PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Gollevainen said:

Exactly, and that very same modern shipbuilding industry is just starting to emerge and take more solid steps. But to get it started doesen't mean that its now ready for the biggest task any shipbuilding industry could have, to design and build workable super carrier.

Click to expand...

Today China's shipbuilding industry isn't just "starting to emerge". It's massive and challenging Japan and Korea for dominance. An incredible change from the times of the cultural revolution.

But I think your key point must be the word "workable" - what's a "workable super carrier". Obviously you think that either the Russian carriers are so bad as to be unworkable, or you think that, just by virtue of being bigger, a 93k carrier is nothing at all like a 55k carrier. I disagree with both points.

Thats basicly "flowered" way to say (or more properly, an excuse) the same thing, they weren't capable to design more modern hull design. And whats wrong with the old hull? Well its old and outdated for starters.

Click to expand...

No, I was quite clear in what I said. Given a limited budget you have to justify any investment you make. You haven't given any concrete advantage a new hull would have given to justify the time and money of developing a new one. Would it have been faster? More stealthy? Does that benefit (if you ever come up with one) outweigh the other things PLAN did with the money, like develop the 071 or build lots of FACs? If putting the money into new hulls for the destroyers delayed the 071 by six months, would that have been worth it?

I don't expect you to know the answer - none of us do - but you can't assume that just because they didn't do something that they didn't have the technology. They have a given budget and have to make choices within that.

If building supercarriers would be as easy as you make it look, why isen't there any other supercarriers, or even smaller conventional carriers being build in other countries than in those with decades of expereince in modern and large warship desinging?

Click to expand...

The primary one is cost. What would be the point in Canada, for example, investing several years worth of its military budget in an aircraft carrier? If you count the support ships and planes it would probably suck up a decade's worth of military expenditure. And then you have to keep spending money afterwards to operate it.

To Challenge:

the idea of PLAN constructing super carrier simple make no political sense,not only maintaining large super carrier (or carrier battle group)is extreme expensive, second China has no global or even regional ambition (as some rightwing nut in the US try to prove).
PLAN may have looking for 40,000~50,000 ton CV for active defense rather than global reach.

Click to expand...

I'm about as far from the U.S. *****s as you can get, but I can assure you that China does want the ability to project power eventually. They (along with most of the world) aren't comfortable with U.S. military dominance and are working towards what they call a "multi-polar" world.

The rightwing nuts try to exaggerate this and paint it as a threat, but the basic reality is that a rising economic power will find it worthwhile to invest some of its wealth in force projection. Maybe never on the same scale as the U.S., but even 2% of GDP will end up being a lot in 20-40 years.

Another issue is national pride. Even if a supercarrier (or several) isn't the most efficient way to spend the money, they may want them anyway just because the U.S. has them.

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Gollevainen said:

Exactly, and that very same modern shipbuilding industry is just starting to emerge and take more solid steps. But to get it started doesen't mean that its now ready for the biggest task any shipbuilding industry could have, to design and build workable super carrier.

Click to expand...

Today China's shipbuilding industry isn't just "starting to emerge". It's massive and challenging Japan and Korea for dominance. An incredible change from the times of the cultural revolution.

But I think your key point must be the word "workable" - what's a "workable super carrier". Obviously you think that either the Russian carriers are so bad as to be unworkable, or you think that, just by virtue of being bigger, a 93k carrier is nothing at all like a 55k carrier. I disagree with both points.

Thats basicly "flowered" way to say (or more properly, an excuse) the same thing, they weren't capable to design more modern hull design. And whats wrong with the old hull? Well its old and outdated for starters.

Click to expand...

No, I was quite clear in what I said. Given a limited budget you have to justify any investment you make. You haven't given any concrete advantage a new hull would have given to justify the time and money of developing a new one. Would it have been faster? More stealthy? Does that benefit (if you ever come up with one) outweigh the other things PLAN did with the money, like develop the 071 or build lots of FACs? If putting the money into new hulls for the destroyers delayed the 071 by six months, would that have been worth it?

I don't expect you to know the answer - none of us do - but you can't assume that just because they didn't do something that they didn't have the technology. They have a given budget and have to make choices within that.

If building supercarriers would be as easy as you make it look, why isen't there any other supercarriers, or even smaller conventional carriers being build in other countries than in those with decades of expereince in modern and large warship desinging?

Click to expand...

The primary one is cost. What would be the point in Canada, for example, investing several years worth of its military budget in an aircraft carrier? If you count the support ships and planes it would probably suck up a decade's worth of military expenditure. And then you have to keep spending money afterwards to operate it.

To Challenge:

the idea of PLAN constructing super carrier simple make no political sense,not only maintaining large super carrier (or carrier battle group)is extreme expensive, second China has no global or even regional ambition (as some rightwing nut in the US try to prove).
PLAN may have looking for 40,000~50,000 ton CV for active defense rather than global reach.

Click to expand...

I'm about as far from the U.S. *****s as you can get, but I can assure you that China does want the ability to project power eventually. They (along with most of the world) aren't comfortable with U.S. military dominance and are working towards what they call a "multi-polar" world.

The rightwing nuts try to exaggerate this and paint it as a threat, but the basic reality is that a rising economic power will find it worthwhile to invest some of its wealth in force projection. Maybe never on the same scale as the U.S., but even 2% of GDP will end up being a lot in 20-40 years.

Another issue is national pride. Even if a supercarrier (or several) isn't the most efficient way to spend the money, they may want them anyway just because the U.S. has them.

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Gollevainen said:

Exactly, and that very same modern shipbuilding industry is just starting to emerge and take more solid steps. But to get it started doesen't mean that its now ready for the biggest task any shipbuilding industry could have, to design and build workable super carrier.

Click to expand...

Today China's shipbuilding industry isn't just "starting to emerge". It's massive and challenging Japan and Korea for dominance. An incredible change from the times of the cultural revolution.

But I think your key point must be the word "workable" - what's a "workable super carrier". Obviously you think that either the Russian carriers are so bad as to be unworkable, or you think that, just by virtue of being bigger, a 93k carrier is nothing at all like a 55k carrier. I disagree with both points.

Thats basicly "flowered" way to say (or more properly, an excuse) the same thing, they weren't capable to design more modern hull design. And whats wrong with the old hull? Well its old and outdated for starters.

Click to expand...

No, I was quite clear in what I said. Given a limited budget you have to justify any investment you make. You haven't given any concrete advantage a new hull would have given to justify the time and money of developing a new one. Would it have been faster? More stealthy? Does that benefit (if you ever come up with one) outweigh the other things PLAN did with the money, like develop the 071 or build lots of FACs? If putting the money into new hulls for the destroyers delayed the 071 by six months, would that have been worth it?

I don't expect you to know the answer - none of us do - but you can't assume that just because they didn't do something that they didn't have the technology. They have a given budget and have to make choices within that.

If building supercarriers would be as easy as you make it look, why isen't there any other supercarriers, or even smaller conventional carriers being build in other countries than in those with decades of expereince in modern and large warship desinging?

Click to expand...

The primary one is cost. What would be the point in Canada, for example, investing several years worth of its military budget in an aircraft carrier? If you count the support ships and planes it would probably suck up a decade's worth of military expenditure. And then you have to keep spending money afterwards to operate it.

To Challenge:

the idea of PLAN constructing super carrier simple make no political sense,not only maintaining large super carrier (or carrier battle group)is extreme expensive, second China has no global or even regional ambition (as some rightwing nut in the US try to prove).
PLAN may have looking for 40,000~50,000 ton CV for active defense rather than global reach.

Click to expand...

I'm about as far from the U.S. *****s as you can get, but I can assure you that China does want the ability to project power eventually. They (along with most of the world) aren't comfortable with U.S. military dominance and are working towards what they call a "multi-polar" world.

The rightwing nuts try to exaggerate this and paint it as a threat, but the basic reality is that a rising economic power will find it worthwhile to invest some of its wealth in force projection. Maybe never on the same scale as the U.S., but even 2% of GDP will end up being a lot in 20-40 years.

Another issue is national pride. Even if a supercarrier (or several) isn't the most efficient way to spend the money, they may want them anyway just because the U.S. has them.

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Today China's shipbuilding industry isn't just "starting to emerge". It's massive and challenging Japan and Korea for dominance. An incredible change from the times of the cultural revolution.

Click to expand...

Being as large as china is in civil ship building sector doesen't mean you are automaticly the leading nation in warship development. First of all civil cargoships are noway near the complexity that modern warships are, not to mention about carriers. Actually china has not enjoyed succes in the fields of more complicated and specialized civilian sector ships.

But I think your key point must be the word "workable" - what's a "workable super carrier". Obviously you think that either the Russian carriers are so bad as to be unworkable, or you think that, just by virtue of being bigger, a 93k carrier is nothing at all like a 55k carrier. I disagree with both points

Click to expand...

Soviet carriers were all poor ships in both seakeeping and form operational standpoints. They were noob efforst of nation which had no experience to build nor operatesuch ships and atop that with ill-logical political decisions the end result wasen't impressive. The last in line of soviet carriers to see the daylight was the Kuznetsov class which still suffered greatly from the biggest plague of all warship desiging, too much politics. They were designed to too small conventional carriers and during the intial developing stage the political decision turned them to oversized VSTOL carriers. The arms twist continued and the time when the first ship was launched, the end result was hybrid VSTOL carrier with limited conventional plane capability as well.
Their flightdeck is too small, the hangar is too small (and this is not due the missilesilos alone, but becouse of the narrowes as well) The lack of catabults prevents any meaningfull conventional airctaft operations and the lack of VSTOL planes prevents any VSTOL operations at all.

When country without even the soviet exprerience in naval aviation nor shipdesings when building the Kuznetsovs is about to design and build 93k carrier...not realistic, simply just not realistic...

No, I was quite clear in what I said. Given a limited budget you have to justify any investment you make. You haven't given any concrete advantage a new hull would have given to justify the time and money of developing a new one. Would it have been faster? More stealthy? Does that benefit (if you ever come up with one) outweigh the other things PLAN did with the money, like develop the 071 or build lots of FACs? If putting the money into new hulls for the destroyers delayed the 071 by six months, would that have been worth it?

Click to expand...

What you are saying is true, yeas if your cabability doesen't allow you, yeas there is no justification for more modern shiphulls. Thats the exact situation with the chinese warship development.
But if you have the cabability, then its quite favourble to build and design ships that are not inferior to your opponent and even better if they would be superior. The very basics of all capitalism and arms-races in general. Why is USA, UK, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea and many smaller nations and even the bankrubcy Russia doing it? Becouse they have the cabability...those who doesen't, doesen't

The primary one is cost. What would be the point in Canada, for example, investing several years worth of its military budget in an aircraft carrier? If you count the support ships and planes it would probably suck up a decade's worth of military expenditure. And then you have to keep spending money afterwards to operate it.

Click to expand...

...yeas true, what makes you think china can somehow justificate the same expenses?

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Today China's shipbuilding industry isn't just "starting to emerge". It's massive and challenging Japan and Korea for dominance. An incredible change from the times of the cultural revolution.

Click to expand...

Being as large as china is in civil ship building sector doesen't mean you are automaticly the leading nation in warship development. First of all civil cargoships are noway near the complexity that modern warships are, not to mention about carriers. Actually china has not enjoyed succes in the fields of more complicated and specialized civilian sector ships.

But I think your key point must be the word "workable" - what's a "workable super carrier". Obviously you think that either the Russian carriers are so bad as to be unworkable, or you think that, just by virtue of being bigger, a 93k carrier is nothing at all like a 55k carrier. I disagree with both points

Click to expand...

Soviet carriers were all poor ships in both seakeeping and form operational standpoints. They were noob efforst of nation which had no experience to build nor operatesuch ships and atop that with ill-logical political decisions the end result wasen't impressive. The last in line of soviet carriers to see the daylight was the Kuznetsov class which still suffered greatly from the biggest plague of all warship desiging, too much politics. They were designed to too small conventional carriers and during the intial developing stage the political decision turned them to oversized VSTOL carriers. The arms twist continued and the time when the first ship was launched, the end result was hybrid VSTOL carrier with limited conventional plane capability as well.
Their flightdeck is too small, the hangar is too small (and this is not due the missilesilos alone, but becouse of the narrowes as well) The lack of catabults prevents any meaningfull conventional airctaft operations and the lack of VSTOL planes prevents any VSTOL operations at all.

When country without even the soviet exprerience in naval aviation nor shipdesings when building the Kuznetsovs is about to design and build 93k carrier...not realistic, simply just not realistic...

No, I was quite clear in what I said. Given a limited budget you have to justify any investment you make. You haven't given any concrete advantage a new hull would have given to justify the time and money of developing a new one. Would it have been faster? More stealthy? Does that benefit (if you ever come up with one) outweigh the other things PLAN did with the money, like develop the 071 or build lots of FACs? If putting the money into new hulls for the destroyers delayed the 071 by six months, would that have been worth it?

Click to expand...

What you are saying is true, yeas if your cabability doesen't allow you, yeas there is no justification for more modern shiphulls. Thats the exact situation with the chinese warship development.
But if you have the cabability, then its quite favourble to build and design ships that are not inferior to your opponent and even better if they would be superior. The very basics of all capitalism and arms-races in general. Why is USA, UK, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea and many smaller nations and even the bankrubcy Russia doing it? Becouse they have the cabability...those who doesen't, doesen't

The primary one is cost. What would be the point in Canada, for example, investing several years worth of its military budget in an aircraft carrier? If you count the support ships and planes it would probably suck up a decade's worth of military expenditure. And then you have to keep spending money afterwards to operate it.

Click to expand...

...yeas true, what makes you think china can somehow justificate the same expenses?

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Today China's shipbuilding industry isn't just "starting to emerge". It's massive and challenging Japan and Korea for dominance. An incredible change from the times of the cultural revolution.

Click to expand...

Being as large as china is in civil ship building sector doesen't mean you are automaticly the leading nation in warship development. First of all civil cargoships are noway near the complexity that modern warships are, not to mention about carriers. Actually china has not enjoyed succes in the fields of more complicated and specialized civilian sector ships.

But I think your key point must be the word "workable" - what's a "workable super carrier". Obviously you think that either the Russian carriers are so bad as to be unworkable, or you think that, just by virtue of being bigger, a 93k carrier is nothing at all like a 55k carrier. I disagree with both points

Click to expand...

Soviet carriers were all poor ships in both seakeeping and form operational standpoints. They were noob efforst of nation which had no experience to build nor operatesuch ships and atop that with ill-logical political decisions the end result wasen't impressive. The last in line of soviet carriers to see the daylight was the Kuznetsov class which still suffered greatly from the biggest plague of all warship desiging, too much politics. They were designed to too small conventional carriers and during the intial developing stage the political decision turned them to oversized VSTOL carriers. The arms twist continued and the time when the first ship was launched, the end result was hybrid VSTOL carrier with limited conventional plane capability as well.
Their flightdeck is too small, the hangar is too small (and this is not due the missilesilos alone, but becouse of the narrowes as well) The lack of catabults prevents any meaningfull conventional airctaft operations and the lack of VSTOL planes prevents any VSTOL operations at all.

When country without even the soviet exprerience in naval aviation nor shipdesings when building the Kuznetsovs is about to design and build 93k carrier...not realistic, simply just not realistic...

No, I was quite clear in what I said. Given a limited budget you have to justify any investment you make. You haven't given any concrete advantage a new hull would have given to justify the time and money of developing a new one. Would it have been faster? More stealthy? Does that benefit (if you ever come up with one) outweigh the other things PLAN did with the money, like develop the 071 or build lots of FACs? If putting the money into new hulls for the destroyers delayed the 071 by six months, would that have been worth it?

Click to expand...

What you are saying is true, yeas if your cabability doesen't allow you, yeas there is no justification for more modern shiphulls. Thats the exact situation with the chinese warship development.
But if you have the cabability, then its quite favourble to build and design ships that are not inferior to your opponent and even better if they would be superior. The very basics of all capitalism and arms-races in general. Why is USA, UK, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea and many smaller nations and even the bankrubcy Russia doing it? Becouse they have the cabability...those who doesen't, doesen't

The primary one is cost. What would be the point in Canada, for example, investing several years worth of its military budget in an aircraft carrier? If you count the support ships and planes it would probably suck up a decade's worth of military expenditure. And then you have to keep spending money afterwards to operate it.

Click to expand...

...yeas true, what makes you think china can somehow justificate the same expenses?

Re: What will the 1st PLAN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) look like?

Depending on when the first chinese carrier comes out, we really can't guess what the new battlegroup would look like. Most likely if china plans to buy or built a carrier they will draw plans or ships that they'll use to protect it.

I think a battlegroup would have to have quite a few anti-air destroyers and frigates surrounding it because an air attack through aircraft and missiles is the most likely used tactic of modern warfare. 4 - 5 submarines, two on the outsides of the battlegroup and a couple in front and behind the battlegroup to detect mines and other subs. Maybe 3 or 4 frigates and 4 to 5 surface to surface combatant type destroyers and a replenshment ship.

Of course, this all depends on the PLAN's resource in the coming years. I read online somewhere that PRC has no interest in carriers at the moment because there's too much money and time involved in maintainance, resource, and training a battlegroup. PLAN also are inexperience in operating a battlegroup and will probably not fare well in combat.

However, the chinese government is more interested in building more nuclear submarines. China has experience with submarines and Russia (just a thought) would be more willing to help China make better subs than to build a carrier. Subs, in a surface to surface combat in the ocean, is more dangerous than a carrier. Nuclear Submarines can sink carriers, they can hide and ambush, and are also able to stay undetected in deep waters, as the Chinese demonstrated when they used a submarine to spy on an U.S.-Japanese joint military exercise. So I think submarines may take more priority over the PLAN more than carriers will.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The argument why small country built advance ships and China doesn't cannot just just be explained by lack of technology .China does build advance ships like 52C Comparing Chinese navy requirement which need all around navy and small country like Korea is no comparison at all Korea doesn't built nuclear powered submarine. So she can concentrate of surface ships Korea doesn't need amphibious lift China does.How many different class of Ships that China built over the years? All of those need money and there is only so much to go around You get to rationalize.

Also the idea that China is a newbie in building big carrier is not true They have been considering building it for years and make the necessary preparation for it As I posited before now is the time because everything is in place right now They have the need, the financial resource and the technology base to do it


China Focuses on Surface Power

By WENDELL MINNICK, SINGAPORE



China continues to expand the operational and strategic role of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) as it buys and builds new warships and submarines and upgrades existing ones.

Chinese shipyards have been building fast attack missile patrol boats, dock landing ships, frigates and destroyers, many with stealthy, high-tech features common on Western warships.

“The Navy budget focuses on building more modern surface ships, such as the FFG 054A frigate, and the technology of Chinese fighting ships is gradually improving,” said Andrei Chang, editor of the Hong Kong-based Kanwa Defense Review. “For instance, new HQ16 and HQ9 vertical-launched air defense systems have already been installed on FFG 054A and DDG 052C Chinese Aegis destroyers. The third FFG 054A has been launched in Guangzhou Huanpu shipyard this year.”

With these modern shipbuilding capabilities may come the know-how to construct an aircraft carrier, he said.

Aircraft Carrier Questions

There has been much speculation that China is trying to build a blue-water navy made up of aircraft carriers and Aegis-type destroyers that could project force into the Pacific and patrol oil shipping lanes from the Middle East.

Lin Chong-Pin, president of the Taipei-based Foundation on International and Cross-Strait Studies and former Taiwan vice minister of defense, recalls the famous statement by the godfather of the PLAN, Adm. Lu Huaqing, who once said that he would “not die with eyes closed if China did not acquire aircraft carriers.”

That thought went by the wayside in the early 1990s, when, as Lin points out, the “submarine school” became dominant with arguments that aircraft carriers were impractical without a large submarine fleet.
The submarine school claimed carriers would not be able to sail safely beyond checkpoints controlled by Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines under U.S. influence. In addition, the required ships, submarines and other capabilities for a carrier fleet were not feasible given the PLAN’s limited financial resources. However, now that the submarine school has acquired its fleet, Lin argues there are signs that time might be right for a flattop navy.

“Since the late 1980s, the efforts to get the accompanying conditions ready for the carriers have never ceased. They include the deepening of the harbors, such as Zheanjiang; the training of the fighter pilots … in western China’s deserts, where the reflection of the sand is similar to the water surface; increased shipbuilding capabilities; and the accompanying surface combatants and submarines,” he said.
Lin said national pride, combined with new strategic realities, such as sea lanes of communication and fears that Taiwan will declare independence, are forcing Beijing to give the green light for a carrier construction program. .

Chinese officials recently have been quoted in mainland media reports rsaying that the country could field its first aircraft carrier as soon as 2010, and attention has focused on the Varyag, an incomplete Russian carrier which was towed to China in 2002. Although the ship arrived in a dilapidated condition, it was cleaned and painted in 2005, and several statements by officials this year could indicate the Chinese are seriously considering completing the ship.

However, creating a blue-water navy that would challenge U.S. maritime dominance is still a lofty dream.

McDevitt points to other considerations that formed the PLAN decision: “Developing such a navy would have meant a departure from China’s continentalist strategic tradition. Besides being countercultural to an army-dominated PLA, a Western-style blue water navy would have been very expensive and very difficult to make credible in terms of training and technology.”

Times are changing for the PLAN and pressure to create a modern navy with blue-water capabilities is coming from both Beijing and Washington.

“This combination of those factors, plus the pressure from the United States to become a responsible stakeholder, are creating ‘demand signals’ from a PLA Navy that can support U.N.-sanctioned missions; protect PRC interests abroad with a show of force; protect or evacuate PRC citizens in jeopardy; protect sea lanes of communication; respond to natural disasters; and demonstrate PRC resolve in support of embattled friends in Africa and along the South Asia littoral,” said McDevitt. •Christopher P. Cavas contributed to this report from Washington.


Related link:

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The argument why small country built advance ships and China doesn't cannot just just be explained by lack of technology .China does build advance ships like 52C Comparing Chinese navy requirement which need all around navy and small country like Korea is no comparison at all Korea doesn't built nuclear powered submarine. So she can concentrate of surface ships Korea doesn't need amphibious lift China does.How many different class of Ships that China built over the years? All of those need money and there is only so much to go around You get to rationalize.

Also the idea that China is a newbie in building big carrier is not true They have been considering building it for years and make the necessary preparation for it As I posited before now is the time because everything is in place right now They have the need, the financial resource and the technology base to do it


China Focuses on Surface Power

By WENDELL MINNICK, SINGAPORE



China continues to expand the operational and strategic role of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) as it buys and builds new warships and submarines and upgrades existing ones.

Chinese shipyards have been building fast attack missile patrol boats, dock landing ships, frigates and destroyers, many with stealthy, high-tech features common on Western warships.

“The Navy budget focuses on building more modern surface ships, such as the FFG 054A frigate, and the technology of Chinese fighting ships is gradually improving,” said Andrei Chang, editor of the Hong Kong-based Kanwa Defense Review. “For instance, new HQ16 and HQ9 vertical-launched air defense systems have already been installed on FFG 054A and DDG 052C Chinese Aegis destroyers. The third FFG 054A has been launched in Guangzhou Huanpu shipyard this year.”

With these modern shipbuilding capabilities may come the know-how to construct an aircraft carrier, he said.

Aircraft Carrier Questions

There has been much speculation that China is trying to build a blue-water navy made up of aircraft carriers and Aegis-type destroyers that could project force into the Pacific and patrol oil shipping lanes from the Middle East.

Lin Chong-Pin, president of the Taipei-based Foundation on International and Cross-Strait Studies and former Taiwan vice minister of defense, recalls the famous statement by the godfather of the PLAN, Adm. Lu Huaqing, who once said that he would “not die with eyes closed if China did not acquire aircraft carriers.”

That thought went by the wayside in the early 1990s, when, as Lin points out, the “submarine school” became dominant with arguments that aircraft carriers were impractical without a large submarine fleet.
The submarine school claimed carriers would not be able to sail safely beyond checkpoints controlled by Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines under U.S. influence. In addition, the required ships, submarines and other capabilities for a carrier fleet were not feasible given the PLAN’s limited financial resources. However, now that the submarine school has acquired its fleet, Lin argues there are signs that time might be right for a flattop navy.

“Since the late 1980s, the efforts to get the accompanying conditions ready for the carriers have never ceased. They include the deepening of the harbors, such as Zheanjiang; the training of the fighter pilots … in western China’s deserts, where the reflection of the sand is similar to the water surface; increased shipbuilding capabilities; and the accompanying surface combatants and submarines,” he said.
Lin said national pride, combined with new strategic realities, such as sea lanes of communication and fears that Taiwan will declare independence, are forcing Beijing to give the green light for a carrier construction program. .

Chinese officials recently have been quoted in mainland media reports rsaying that the country could field its first aircraft carrier as soon as 2010, and attention has focused on the Varyag, an incomplete Russian carrier which was towed to China in 2002. Although the ship arrived in a dilapidated condition, it was cleaned and painted in 2005, and several statements by officials this year could indicate the Chinese are seriously considering completing the ship.

However, creating a blue-water navy that would challenge U.S. maritime dominance is still a lofty dream.

McDevitt points to other considerations that formed the PLAN decision: “Developing such a navy would have meant a departure from China’s continentalist strategic tradition. Besides being countercultural to an army-dominated PLA, a Western-style blue water navy would have been very expensive and very difficult to make credible in terms of training and technology.”

Times are changing for the PLAN and pressure to create a modern navy with blue-water capabilities is coming from both Beijing and Washington.

“This combination of those factors, plus the pressure from the United States to become a responsible stakeholder, are creating ‘demand signals’ from a PLA Navy that can support U.N.-sanctioned missions; protect PRC interests abroad with a show of force; protect or evacuate PRC citizens in jeopardy; protect sea lanes of communication; respond to natural disasters; and demonstrate PRC resolve in support of embattled friends in Africa and along the South Asia littoral,” said McDevitt. •Christopher P. Cavas contributed to this report from Washington.


Related link:

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The argument why small country built advance ships and China doesn't cannot just just be explained by lack of technology .China does build advance ships like 52C Comparing Chinese navy requirement which need all around navy and small country like Korea is no comparison at all Korea doesn't built nuclear powered submarine. So she can concentrate of surface ships Korea doesn't need amphibious lift China does.How many different class of Ships that China built over the years? All of those need money and there is only so much to go around You get to rationalize.

Also the idea that China is a newbie in building big carrier is not true They have been considering building it for years and make the necessary preparation for it As I posited before now is the time because everything is in place right now They have the need, the financial resource and the technology base to do it


China Focuses on Surface Power

By WENDELL MINNICK, SINGAPORE



China continues to expand the operational and strategic role of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) as it buys and builds new warships and submarines and upgrades existing ones.

Chinese shipyards have been building fast attack missile patrol boats, dock landing ships, frigates and destroyers, many with stealthy, high-tech features common on Western warships.

“The Navy budget focuses on building more modern surface ships, such as the FFG 054A frigate, and the technology of Chinese fighting ships is gradually improving,” said Andrei Chang, editor of the Hong Kong-based Kanwa Defense Review. “For instance, new HQ16 and HQ9 vertical-launched air defense systems have already been installed on FFG 054A and DDG 052C Chinese Aegis destroyers. The third FFG 054A has been launched in Guangzhou Huanpu shipyard this year.”

With these modern shipbuilding capabilities may come the know-how to construct an aircraft carrier, he said.

Aircraft Carrier Questions

There has been much speculation that China is trying to build a blue-water navy made up of aircraft carriers and Aegis-type destroyers that could project force into the Pacific and patrol oil shipping lanes from the Middle East.

Lin Chong-Pin, president of the Taipei-based Foundation on International and Cross-Strait Studies and former Taiwan vice minister of defense, recalls the famous statement by the godfather of the PLAN, Adm. Lu Huaqing, who once said that he would “not die with eyes closed if China did not acquire aircraft carriers.”

That thought went by the wayside in the early 1990s, when, as Lin points out, the “submarine school” became dominant with arguments that aircraft carriers were impractical without a large submarine fleet.
The submarine school claimed carriers would not be able to sail safely beyond checkpoints controlled by Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines under U.S. influence. In addition, the required ships, submarines and other capabilities for a carrier fleet were not feasible given the PLAN’s limited financial resources. However, now that the submarine school has acquired its fleet, Lin argues there are signs that time might be right for a flattop navy.

“Since the late 1980s, the efforts to get the accompanying conditions ready for the carriers have never ceased. They include the deepening of the harbors, such as Zheanjiang; the training of the fighter pilots … in western China’s deserts, where the reflection of the sand is similar to the water surface; increased shipbuilding capabilities; and the accompanying surface combatants and submarines,” he said.
Lin said national pride, combined with new strategic realities, such as sea lanes of communication and fears that Taiwan will declare independence, are forcing Beijing to give the green light for a carrier construction program. .

Chinese officials recently have been quoted in mainland media reports rsaying that the country could field its first aircraft carrier as soon as 2010, and attention has focused on the Varyag, an incomplete Russian carrier which was towed to China in 2002. Although the ship arrived in a dilapidated condition, it was cleaned and painted in 2005, and several statements by officials this year could indicate the Chinese are seriously considering completing the ship.

However, creating a blue-water navy that would challenge U.S. maritime dominance is still a lofty dream.

McDevitt points to other considerations that formed the PLAN decision: “Developing such a navy would have meant a departure from China’s continentalist strategic tradition. Besides being countercultural to an army-dominated PLA, a Western-style blue water navy would have been very expensive and very difficult to make credible in terms of training and technology.”

Times are changing for the PLAN and pressure to create a modern navy with blue-water capabilities is coming from both Beijing and Washington.

“This combination of those factors, plus the pressure from the United States to become a responsible stakeholder, are creating ‘demand signals’ from a PLA Navy that can support U.N.-sanctioned missions; protect PRC interests abroad with a show of force; protect or evacuate PRC citizens in jeopardy; protect sea lanes of communication; respond to natural disasters; and demonstrate PRC resolve in support of embattled friends in Africa and along the South Asia littoral,” said McDevitt. •Christopher P. Cavas contributed to this report from Washington.


Related link: