PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

More feasible for PLA-N to be trained by the Russians in carrier operations, as the Chinese carrier was ex-USSR Navy. It is however brash to comment about the uncertainty in "training our potential enemy" - "our" meaning the US? & the word "enemy" should never be used unless proven by actual engagements in military/naval hostilities. Military/Naval Diplomacy as practiced by the US CNO and USN at Rimpac will go a long way to build good relationship with the PLA-N.

Blackstone said:

Not too sure about training our potential enemy in carrier operation, it's probably better to let them discover the art on their own.

Click to expand...

Did PLA brief CNO Admiral Greenert about next Chinese aircraft carrier?

--
“They will build another carrier, probably relatively soon,” he said. “It’ll look just like this one, they said. Ski ramp. About the same tonnage, 65,000, 70,000 tons.”

ladioussupp said:

“They will build another carrier, probably relatively soon,” he said. “It’ll look just like this one, they said. Ski ramp. About the same tonnage, 65,000, 70,000 tons.”

Click to expand...

Interesting quote by the US Admiral...and pretty much aligns directly with what I have been saying for some years.

advill said:

More feasible for PLA-N to be trained by the Russians in carrier operations, as the Chinese carrier was ex-USSR Navy.

Click to expand...

Not really.

That only holds if they intend to use their carrier like the Russians use their own in terms of operations, strategies, policy, etc.

If however, and I believe this to be much more the case, they intend to use their carriers in a mode closer to the US mold...ie. power projection and not bastion defense...then they would be well served to learn from the US.

But the US will hold the truly critical parts back because China is definitely a nation that does have conflicting interests with the US in some areas, and while not considered an "enemy," is currently a nation that can be considered a competitor and potential belligerent.

Hopefully, through enhancing those areas where our interests do align, and through building up trust in areas where we can cooperate, we can lessen tensions and lead towards more unified interests and friendship.

Jeff Head said:

Interesting quote by the US Admiral...and pretty much aligns directly with what I have been saying for some years.

Not really.

That only holds if they intend to use their carrier like the Russians use their own in terms of operations, strategies, policy, etc.

If however, and I believe this to be much more the case, they intend to use their carriers in a mode closer to the US mold...ie. power projection and not bastion defense...then they would be well served to learn from the US.

But the US will hold the truly critical parts back because China is definitely a nation that does have conflicting interests with the US in some areas, and while not considered an "enemy," is currently a nation that can be considered a competitor and potential belligerent.

Hopefully, through enhancing those areas where our interests do align, and through building up trust in areas where we can cooperate, we can lessen tensions and lead towards more unified interests and friendship.

Click to expand...

Jeff, you would be a great the US president ... better than some of them http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/images/icons/icon10.png

antiterror13 said:

Jeff, you would be a great the US president ... better than some of them http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/images/icons/icon10.png

Click to expand...

There's zero doubt in my mind Jeff Head would be a better President than the current occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. However, that's not a high bar to pass, so we're understating Jeff's abilities by quite a margin.

Rant over, back to PLAN carriers.

antiterror13 said:

Jeff, you would be a great the US president ... better than some of them http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/images/icons/icon10.png

Click to expand...

Wow, thank you, antiterror. That is high praise and very kind words.

Sadly, in today's climate many people who would be outstanding public servants shy away because of the nastiness of the environment, and because of the high cost.

I am not afraid of any of that, just do not feel either in a position to run for public office, or feel the "call," from above, which I would ernestly seek before doing any such thing. If I did, it is likely that the media would label me terrible things because I have strong held beliefs.

For example:

Because I am very strong on traditional marriage and feel that it is only meant to be between a single man and a single woman, I would be labeled a homo-phobe. Irrespective of the belief I have that any consenting adults should be able to make legal contracts between one antoeher...it's just not marriage.

Because I feel that we should have a secure border and not allow illegal immigration...because when you lose ythe definition of your nation's borders, you lose your nation....I would be called a racist. Even though I strongly believe that we should always have a vibrant legal immigration policy and allow good people of all creeds and colors into our nation as long as they want to come here and be good citizens.

Because I believe strongly in the constitution and the clear separations of powers it defines, and believe that Presidents and Justices and Representative MUST hold to their respective powers as defined in the Constitution, I would be called a right-wing bigot. Even though I simply believe that the oath every official takes, no matter what color, race, or creed, should be upheld.

Because I believe that the best thing you can do for people with lower education, or who are in a poor area is to train them, educate them, and find them a job, and get them off welfare, I would be labeled everything from a fascist to a racist. Even though programs that lead to people becoming self sufficent are far better than pure social welfare, and the existing social welfare system, by every measure, has been shown to not help people out of poverty but leads to a life style almost sure to keep them in poveryty for generations. But then, scheming politicians want it that way because they feel it ensures them those people voite as long as the keep giving them "stuff." And sadly, in all too many cases their scheme is working. Sad...shameful.

Anyhow, I am not afraid of those lnbels, and if moved upon would run for office. But I have not heard that particular call, and am content doing what I can on my own to help other people anyway. It's really the way the nation is supposed to work. More people helping those aorund them out of the conviction of their hearts, and less government trying to force it.

Again, thank you for the kind words and sorry for the O/T rant.

Jeff Head said:

Wow, thank you, antiterror. That is high praise and very kind words.

Sadly, in today's climate many people who would be outstanding public servants shy away because of the nastiness of the environment, and because of the high cost.

I am not afraid of any of that, just do not feel either in a position to run for public office, or feel the "call," from above, which I would ernestly seek before doing any such thing. If I did, it is likely that the media would label me terrible things because I have strong held beliefs.

Click to expand...

So true, so true.

Because I am very strong on traditional marriage and feel that it is only meant to be between a single man and a single woman, I would be labeled a homo-phobe. Irrespective of the belief I have that any consenting adults should be able to make legal contracts between one antoeher...it's just not marriage.

Click to expand...

I'm for traditional marriage too, but I could see the other side in terms of the Bill of Rights argument. Maybe the government should just get out of marriages entirely and stick with enforcing civil union contracts?

Because I feel that we should have a secure border and not allow illegal immigration...because when you lose ythe definition of your nation's borders, you lose your nation....I would be called a racist. Even though I strongly believe that we should always have a vibrant legal immigration policy and allow good people of all creeds and colors into our nation as long as they want to come here and be good citizens.

Click to expand...

As a legal immigrant (my parents immigrated from Taiwan to the US in 1968), I support this 100%. In addition to border security, illegal immigration makes mockery of those that followed the rules and obeyed laws.

Because I believe strongly in the constitution and the clear separations of powers it defines, and believe that Presidents and Justices and Representative MUST hold to their respective powers as defined in the Constitution, I would be called a right-wing bigot. Even though I simply believe that the oath every official takes, no matter what color, race, or creed, should be upheld.

Click to expand...

Agreed! The burning of the Constitution is my biggest problem with Obama and his cronies. I could deal with his liberal instincts, but it's all end justifies means with this bunch, and the Constitution is looked upon as convenient roadkill.

Because I believe that the best thing you can do for people with lower education, or who are in a poor area is to train them, educate them, and find them a job, and get them off welfare, I would be labeled everything from a fascist to a racist. Even though programs that lead to people becoming self sufficent are far better than pure social welfare, and the existing social welfare system, by every measure, has been shown to not help people out of poverty but leads to a life style almost sure to keep them in poveryty for generations. But then, scheming politicians want it that way because they feel it ensures them those people voite as long as the keep giving them "stuff." And sadly, in all too many cases their scheme is working. Sad...shameful.

Click to expand...

We got to stop marching in locked steps, or people will talk.

Anyhow, I am not afraid of those lnbels, and if moved upon would run for office. But I have not heard that particular call, and am content doing what I can on my own to help other people anyway. It's really the way the nation is supposed to work. More people helping those aorund them out of the conviction of their hearts, and less government trying to force it.

Click to expand...

You run for office and I'll contribute to your campaign!

Jeff Head said:

That only holds if they intend to use their carrier like the Russians use their own in terms of operations, strategies, policy, etc.

If however, and I believe this to be much more the case, they intend to use their carriers in a mode closer to the US mold...ie. power projection and not bastion defense...then they would be well served to learn from the US.

Click to expand...

I'm not insider, but it appears that there are two schools of thought in PLAN : Jeune École wanting to develop more offensive and power-projecting navy similar to USN, and old school concerned primarily with defense of China mainland and First Island Chain .

New school is basically hoping for prolonged period of peace (especially with US) in order to develop true blue-water navy with all accompanying accessories - aircraft carriers above anything else . I would say that this school had upper hand from let's say year 2000 to last year.

Old schools thinks that war may break out very soon. They are aware that in present situation or near future PLAN cannot effectively engage USN (and allies) in the open battle far from land bases . So for them carrier battle groups are waste of resources . They would like more submarines and missile carriers(ships, aircraft, subs, land batteries), just like Soviet Navy . I would say that this school got upper hand in late 2013 as situation in the world became more tense .

thunderchief said:

I'm not insider, but it appears that there are two schools of thought in PLAN : Jeune École wanting to develop more offensive and power-projecting navy similar to USN, and old school concerned primarily with defense of China mainland and First Island Chain .

New school is basically hoping for prolonged period of peace (especially with US) in order to develop true blue-water navy with all accompanying accessories - aircraft carriers above anything else . I would say that this school had upper hand from let's say year 2000 to last year.

Old schools thinks that war may break out very soon. They are aware that in present situation or near future PLAN cannot effectively engage USN (and allies) in the open battle far from land bases . So for them carrier battle groups are waste of resources . They would like more submarines and missile carriers(ships, aircraft, subs, land batteries), just like Soviet Navy . I would say that this school got upper hand in late 2013 as situation in the world became more tense .

Click to expand...

I know where you're coming from, but my take has been that the new school still technically has the upper hand, given the programs we're seeing. The reason, I think, is because the new school's strategy better fits the geopolitical and economic needs that the leadership in China is beginning to realize.