A Chinese Carrier for ‘Science’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE][URL="http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Shilangsmoke.jpg"][IMG]http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Shilangsmoke.jpg[/IMG][/URL] I’m not sure if the image above showing smoke coming from the funnel of China’s aircraft carrier Shi Lang is Photoshopped or not but one thing is for certain, the ship is close to being put to sea. Also check out the photo at the end of this post of her meatball Optical Landing System (and what appear to be cameras to document landings). These images, along with pictures of her lights running, jet blast deflectors up, weapons mounted and construction gear removed, paint a picture of a carrier that will indeed be operational soon. (Note that you can see life raft pods along the rails in the picture above.) Still, you’ve got to laugh at the Chinese government’s latest claim that the ship is going to be used for scientific purposes. Yes, one of the world’s most badass types of weapons is going to be used for scientific research. Oh, and military training, lots of military training. Here’s a very carefully worded article (or should I say press release?) from China’s state-run Xinhua news agency about the Shi Lang. It’s got some very telling sentences that hint at china’s ambition to deploy the carrier operationally around the world; from pacific ocean sea lanes to the Arabian sea: BEIJING, July 27 (Xinhua) — The Defense Ministry officially confirmed Wednesday that China was pursuing an aircraft carrier program aimed at refitting an imported carrier as a platform for scientific research, experiment and training. It appears China is a long way off having a carrier with real fighting capacity since developing and building this type of vessel is a long and complicated process. Even if China does equip its naval force with a carrier, it is unlikely to have much of an impact on the world, given a traditional military power such as the United States has 11 in service, and even lesser powers, such as Thailand, Brazil and India, each have one. China, with an estimated total coastline of more than 10,000 km to defend and long, busy sea lanes to secure for the flow of materials and manufactured goods in and out of the country, is entitled to an aircraft carrier. Apart from its need for national defense, the program will better serve China’s purpose of international cooperation against maritime crimes, including the fight against Somali pirates. Chinese navy fleets had by June escorted 3,953 ships from countries all over the world through the Gulf of Aden and waters off Somalia, among which 47 percent were foreign commercial ships. The carrier program will gear up China for a bigger role in peaceful cooperation worldwide. Read more: [URL]http://defensetech.org/2011/08/01/a-chinese-carrier-for-science/#ixzz1TorZQdPy[/URL] Defense.org [/QUOTE]

I would actually love it if the Chinese towards large strides towards securing the waters off of the Somalian coast. They have the largest amount of money invested in the area.

I wonder if the US Navy is giving them tips on outfitting and operation? Better to stay on the friendly side of neutral.

I want to see the Chinese hunt down pirates with an aircraft carrier.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;31475744]I want to see the Chinese hunt down pirates with an aircraft carrier.[/QUOTE] Those pirates are so boned.

Hahahaha, made my day alright.

[quote]meatball Optical Landing System[/quote] Delicious landing system.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;31475744]I want to see the Chinese hunt down pirates with an aircraft carrier.[/QUOTE]I really want to see an inflatable try to fight a behemoth like that.

A carrier is one of those military toys that can't leave port without a large amount of support. They need subs, plus surface ships to protect the carrier, then they need an air wing for the carrier to, um, carry. Then they need some sort of airborne radar planes to screen for threats. Then they need tankers and such for resupply. Plus of course all the trained personnel needed to operate all of this. Someday, when they have all this shit together, that carrier can actually set sail.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;31476455]A carrier is one of those military toys that can't leave port without a large amount of support. They need subs, plus surface ships to protect the carrier, then they need an air wing for the carrier to, um, carry. Then they need some sort of airborne radar planes to screen for threats. Then they need tankers and such for resupply. Plus of course all the trained personnel needed to operate all of this. Someday, when they have all this shit together, that carrier can actually set sail.[/QUOTE] They got all that already. Why did you assume they didn't? Also this is only a testing bed. They plan to build their own carriers much later.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;31476519]They got all that already. Why did you assume they didn't? Also this is only a testing bed. They plan to build their own carriers much later.[/QUOTE] We should give them help and advice with that, stay on their friendly side.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;31476614]We should give them help and advice with that, stay on their friendly side.[/QUOTE] ?? [img]http://i.imgur.com/SHMBD.png[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Pointless and stupid reply" - Swebonny))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=ken188;31477077]?? [img]http://i.imgur.com/SHMBD.png[/img][/QUOTE] What the christ.

[QUOTE=ken188;31477077]?? [img]http://i.imgur.com/SHMBD.png[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Pointless and stupid reply" - Swebonny))[/highlight][/QUOTE] [img]http://www.adiumxtras.com/images/pictures/something_awful_2_6634_2842_image_3468.gif[/img] [editline]1st August 2011[/editline] Damn ninja

[QUOTE=ken188;31477077]?? [img]http://i.imgur.com/SHMBD.png[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Pointless and stupid reply" - Swebonny))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Hot.

Shit's about to go down.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;31476455]A carrier is one of those military toys that can't leave port without a large amount of support. They need subs, plus surface ships to protect the carrier, then they need an air wing for the carrier to, um, carry. Then they need some sort of airborne radar planes to screen for threats. Then they need tankers and such for resupply. Plus of course all the trained personnel needed to operate all of this. Someday, when they have all this shit together, that carrier can actually set sail.[/QUOTE] The People's Liberation Army Navy is not dumb! They do recognize that just taking a empty carrier out to sea is just that. As Swebonny mentioned earlier, ex-[i]Varyag[/i] is not their "for-real" carrier. Carriers of the U.S. Navy may need all of the mentioned extensive escorts in a carrier battle group, but other doctrines used by other countries *do* exist that doesn't require the extensive support American carriers require. One that I would single out were the carriers used by the Soviet Navy back in the Cold War. Compared to American doctrine, Soviet Navy doctrine called for carriers (or "heavy/large aircraft-carrying cruisers") during wartime to be used for the purpose of providing air cover for submarines and surface fleets rather than for offensive usage, as well as handling air, surface, and sea targets with its own on-board armament. They did not require the extensive support that American carriers required. What does PLAN carrier doctrine look like? I cannot say at this point. IMO purpose of their entire carrier program is *not* to have a force that will go mano-a-mano with the United States Navy in the future; anyone thinking so does not understand what happens in the real world.

Well, if they just want to sail a carrier around the oceans, just so they can say "Hey, we're sailing a carrier around the oceans!", then yeah, they can skip the battle group. But if they want a carrier that can actually survive an attack and maybe even help out militarily, then it must have that kind of protection. Think about it, what GOOD is a carrier? Projecting power far away, it's a floating airbase. You don't need a carrier to protect your coastline, your land based aircraft can handle that. Therefore, to be useful a carrier must be able to sail without fear of being sunk the moment hostilities were to break out. A protective battlegroup is a must. Our allies can get away with not having one because we(the US) have it covered. China can't count on any other country's navy having its back. The entire Soviet navy would have been sunk ASAP. The military danger they posed was on land against Western Europe. Ironically, the only land based threat China poses now is against Russia.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;31479427]Well, if they just want to sail a carrier around the oceans, just so they can say "Hey, we're sailing a carrier around the oceans!", then yeah, they can skip the battle group. But if they want a carrier that can actually survive an attack and maybe even help out militarily, then it must have that kind of protection. Think about it, what GOOD is a carrier? Projecting power far away, it's a floating airbase. You don't need a carrier to protect your coastline, your land based aircraft can handle that. Therefore, to be useful a carrier must be able to sail without fear of being sunk the moment hostilities were to break out. A protective battlegroup is a must.[/quote] If you want to use your carrier the American way, then sure. The fact remains that ex-Varyag is not a carrier that they'll set out to sea as a "for-real" warship. Their "for-real" carriers, along with their support elements are still very much in construction or planning. For that matter, information on this future "for-real" carrier is pretty much unknown. Soviet carriers were for [i]providing air cover[/i] for surface fleets and submarines, much different than power projection and a very valid alternate method of using a carrier. Will the PLAN follow the same method? One can't say. [quote]Our allies can get away with not having one because we(the US) have it covered. China can't count on any other country's navy having its back.[/quote] Refer to what I said about the PLA's "for-real" carriers, along with their support elements not being in service yet. [quote]The entire Soviet navy would have been sunk ASAP. The military danger they posed was on land against Western Europe. Ironically, the only land based threat China poses now is against Russia.[/QUOTE] No, they wouldn't. As a start, you can read [url=https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B06GppuET3sANWYxZjQxZTAtMjQ0OS00MTIxLThiYzctMDQ2NDUwN2NiMjVj&hl=en_US]this[/url]. Most writers and analysts, particularly in the immediate post-Cold War era tend to in their politically influenced analysis portray United States Navy as supermen and the former Soviet Navy as nothing more than useless junk, which is untrue.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;31476519]They got all that already. Why did you assume they didn't? [/QUOTE] They don't. The Chinese are notorious about appearing great without actually having useful logistics behind things. For example: Here is a rough representation of their air force: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory[/url] It is pretty impressive (Well over 1000 aircraft) until you notice that they have a grand total of 10 tankers. None of which can launch off of an aircraft carrier, much less a ramp based carrier. Not to mention that the ones they DO have are retrofitted strategic bombers and can't even carry the same amount of fuel as a proper tanker. The USAF, for comparison has roughly 500 dedicated tankers. All but 50 of which are purpose built to be tankers (and the 50 that aren't are C-130's that are generally used to refuel helicopters) and thereby sport significantly increased refueling capabilities. People underestimate the frequency with which tankers are necessary in an offensive. Basically this limitation means that only a fraction of the Chinese air force would ever actually be useful in an engagement, and even then they would need to divert ALL of their tankers to the region in order to do much of anything. This would mean that there would need to be an airbase that they can launch from the region of any of their aircraft carriers, effectively defeating the entire purpose of the carriers in the first place. China loves to appear grand, but it is smoke and mirrors. [editline]1st August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;31477538] One that I would single out were the carriers used by the Soviet Navy back in the Cold War. Compared to American doctrine, Soviet Navy doctrine called for carriers (or "heavy/large aircraft-carrying cruisers") during wartime to be used for the purpose of providing air cover for submarines and surface fleets rather than for offensive usage, as well as handling air, surface, and sea targets with its own on-board armament. They did not require the extensive support that American carriers required. [/QUOTE] Yeah and today that doctrine would be ridiculous. Putting troops on the ground is 9 times out of 10 a terrible idea and just sitting off the coast lobbing missiles and shells into enemy territory is pointless. You want something that can sit well off the coast and put aircraft over a target. Obviously this makes the carrier a massive target, thereby requiring the massive numbers of defensive vessels in turn requiring a massive amount of support vessels. Missiles are great, but we are a ways away from them even starting to replace close air support. Close air support is hard to maintain on smaller carriers.

Something's gonna happen, like someone mistaking it for a [I]real[/I] aircraft carrier.

somali pirates gonna think its a cargo ship. when they board: KEKEKEKEKEKE!!!

[QUOTE=GunFox;31479996]They don't. The Chinese are notorious about appearing great without actually having useful logistics behind things. For example: Here is a rough representation of their air force: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory[/url] It is pretty impressive (Well over 1000 aircraft) until you notice that they have a grand total of 10 tankers. None of which can launch off of an aircraft carrier, much less a ramp based carrier. Not to mention that the ones they DO have are retrofitted strategic bombers and can't even carry the same amount of fuel as a proper tanker. The USAF, for comparison has roughly 500 dedicated tankers. All but 50 of which are purpose built to be tankers (and the 50 that aren't are C-130's that are generally used to refuel helicopters) and thereby sport significantly increased refueling capabilities. People underestimate the frequency with which tankers are necessary in an offensive. Basically this limitation means that only a fraction of the Chinese air force would ever actually be useful in an engagement, and even then they would need to divert ALL of their tankers to the region in order to do much of anything. This would mean that there would need to be an airbase that they can launch from the region of any of their aircraft carriers, effectively defeating the entire purpose of the carriers in the first place. China loves to appear grand, but it is smoke and mirrors.[/quote] GunFox, the PLAAF at the present is [i]not[/i] geared towards the long-distance offensive roles the U.S. Air Force has played in previous wars (such as Desert Storm and the 2003 invasion). Can the PLAAF support a combined arms offensive in a [i]local war[/i]? Absolutely. Conduct the long-range tasks American air forces have done in the past? Out of the question. The PLAAF is not a hopelessly feckless and incapable service arm just because it is not tailored towards [i]American[/i] air power requirements. I don't see American ground forces as useless because they lack the ability to conduct a large scale operational level offensive reaching up to 1500 kilometers, maybe the American heavy force is all nothing more than a paper tiger. But then again, do U.S ground forces [i]need[/i] to conduct such an offensive? Only ex-Varyag has ski jumps on their decks, [i]one carrier[/i]. The ski jumps were a requirement for the Soviet Navy since steam catapults had a chance of failing in northern climates. (This is why the Soviets kept the ski jump while installing two steam catapults on their last carrier, [i]Ulyanovsk[/i].) What makes you think that the PLAN will use ski jumps in their actual carriers? It's rather unlikely that they'll use them in their "for-real" carriers, instead moving on to catapults. On tankers, none of the American ones can take off from their carriers either; the KA-6D was retired in the 1990s and the only form of aerial refueling for carrier-based aircraft at sea, without KC-135 or KC-10 tanker support is with "buddy packs" from aircraft like F/A-18s. Besides, a Sino-American conflict is [i]not[/i] going to happen in this globalized world, unless either side would want their respective economies to collapse. [quote]Yeah and today that doctrine would be ridiculous. Putting troops on the ground is 9 times out of 10 a terrible idea and just sitting off the coast lobbing missiles and shells into enemy territory is pointless. You want something that can sit well off the coast and put aircraft over a target. Obviously this makes the carrier a massive target, thereby requiring the massive numbers of defensive vessels in turn requiring a massive amount of support vessels. Missiles are great, but we are a ways away from them even starting to replace close air support. Close air support is hard to maintain on smaller carriers.[/QUOTE] The Soviet Navy was *not* meant for offensive power projection the way the United States Navy is today. Even now, I don't see a doctrine of carriers meant to protect surface and subsurface vessels being ridiculous if your doctrine doesn't call for invading a country on the other side of the globe. I can certainly see why it looks "wrong" to you, since you seem to regard the United States military as the [i]ne plus ultra[/i] exemplar of military skill and capability. You seem to be mirror-imaging PRC capabilities with U.S. ones. It's not that clear-cut. It's something that Western military analysts and military intelligence types had the tendency to do back in the Cold War. As an example, self-styled "experts" on the Soviet military like David C. Isby outlined that the Soviet Army's usage of mathematical norms, and lack of NCOs and Western-style initiative (or what the Soviets call "native wit") were "weaknesses", concluding that these "weaknesses" would hurt the Soviet Army in an actual conflict. (You can start to see the mirror-imaging when analysts start to judge the Soviet Army on the standards of Western armies) The reality was those guys were usually politically influenced, first of all and almost all of them had [i]no real idea how the Soviet Army actually operated[/i] and instead relied on misleading stereotypes. Looks like that trend hasn't died out for Americans yet. Xenocidebot, any reason for that rating?

[QUOTE=Mr.T;31475814]Hahahaha, made my day alright.[/QUOTE] I pity the fool who isn't entertained by Chinese carriers!

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;31476455]A carrier is one of those military toys that can't leave port without a large amount of support. They need subs, plus surface ships to protect the carrier, then they need an air wing for the carrier to, um, carry. Then they need some sort of airborne radar planes to screen for threats. Then they need tankers and such for resupply. Plus of course all the trained personnel needed to operate all of this. Someday, when they have all this shit together, that carrier can actually set sail.[/QUOTE] The People's Liberation Army Navy is rapidly modernizing, so a PRC carrier fleet is not implausible in the medium term. [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] Implausible if they wanted to pursue such a thing, in any case. As Tac Error mentioned, the strategic circumstances in any probable scenario are markedly different to that of the United States, and likewise their military is geared primarily towards regional conflicts. I'm not too familiar with the demands of possible scenarios the PRC might find itself in, and am certainly not a sinologist in any case. Perhaps they're preparing force projection capabilities to defend their interests in Africa, in light of continuing investment, or something else entirely, I'm not sure.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;31476455]A carrier is one of those military toys that can't leave port without a large amount of support. They need subs, plus surface ships to protect the carrier, then they need an air wing for the carrier to, um, carry. Then they need some sort of airborne radar planes to screen for threats. Then they need tankers and such for resupply. Plus of course all the trained personnel needed to operate all of this. Someday, when they have all this shit together, that carrier can actually set sail.[/QUOTE] I'd imagine that they know a bit more about naval strategy than you do.

[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;31476019]Delicious landing system.[/QUOTE] Does this mean the Instrument Landing System is referring to Forks?

[QUOTE=GunFox;31479996]They don't. The Chinese are notorious about appearing great without actually having useful logistics behind things. For example: Here is a rough representation of their air force: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory[/url] It is pretty impressive (Well over 1000 aircraft) until you notice that they have a grand total of 10 tankers. None of which can launch off of an aircraft carrier, much less a ramp based carrier. Not to mention that the ones they DO have are retrofitted strategic bombers and can't even carry the same amount of fuel as a proper tanker. The USAF, for comparison has roughly 500 dedicated tankers. All but 50 of which are purpose built to be tankers (and the 50 that aren't are C-130's that are generally used to refuel helicopters) and thereby sport significantly increased refueling capabilities. People underestimate the frequency with which tankers are necessary in an offensive. Basically this limitation means that only a fraction of the Chinese air force would ever actually be useful in an engagement, and even then they would need to divert ALL of their tankers to the region in order to do much of anything. This would mean that there would need to be an airbase that they can launch from the region of any of their aircraft carriers, effectively defeating the entire purpose of the carriers in the first place. China loves to appear grand, but it is smoke and mirrors. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;31476455]A carrier is one of those military toys that can't leave port without a large amount of support. [B] They need subs[/B], plus [B]surface ships to protect the carrier[/B], then they need an[B] air wing for the carrier to, um, carry[/B]. Then they need some sort of [B]airborne radar planes to screen for threats[/B]. Then [B]they need tankers and such for resupply[/B]. Plus of course all the trained personnel needed to operate all of this. Someday, when they have all this shit together, that carrier can actually set sail.[/QUOTE] I understand that China might not be able to project power far off their coast, but here's the deal: I replied to him because he claimed China did not have the bolded things, while they actually do. I don't care about if they're actually able to do anything with it, all I'm posting are facts. [B] They need subs[/B] - [url]http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/[/url] [B]surface ships to protect the carrier[/B] - [url]http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/default.asp[/url] [B]airborne radar planes to screen for threats[/B] - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJ-2000[/url], [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJ-200[/url], [B] air wing for the carrier to, um, carry[/B] - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15[/url], [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10[/url] [B]they need tankers and such for resupply[/B] - [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/hy-6.htm[/url] [B]Someday, when they have all this shit together, that carrier can actually set sail.[/B] - They got all that except the carrier and the personnel. -End of facts- Considering that China doesn't seem to have shown an interest to project power far from its coast and doesn't even have a proper carrier, I don't think it's fair or relevant to compare the amount of tankers that the US has with China. Especially when the US military budget is almost 7 times larger than China's and when they have been actively using their air force in real wars several thousand miles from USA for decades. And I believe 10 tankers are able to cover the amount of planes that might be stationed on ex-Varyag (only what I believe). Also I don't think I've ever read anything written by the Chinese that tries to give the appearance that they are great and mighty. All I see are people bashing the Chinese, and in such way tries to portray China as the great yellow fever to the east.

They did build a shit ton of cities that are empty solely to boost their GDP. I kinda think that is something that is attempting to give the appearance of being mighty without actually being so but you explained it all away as Sinophobia so my argument is clearly pointless.

Personally I would like to see China have some sort of power projection abilities in the near future because they seem to be the only ones willing to treat pirates like pirates.