Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

At last, the great satan and its western lackeys will suffer. Long live the revolution! Workers of the world unite!

From BBC news

China's first aircraft carrier has entered into service, the Defence Ministry says.

The 300m (990ft) Liaoning - named after the province where it was refitted - is a refurbished Soviet ship purchased from Ukraine.

For now the carrier has no operational aircraft and will be used for training.

But China says the vessel, which has undergone extensive sea trials, will increase its capacity to defend state interests.

The delivery of the aircraft carrier comes at a time when Japan and other countries in the region have expressed concern at China's growing naval strength.

China and Japan are embroiled in a row over disputed islands in the East China Sea. Several South East Asian nations are also at odds with China over overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea.

It also comes weeks ahead of a party congress expected to see the transition of power to a new generation of Chinese leaders.

'Defend interests'

The Liaoning was formally handed over to the navy at a ceremony attended by top Chinese leaders at Dalian Port, state-run Xinhua news agency said.

"Having the aircraft carrier enter the ranks will be of important significance in raising the overall fighting capacity of our nation's navy to a modern level," China's Defence Ministry said in a statement.

The vessel will "increase [China's] capacity to defend, develop its capacity to co-operate on the high seas in dealing with non-traditional security threats and will be effective in defending the interests of state sovereignty, security and development", it added.

The official commissioning of the country's first aircraft carrier signals China's status as a rising power, says the BBC's Damian Grammaticas in Beijing.

The country's Communist leaders are spending billions modernising their armed forces so they can project military power far beyond China's borders, our correspondent adds.

The Liaoning, formerly known as the Varyag, was constructed in the 1980s for the Soviet navy but was never completed.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Varyag sat in Ukraine's dockyards.

A Chinese company with links to China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) bought the ship just as Soviet warships were being cut for scrap.

It said it wanted to turn the Varyag into a floating casino in Macau and in 2001 the ship was towed to China.

The Chinese military confirmed in June 2011 that it was being refitted to serve as the nation's first aircraft carrier.

Analysts say it will take years to outfit the carrier with aircraft and make it fully operational. But Chinese officials say that the Liaoning advances the country's military modernisation.

"The development of aircraft carriers is an important part of China's national defence modernisation, in particular its naval forces, and this aircraft carrier is an essential stepping stone toward its own more advanced aircraft carriers in the future," China's Rear Admiral Yang Yi wrote in state-run China Daily newspaper.

The carrier will be mostly used "for scientific research and training missions" so China could build "a more advanced aircraft carrier platform in the future", he added.

Analysis by Jonathon Marcus, BBC defence guy

The commissioning of China's first aircraft carrier - the Liaoning (a former Soviet vessel, the Varyag) - sends a signal to other countries in the region that Beijing's maritime ambitions are growing.

The fact that this comes at a time of heightened tensions in the East China Sea only underlines the message.

But China's new carrier is more a symbol of a future capability than a potent naval threat itself.

Getting into the carrier business takes time; a whole range of skills has to be learnt; and carriers have to operate with other ships, requiring a new mindset across the navy as a whole.

It could be a steep learning curve, but China is moving ahead steadily, taking the first steps on the path to having a fully-fledged carrier force.

The world's carriers

US: 11 in service, with 3 under construction
Russia: One, the Admiral Kuznetsov
UK: One, HMS Illustrious which only carries helicopters - two under construction
China: One, the Liaoning
France: One, the Charles de Gaulle
India: One, the Viraat, formerly known as HMS Hermes, but converting another, the Admiral Gorshkov, into the Vikramaditya. A third is under construction
Italy: Two, the Giuseppe Garibaldi and the Cavour
Spain: One, the Principe De Asturias

Thats an interesting list of countries with aircraft carriers.

Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?

It's missing Brazil, Spain's second, And Thailand. Not to mention of the BBC counts the Lusty they are missing Japan's aircraft carting destroyers and the Wasp and America class LHAs that are more carriers than Lusty was in her best days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?

Zaire?
China has a pretty legit need for a maritime force, it's not exactly landlocked.

I get why they need a navy. I just don't see in what way they actually see a carrier helping with a war effort. They have plenty of strike fighters than can reach china or even japan.

I guess it's symbolic, I'd just think there would be better uses of a naval budget.

 Polonius wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?

Well
1. China has a massive coastline/coastal waters.
2. China is claiming most of the nearby seas, including waters right up to the shores of Japan, Vietnam, and the Phillipines. You need a blue water navy if you're going to get all "colonial."
I expect a CHinese version of HMS Pinafore presently. "For he is a Chinese Maaaaannn."

Polonius wrote:I get why they need a navy. I just don't see in what way they actually see a carrier helping with a war effort. They have plenty of strike fighters than can reach china or even japan.

I guess it's symbolic, I'd just think there would be better uses of a naval budget.

I would hope Chinese fighters could reach China...
Carriers are about projecting power, I would imagine China intends to use its carrier and future carrier fleet to expand its influence beyond East Asia, you know like Africa, the ME, or Thier best friend India's back yard.

Lol, I meant Taiwan. You know, the "good china."

 Polonius wrote:
Lol, I meant Taiwan. You know, the "good china."

I thought that was San Francisco's Chinatown. I'm so confused. Time to watch some gangnam style!

(yes I know thats Korean...)

 Polonius wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?

I'm sure it's for the massive humanitarian undertakings and assistance they'll be providing whenever there's a disaster of some sort.




.. sure is a shame they can't find other things to spend the money on, just as well all their people are so well off.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19648095

Chinese spending habits

Government has tried in recent years to boost consumer spending with discount vouchers on appliances, furniture and cars
Many aspire to material goods, but a 2010 survey found they were more concerned with saving for education, healthcare and retirement

.. pfft.. like that'll catch on

 Polonius wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?

Chinese military planners want to be able to present a credible invasion threat to Taiwan. Without a carrier this is impossible.

Here I was hoping to get a good laugh when it sank the moment it left port. Guess I'm not that lucky (nor are China's neighbors )

Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?

Because if China wants any of its extra-territorial claims, they're gonna have to take them somehow.

China will be able to use the carrier to project power to Africa.

The carrier, once a much vaunted opportunity for a casino, will be used for training and the testing of technologies for the next gen of Chinese carriers.

Expect it to be a few years before they complete a carrier or two for active service.

China will use the idea of their future carrier force to project power and influence.

I notice the title doesn't say "aircraft carrier", just "carrier". Funny, but appropriate since they don't have any planes to put on the carrier yet or pilots that can land those planes on the carrier yet.

"Two of the greatest things in life are a good landing and a good bowel movement, a night carrier landing is a chance to experience both at the same time." (Actually, the original quote was 3 things and "bowel movement" was phrased differently, but you get the point).

I had no idea that the US had so many more carriers than every other country.

Awesome.

Thats why if Imperial Japan ever tries to attack us with Zeroes and Zekes again, they are so gonna get it.

Mr. Burning wrote:The carrier, once a much vaunted opportunity for a casino, will be used for training and the testing of technologies for the next gen of Chinese carriers.

Expect it to be a few years before they complete a carrier or two for active service.

China will use the idea of their future carrier force to project power and influence.

The Kiev they actually turned into a hotel, but after Melbourne I don't think anyone in the West actually believed that casino hooey for Ark Royal or Varyag. I wonder what they plan on doing with Minsk.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The carrier, once a much vaunted opportunity for a casino, will be used for training and the testing of technologies for the next gen of Chinese carriers.

Expect it to be a few years before they complete a carrier or two for active service.

China will use the idea of their future carrier force to project power and influence.

This, in a nutshell. If you read the article closely, you'll note that it's actually an ex-soviet carrier purchased over a decade ago. China has been studying and reverse engineering carrier technology for a considerable time now. They've refrained from rushing into building the things, because aircraft carriers are currently exceptionally vulnerable to drone attacks, missile technology, and suchlike. There's actually been a fair bit of academic debate on whether or not the things are even of any use anymore(like the battleship). The general consensus is that they very much still are, but from China's point of view, there's absolutely no point in building a Carrier if its going to be subpar to those of every other nation in everyway. Carriers are expensive, so rather than rushing into construction, China has been taking it's time, and gradually developing the electronic warfare capabilities required to build a carrier that could be considered a threat, as opposed to a floating target.

Now the Chinese have spent a few decades examining Russian carrier technology with the three that they purchased (although only the Varyag was retained for military use). They also bought and broke down piece by piece the HMAS Melbourne from Australia, so they could examine a Western designed carrier. Combined with designs and information gained through spying and business negotiations, the Chinese have by now, more or less, got a handle on how a contemporary up to date aircraft carrier is built. The newly launched Liaoning is to be their practice run at operating the things, training pilots to land and take off, and generally work out teething issues with the machinery. It is essentially a very expensive prototype.

What's worrying America more than the Liaoning, is the two to four carriers supposedly under construction that are planned for completion by 2015. As things stand, the US rules supreme with carrier based technology and in terms of carrier numerical superiority. Once China has five carriers in service and the capability to build more, America is going to be very hard pressed to maintain dominance in that area of the world whilst meeting their commitments elsewhere.

From the Chinese perspective, they are a growing nation, and the China Sea, both East and South, is entirely within their sphere of influence. They are also aware that they do not currently have the capability to force the issue at the moment with the US involved however. The obvious solution), is to build a large enough fleet locally that it can overmatch anything the Americans can bring to bear without America being forced to desert other defence commitments. This should logically force the Americans to withdraw from the Chinese sphere of influence, and allow them to seize the China Sea and start browbeating everyone else in the neighbourhood. It also allows them to intimidate India, who plan to have a total of three carriers by 2015.

In short, the Chinese want to control their own backyard. The American Government though, accustomed to being the unchallenged and dominant power for twenty odd years now, is reluctant to lose that position, and enter one in which they are not the undisputed military masters of the world and able to interfere and dictate as they please.

I'd probably be on China's side, if they had anything approaching democracy. As things stand though, I'd rather have the US as the primary military world power than China by a long shot.


Curiously enough, history is actually repeating itself here. If we look back to 1900, you'll note that Germany and Britain were in the same position as China and the US. Germany was a young, expanding nation, desperate to secure its own holdings and resources, and Britain was the worldwide naval power that restrained those ambitions. As a result, Tirpitz initiated a large Dreadnought battleship construction programme, arguing that if Germany had enough naval power to threaten Britain locally, it would counter Britain's greater worldwide numerical superiority (as Britain would never focus the number of ships necessary to counter them in that part of the world). That would grant Germany the capacity to act more or less as they wanted without the threat of British interference.

Unfortunately, what happened in reality was that Britain scrapped the majority of its older ships, built two new Dreadnoughts for every one Germany built, and stationed them in the Home Fleet locally. The Germans never once thought the British would be prepared to sacrifice the security of their Empire to contain them, nor expend the vast amounts that they did on naval construction to keep on top of them. Come 1914, the British Home fleet was still bigger than Germany's, and still capable of containing them fairly securely.

It will be interesting to see over the next ten years if America will follow Britain's earlier example, or instead choose to withdraw and cede the locality to China.

If you don't use a proper cat to launch your fighters you may as well not have a carrier frankly. *snorts* ski jumps! I swear it's military technology by way of Monty Python.

That said I do find it amusing that the Marine Corps 'gator fleet's LPDs and LHDs

(these things)

mount similar airpower to a lot of other nation's full size carriers, and we even stick a bunch of extra tanks, vehicles and extremely grumpy grunts in the bottom of ours.

Here's a fun video on how MEUs do business:

Also, it's considered proper for in the military industrial complex to get very worried about any new deployment by another nation, because that justifies more spending on defense.

The Africa thing makes the most sense, actually. I was fixated on China's interests in east Asia, and forgot that they want to be a power broker in Africa.

As it stands, unless the Chinese are a lot more advanced in terms of counter measures than the US, our fighter wings in Korea and Okinawa could seriously threaten a blue water fleet.

Anybody know how good Chinese Anti-Submarine Warfare is?

Don't say that the Chinese may bully any nations with these military might for annual tribute payment in a near future

About Diaoyu Daitang / Senkaku dispuite claims. I bet Chinese will win. both Taiwanese and Japanese needs backups. the USA.
- Taiwan needs more manpower to safeguard its 'soverign' and to make the world recognize them as an independent nation state
- Japan had been 'declawed' since the end of WW2. the present constitution prevents the mobilization of 'an army that capable of a successful invasion against any nation state on earth' so the only military strenghs are the so called "Self Defense Forces" barely enough to defend its homeland should China stage a full scale invasion (and annex Japan!). They may have built a 'new Yamato Battleship' however

China did also declared itself supporter to Mugabe and had prepared Zimbabwe a 'high quality Military officiers' should the "White Empires" try any 'reconquista'.

 Polonius wrote:
Also, it's considered proper for in the military industrial complex to get very worried about any new deployment by another nation, because that justifies more spending on defense.

The Africa thing makes the most sense, actually. I was fixated on China's interests in east Asia, and forgot that they want to be a power broker in Africa.

As it stands, unless the Chinese are a lot more advanced in terms of counter measures than the US, our fighter wings in Korea and Okinawa could seriously threaten a blue water fleet.

Anybody know how good Chinese Anti-Submarine Warfare is?

The Chinese, as well as the russians, have studied and poured imense amounts into understanding Western (read US) warfighting tactics. That Chinese 'Stealth' flighter that was unveiled recently will probably be used as a long range interceptor tasked with destroying AWACS other C3 air assets and other force multipliers, such as ankers. Take these out and it makes the game a lot harder for The US and it's allies.

Los Angeles era boats could still put a dent in a Chinese surface fleet but I wouldn't put my money on easy victories. The Chinese are improving their ASW performance and there are plenty of effective decoys around. It's a matter of training and technique and so long as they get that right it could be anyones game.

While its anyone's guess my take on PLANs ASW capability is that it is at best marginal. The PLAN simply doesn't put to sea to train as much as they should or could and simulations only give so much. Even of they weren't 20 years behind in military technology, and they are. It seems by the design of thier destroyers tha they are more concerned with the AA role than ASW, which is follow with number of possible opponents China faces with submarines of really good quality.

My question is, how well will it function once a B-2 drops 16 tons of high explosives onto it's deck? My guess is "not terribly well."

 Polonius wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but based on sheer geography, is there a great power that needs a carrier less than China?

India? China is just flexing it's muscle with this, though it won't be a combat platform for years. Chinas maritime efforts have focused on the defense, they're lacking in force projection since they don't care to project force. This carrier is more prestige than anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
My question is, how well will it function once a B-2 drops 16 tons of high explosives onto it's deck? My guess is "not terribly well."

Shortly followed by the explosion of the more expensive B-2 as it's similarly aged ass gets knocked out.

 AustonT wrote:
While its anyone's guess my take on PLANs ASW capability is that it is at best marginal. The PLAN simply doesn't put to sea to train as much as they should or could and simulations only give so much. Even of they weren't 20 years behind in military technology, and they are. It seems by the design of thier destroyers tha they are more concerned with the AA role than ASW, which is follow with number of possible opponents China faces with submarines of really good quality.

They a littoral force at the monent, their Navy is geared up to AA and anti surface/anti ship. In order to provide some support to inavsion fleets and to defend their coastline/attack their closer neighbours. I still wouldn't put it past Th PLAN to be able to aquire and develop effective ASW in the next few years and to ramp up their time at sea.

As for B-2's, they wouldn't be used, anti ship missiles would constitute the main threat. Cana B2 even leave it's hanger without its RAM coating being damaged, that's if you can find one thats mission capable.

Vulcan wrote:My question is, how well will it function once a B-2 drops 16 tons of high explosives onto it's deck? My guess is "not terribly well."

To my knowledge the B2 is not capable of hitting a warship at sea or more likely would not even be slated for that type of mission. Missiles and torpedoes, most likely launched from submarine constitute the major threat to carriers at sea, or you know the defeat of their air wing by another carrier.

Mr. Burning wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
While its anyone's guess my take on PLANs ASW capability is that it is at best marginal. The PLAN simply doesn't put to sea to train as much as they should or could and simulations only give so much. Even of they weren't 20 years behind in military technology, and they are. It seems by the design of thier destroyers tha they are more concerned with the AA role than ASW, which is folly with number of possible opponents China faces with submarines of really good quality.

They a littoral force at the monent, their Navy is geared up to AA and anti surface/anti ship. In order to provide some support to inavsion fleets and to defend their coastline/attack their closer neighbours. I still wouldn't put it past Th PLAN to be able to aquire and develop effective ASW in the next few years and to ramp up their time at sea.

As for B-2's, they wouldn't be used, anti ship missiles would constitute the main threat. Cana B2 even leave it's hanger without its RAM coating being damaged, that's if you can find one thats mission capable.

1. I have no doubt China can deveolop or steal decent hardware but it wont be soon. China's aircraft industry has grown by leaps and bounds but do we really think they have jumped from copying 30 year old Sukhois and making watered down Gripens The Pakistanis wish were Block 15 F-16, to a homegrown 5th Gen Fighter? I for one do not. Until China builds not just the production capability but the ability to innovate new technologies they will continue to lag a decade or more behind whoever IS in the lead. And lets be honest the leader is not the US Navy, it's too big. I think in the next 10 years China will show us how to use 1980's or 90's ASW tech at a proficient level while the Swedes or the Germans show us what 2020 tech looks like

Their one step closer to claiming South China Sea...they can have it

They are probably going to have to fight Japan for it, and Japan will probably have an offensive military by the time China is ready to take it to the show. Lets give Japan credit from seeing the writing on the wall and knowing Uncle Sam isnt going to be able to protect them in a relatively short period of time.