early 20th c that the u.s. sent around the world?”

I suspect the day of carrier supremacy is over. Carriers never entered the Persian Gulf during Gulf War 1 because of mines. Now, super missiles can be fired from any platform, including from containers on container ships. The Chinese have long been building brilliant mines that move around under their own power and probably have the ship sound and influence profiles of every US ship in their memories. Even non-state actors like Hezbollah have deployed and used sophisticated anti-ship missiles. As asymmetric technologies, like sophisticated mines, become more common, the utility of carriers diminishes.
What scares me is that we have billions of dollars and thousands of lives on the line in ships I suspect are as obsolete as the battleship circa 1941. Our first indication that the strategic map has been changed may be a 6 ship loss on day one of a battle against an as yet unidentified non-state actor.

The time to start investing in alternative technologies is now, long before we see the actual need. George H. Bush wanted to preplace some carrier groups with robotized, submergible bombardment ships. Although an admiral pitched them to Congress, senior captains made individual pleas to Congressmen saying it was a bad idea. (You apparently can’t become and admiral without commanding a carrier first.)


17 posted on 08/12/2011 10:35:34 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: central_va

At least the earlier versions of the TOW don’t take out the latest versions of the M1.

I don’t know about the later versions but they don’t cost 5k either.

M1 Tanks don’t hold thousands of personal and cost millions of dollars a year just to operate a single unit.

Do I need to go on why your comparison is just silly?

To get the equivalent force concentration in the army, you would only be able to afford to have 2-3 of these tanks in the entire country of Iraq.


18 posted on 08/12/2011 10:36:52 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

I am glad FR doesn’t run the USN. Again when you can tell me how to replace tactical air cover in the middle of the ocean without an aircraft carrier, I’m all ears. PS it can’t be done.


19 posted on 08/12/2011 10:38:22 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

you’re correct.

i remember attending a speech by gary hart in the ‘70s and

he made the point that in a hot war aircraft carriers would

head for the nearest river estuary.

whether that’s the truth or a democrat death wish...


20 posted on 08/12/2011 10:39:07 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dila813
M1 Tanks don’t hold thousands of personal and cost millions of dollars a year just to operate a single unit.

So how long were you in the Navy admiral?

So I ASK AGAIN for possible penetration: In your opinion a situation where the PLAN has 10 CVBG's and we had none that situation is AOK with you, right?

21 posted on 08/12/2011 10:41:29 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Who ever on this board said get rid of tactical air cover?...you haven’t needed an aircraft carrier for tactical air cover for the last 20 years....we just have been unwilling to implement these concepts.


22 posted on 08/12/2011 10:43:05 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: central_va

You replace manned fighters with robotic drones on mini-aircraft carriers that are 480 meters in length and each one of them will have the same fire power as one of our current manned fightercraft carriers.

Read my posts before replying. It really helps the conversation.

You don’t need these Goliaths to do their missions anymore.


23 posted on 08/12/2011 10:46:05 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Ok Einstein, 1000 NM away from any friendly shore or base how does one have tactical air cover without a CVN around? Hmmmm? This ought to be good.


24 posted on 08/12/2011 10:46:21 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Best thread ever!

The pro vs. anti-carrier arguments in this thread are basically a replay of all of the arguments about the effectiveness of carriers since the cancellation of the USS Untied States (CVA-58) in 1949.


25 posted on 08/12/2011 10:48:15 AM PDT by hc87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Robotic Drone Carriers,

READ PLEASE


26 posted on 08/12/2011 10:49:53 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dila813
You replace manned fighters with robotic drones on mini-aircraft carriers that are 480 meters in length and each one of them will have the same fire power as one of our current manned fightercraft carriers.

You've been drinking the bong water again I see.


27 posted on 08/12/2011 10:50:17 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Yes, we have a need for tactical air cover. The fact that we need it doesn’t mean it’s safe to have so many eggs in such a vulnerable basket. Do we need huge ships requiring an entire supporting fleet? Is there another way? What about much smaller ships flying RPV’s? As I recall, the GHB bombardment platform could launch and recover RPV’s. RPV technology and AI pilots might provide an answer. What the real answer is, I don’t pretend to know. What I don’t want to happen is to lose an aircraft carrier with 5000 men, 90 aircraft and all their logistics and support. We have so much invested in such a small space that we make an awesome high value target for our enemies. If they concentrate on just that one target then they may achieve a political victory like the Tet offensive. The North VC lost the offensive, but won the war by diminishing the political support at home.


28 posted on 08/12/2011 10:50:57 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Again when you can tell me how to replace tactical air cover in the middle of the ocean without an aircraft carrier,

"Really big magnets"

29 posted on 08/12/2011 10:51:15 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (New gets old. Steampunk is always cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

I can’t decide if guys like you are more dangerous to our national defense than the PLANs plan to build CV’s?


30 posted on 08/12/2011 10:54:20 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: central_va

http://defensetech.org/2011/02/06/navys-x-47b-stealthy-combat-drone-makes-first-flight/

For example:

There have even been proposals for destroyer sized ships with these in vertical launch tubes and a single recovery deck being able to replace an aircraft carrier.

Best thing about it, you only need a single pilot for ever 7-14 planes. You don’t need an operator for everyone of these because most of the flight is all ran by computers.


31 posted on 08/12/2011 10:56:33 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dila813
Read my posts before replying. It really helps the conversation.

How does me laughing too hard to type, help?

You replace manned fighters with robotic drones on mini-aircraft carriers that are 480 meters in length


32 posted on 08/12/2011 10:56:53 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (New gets old. Steampunk is always cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: central_va

That sounds like a violation of Free Republic’s Posting Rules buddy

No personal attacks....if you can’t deal with it, go to the Democratic Underground.


33 posted on 08/12/2011 10:57:48 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Better yet, what about robot drones on submarines?


34 posted on 08/12/2011 10:57:48 AM PDT by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear

There was actually one of these in a concept

The problem was the recovery of the plane. Launching via existing missile tube technology wasn’t an issue.

I think this is still something that needs to be worked out.

As far as surface uclav ships, we could have already fielded them with the amount of money being spent on regular carriers. Pilots don’t like the idea of computers taking over their jobs though.


35 posted on 08/12/2011 11:00:58 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear

How about we get the flying saucer at are 51 working? I am sure a squadron of those babies could supply tac air for our fleet.


36 posted on 08/12/2011 11:02:00 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: central_va
While I agree that carriers are important to the military's combat plans, I also think that the Navy should also look at increasing its surface combatants.

They have been retiring the older Ticonderoga-class cruisers, but keep changing their minds on the replacement cruisers. The Burke-class destroyers are extremely capable platforms, but the cruisers have larger command-and-control capabilities for managing a surface combat group in a battle and larger missile magazines for air defense.

They are also running into problems (primarily financial in nature) with the replacements for the Perry-class frigates. With the proven capabilities of submarines in modern warfare (ie the South Korean corvette Cheonan and the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano), escort vessels are vital in any conflict against a nation which has submarine capabilities, which is almost everyone in today's world. Without escorts, cargo ships, amphibs, and oil tankers would be sitting ducks for all of the pig boats out there.

37 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:37 AM PDT by Stonewall Jackson (Democrats: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Stonewall Jackson

We need a bigger fleet, period. We are rapidly wearing this one out. The pace of operations is too high per ship.


38 posted on 08/12/2011 11:11:35 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: C210N
"China CANNOT overtake the US, without lotsa help from the US."

That's what 0bama is doing.

39 posted on 08/12/2011 11:27:07 AM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: central_va

That is why getting rid of the aircraft carriers makes so much sense. Do you know how many frigs you could get for the cost of one of our current aircraft carriers?


40 posted on 08/12/2011 11:31:27 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dila813
You live in a fantasy world of imaginary robotic planes and probably read to much science fiction. We need MORE CVN's not less.

No replacement in sight.

41 posted on 08/12/2011 11:36:39 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: central_va

No replacement in sight because we canceled the funding buddy.....how can a replacement be in sight if we didn’t build it.

Boeing ended up funding a lot of the research along with Northrop because they know in the end this is where we will end up.

These planes are largely a reality just waiting for orders. Building a ship to launch them was the easiest issue to address and the only thing needed for them to take over the seas.

How much longer can a ship this large with this large a defensive detail stay around? These ships are more obsolete than the battleships.

Is it going to take another country fielding a drone ship for us to get with it?


42 posted on 08/12/2011 11:47:03 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: central_va

No where in sight ah, Google is your friend:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=boc&rls=en&channel=suggest&q=Naval+Drone+Carrier&oq=Naval+Drone+Carrier&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=15435l25961l0l27031l21l21l1l8l8l0l307l2312l0.3.5.2l10l0


43 posted on 08/12/2011 11:50:35 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Ok, why don’t you post some REAL information on your robotic pipe dream? Hmm? Let’s see some of the “concepts”. Do you know how to post a link?


44 posted on 08/12/2011 11:53:26 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I posted the one that the Navy is already going to deploy, quite a pipe dream.....lolol!

The only thing that isn’t a reality right now is a dedicated drone carrier, the planes are already a reality.


45 posted on 08/12/2011 11:54:55 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dila813
I knew about these things for a long time. I had no idea some people actually thought the intent of these things was to replace tactical strike aircraft? Come on you can't be that stupid.

From the article:

Carrier-based unmanned aircraft systems have tremendous potential, especially in increasing the range and persistence of our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations, as well as our ability to strike targets quickly,” Van Buskirk said at the 7th Fleet’s headquarters in Yokosuka, Japan.

46 posted on 08/12/2011 12:00:26 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Not one for one.

The idea is that 7 of these will replace one tactical strike fighter and this ratio will improve over time.

These planes are like the drones we have today, these are robotic planes able to fly themselves.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/x47b-will-do-it-all-with-a-mouse-click

The more we use them, the smarter they will get.

Think of these swarming a target instead of 1 of them going head to head with another fighter.


47 posted on 08/12/2011 12:06:40 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dila813

When I see the word drone I think of one thing, target practice.


48 posted on 08/12/2011 12:13:42 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: central_va

yea, will these aren’t those. These ones shoot back and they travel in packs.


49 posted on 08/12/2011 12:28:20 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I see the navy politics, they know what this plane can do yet they aren’t even going to put weapons into is bay unless someone makes them. They are only using it for surveillance even though Boeing and Northrop designed this as a primary weapons platform.

This is where they need someone to push them to get it done and stop trying to appease the aged aviators that populate the pentagon and the congress.


50 posted on 08/12/2011 12:35:40 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson