China reveals aircraft carrier plans

[Swede]

That means we'll need to get 5 more.


The Varyag, a Soviet-era aircraft carrier hull that China bought from Ukraine in 1998, has been undergoing repairs and is expected to start service as an exercise platform in 2012.

Although all this had been known, the confirmation is likely to create a stir as anxiety is building among China’s neighbours about its growing assertiveness.

“An aircraft carrier symbolises the ambition to move far beyond your own shores. It is a tool for power projection,” said a defence attache of an Asian country in Beijing. “China’s navy is still a dwarf compared with the US, but this makes it official that they will be rivals.”

The reference to the carrier programme was reported by Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun just as Japan ordered its military to refocus on the threat posed by a rising China.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa7f5e6a-09cc-11e0-8b29-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz18NZ0V5qf

[DontTreadOnMe]

1. Carriers are almost obsolete

With the advance of missile technology, a carrier is a sitting duck.

As longer range anti-ship missiles are developed, ANY ship is extremely vulnerable.

You can't shoot down a missile traveling at the speed of sound. And missiles cost a lot less than a carrier.
In any large conflict, the carriers will be taken out -- globally, within the first day.

[FLPanhandle]

2. They aren't for large world war III engagments

Carriers are very effective to project power and put pressure on areas around the world.

China is interested in carriers to have more leverage and clout in future world situations.

[westerebus]

3. It depends on the warning time of the missile launch.

Every nation with surface fleets have been working on counter measures and anti missile defense for years. Conventional anti ship missiles are not impossible to disrupt given enough lead time, that's what early warning is all about.

Nuclear anti ship missiles are held by four or five countries. The first to pop a nuke would be the last to do so. If at that point it happens, doesn't really matter any way.

Keeping wars at the conventional level is policy across the political map. It is bad for business.

That's not to say it can't happen.

[zipplewrath]

4. Wrong, wrong, and Wrong

Carriers are still quite relevant, they have always been vulnerable. They are mobile military bases, and the article is right, their only real use is to project power. The protection, and usefulness of carriers is in the carrier "battle group". It is a collection of ships with a wide range of capabilities, many of them are associated with protecting the carrier, but also have offensive uses. The carrier group is a significant offensive capability and anyone attempting to develop one is attempting to be able to project power. The significance of China pursuing this strategy will be defined less by this one carrier, and more by whether they fully populate the battle group. If they don't, they aren't really interested in projecting power, and are more interested in being able to engage further off shore. If they build out the battle group, and/or another carrier, then they are planning on expanding their military influence. That could be very bad.

[Occam Bandage]

5. This is big.

The possession of an aircraft carrier would be the Chinese military's first step towards empire. Their military now is almost entirely defensive; missiles, tanks, and soldiers are only usable within a few hundred miles of China's borders. A carrier, on the other hand, is pure power projection.

[Xicano]

6. And when China becomes a super power threat.

I will point my finger of blame on Ronald Raygun and every out-sourcing, deregulation, open free trade, trickle down economic cheerleader for providing China the economic resources necessary.

The sense of irony looms large on this one. They (the repuks/conservatives) love to worship Ronald Raygun because they believe he destroyed the former Soviet Union by breaking their economic backbone. Now if China becomes a super power threat to us, it will be "Reganomics" that created and nurtured it.

[ItNerd4life]

7. yes, we should have kept the Chinese people in poverty.

sheesh. :eyes: