PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Some defence analysts say building an aircraft carrier is more a matter of national prestige than military necessity.

"An aircraft carrier is a neat symbol of power but not necessarily a sign of substance, because they are so easy to sink," said Professor Hugh White, of the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute.

"If I was an American I would be down on my knees and praying they would be dumb enough to build one."



---------------------

So maybe the PLA is not so dumb after all !

This may explain the inordinate delay since the arrival of the Varagy - and why to date , China has yet to deploy an Aircraft Carrier

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Some defence analysts say building an aircraft carrier is more a matter of national prestige than military necessity.

"An aircraft carrier is a neat symbol of power but not necessarily a sign of substance, because they are so easy to sink," said Professor Hugh White, of the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute.

"If I was an American I would be down on my knees and praying they would be dumb enough to build one."



---------------------

So maybe the PLA is not so dumb after all !

This may explain the inordinate delay since the arrival of the Varagy - and why to date , China has yet to deploy an Aircraft Carrier

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Some defence analysts say building an aircraft carrier is more a matter of national prestige than military necessity.

"An aircraft carrier is a neat symbol of power but not necessarily a sign of substance, because they are so easy to sink," said Professor Hugh White, of the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute.

"If I was an American I would be down on my knees and praying they would be dumb enough to build one."



---------------------

So maybe the PLA is not so dumb after all !

This may explain the inordinate delay since the arrival of the Varagy - and why to date , China has yet to deploy an Aircraft Carrier

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

It sort of falls into the logic of those neo-cons who invoke Reagan in regards to the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War on how to deal with China. Let them waste time and resources trying to catch-up with the US until they go bankrupt. But China can't even just think of building a carrier without setting off the alarm bells. Also with "inferior" Chinese technology, what do they have to worry about and just open-up that can of Reagan's Whoopass on China? Concerns for how China spends its money goes in contradiction with how Reagan would do it. It only shows those who mention Reagan style strategy against China don't even know what they're talking about.

Why should China build just even if it's only one carrier? To the least just to know it can happen. In trying to discourage China from building one, it's pointed out the complexity of such a task. All the more reason to build and operate one just for the knowledge learned from doing it.

Contrary to what the China alarmists think, Beijing has shown to be very pragmatic in these issues. So what do they think is going to happen when China builds itself a carrier? The Taiwan invasion they said was definitely going to happen back while the US was preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan? Even if China starts building carrier fleets, it's never going to be about catching up or near the numbers of the US. This reminds me of not too long ago when the critics watching China build submarines say they were obsolete in today's modern warfare. Sounds like the same arguments going on here as well. And isn't it always interesting that the critics come from nations with or allied with militaries that have carriers? Why do they need them? Answer that and they'll have their answer why China should have them.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

It sort of falls into the logic of those neo-cons who invoke Reagan in regards to the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War on how to deal with China. Let them waste time and resources trying to catch-up with the US until they go bankrupt. But China can't even just think of building a carrier without setting off the alarm bells. Also with "inferior" Chinese technology, what do they have to worry about and just open-up that can of Reagan's Whoopass on China? Concerns for how China spends its money goes in contradiction with how Reagan would do it. It only shows those who mention Reagan style strategy against China don't even know what they're talking about.

Why should China build just even if it's only one carrier? To the least just to know it can happen. In trying to discourage China from building one, it's pointed out the complexity of such a task. All the more reason to build and operate one just for the knowledge learned from doing it.

Contrary to what the China alarmists think, Beijing has shown to be very pragmatic in these issues. So what do they think is going to happen when China builds itself a carrier? The Taiwan invasion they said was definitely going to happen back while the US was preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan? Even if China starts building carrier fleets, it's never going to be about catching up or near the numbers of the US. This reminds me of not too long ago when the critics watching China build submarines say they were obsolete in today's modern warfare. Sounds like the same arguments going on here as well. And isn't it always interesting that the critics come from nations with or allied with militaries that have carriers? Why do they need them? Answer that and they'll have their answer why China should have them.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

It sort of falls into the logic of those neo-cons who invoke Reagan in regards to the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War on how to deal with China. Let them waste time and resources trying to catch-up with the US until they go bankrupt. But China can't even just think of building a carrier without setting off the alarm bells. Also with "inferior" Chinese technology, what do they have to worry about and just open-up that can of Reagan's Whoopass on China? Concerns for how China spends its money goes in contradiction with how Reagan would do it. It only shows those who mention Reagan style strategy against China don't even know what they're talking about.

Why should China build just even if it's only one carrier? To the least just to know it can happen. In trying to discourage China from building one, it's pointed out the complexity of such a task. All the more reason to build and operate one just for the knowledge learned from doing it.

Contrary to what the China alarmists think, Beijing has shown to be very pragmatic in these issues. So what do they think is going to happen when China builds itself a carrier? The Taiwan invasion they said was definitely going to happen back while the US was preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan? Even if China starts building carrier fleets, it's never going to be about catching up or near the numbers of the US. This reminds me of not too long ago when the critics watching China build submarines say they were obsolete in today's modern warfare. Sounds like the same arguments going on here as well. And isn't it always interesting that the critics come from nations with or allied with militaries that have carriers? Why do they need them? Answer that and they'll have their answer why China should have them.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

marclees said:

Some defence analysts say building an aircraft carrier is more a matter of national prestige than military necessity.

"An aircraft carrier is a neat symbol of power but not necessarily a sign of substance, because they are so easy to sink," said Professor Hugh White, of the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute.

"If I was an American I would be down on my knees and praying they would be dumb enough to build one."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

---------------------

So maybe the PLA is not so dumb after all !

This may explain the inordinate delay since the arrival of the Varagy - and why to date , China has yet to deploy an Aircraft Carrier

Click to expand...

Carriers are incredibly difficult ships to sink; the amount of damage that WW II era carriers took and survived from is incredible. It is often an issue of a design flaw or poor damage control that would sink a carrier. Fast forward a bit, and the damage sustained by the USS Tripoli, a Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ship when she hit a mine was survivable; the mine ripped a 16 by 20ft hole in the ship's hull, but after 20 hours of damage control and through some additional flood control to balance the ship, she resumed normal duties.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

marclees said:

Some defence analysts say building an aircraft carrier is more a matter of national prestige than military necessity.

"An aircraft carrier is a neat symbol of power but not necessarily a sign of substance, because they are so easy to sink," said Professor Hugh White, of the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute.

"If I was an American I would be down on my knees and praying they would be dumb enough to build one."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

---------------------

So maybe the PLA is not so dumb after all !

This may explain the inordinate delay since the arrival of the Varagy - and why to date , China has yet to deploy an Aircraft Carrier

Click to expand...

Carriers are incredibly difficult ships to sink; the amount of damage that WW II era carriers took and survived from is incredible. It is often an issue of a design flaw or poor damage control that would sink a carrier. Fast forward a bit, and the damage sustained by the USS Tripoli, a Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ship when she hit a mine was survivable; the mine ripped a 16 by 20ft hole in the ship's hull, but after 20 hours of damage control and through some additional flood control to balance the ship, she resumed normal duties.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

marclees said:

Some defence analysts say building an aircraft carrier is more a matter of national prestige than military necessity.

"An aircraft carrier is a neat symbol of power but not necessarily a sign of substance, because they are so easy to sink," said Professor Hugh White, of the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute.

"If I was an American I would be down on my knees and praying they would be dumb enough to build one."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

---------------------

So maybe the PLA is not so dumb after all !

This may explain the inordinate delay since the arrival of the Varagy - and why to date , China has yet to deploy an Aircraft Carrier

Click to expand...

Carriers are incredibly difficult ships to sink; the amount of damage that WW II era carriers took and survived from is incredible. It is often an issue of a design flaw or poor damage control that would sink a carrier. Fast forward a bit, and the damage sustained by the USS Tripoli, a Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ship when she hit a mine was survivable; the mine ripped a 16 by 20ft hole in the ship's hull, but after 20 hours of damage control and through some additional flood control to balance the ship, she resumed normal duties.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Gents, let's keep the "sink your carrier" discussion in that thread.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2438&page=34&highlight=sink

bd popeye super moderator