By It will be interesting to see what this means for the Chinese Navy in 20 years:
China launched its first aircraft carrier for a maiden run on Wednesday, a step likely to boost patriotic pride at home and jitters abroad about Beijing’s naval ambitions.
The long-awaited debut of the vessel, a refitted former Soviet craft, marked a step forward in China’s long-term plan to build a carrier force that can project power into the Asian region, where seas are spanned by busy shipping lanes and thorny territorial disputes.
“Its symbolic significance outweighs its practical significance,” said Ni Lexiong, an expert on Chinese maritime policy at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law.
“We’re already a maritime power, and so we need an appropriate force, whether that’s aircraft carriers or battleships, just like the United States or the British empire did,” he said in a telephone interview.
The carrier “left its shipyard in Dalian Port in northeast Liaoning province on Wednesday morning to start its first sea trial,” said the official Xinhua news agency, describing the trip as a tentative test run for the unfinished ship.
The aircraft carrier, which is about 300 meters (984 feet) long, plowed through fog and sounded its horn three times as it left the dock, Xinhua said on its military news microblog.
Xinhua said that “building a strong navy that is commensurate with China’s rising status is a necessary step and an inevitable choice for the country to safeguard its increasingly globalised national interests.”
Chinese citizens said the carrier launch showed their country deserved more respect from the rest of the world, despite problems it faces at home. [Rueters]
You can read more at the link, but I would be more respectful of China if they didn’t do things like bully its neighbors, be the sponsors of the most vile regime in the world, the Kim Jong-il regime, stopped using North Korean women as sex slaves, etc.
She hasn’t seen...
5:10 pm on August 10th, 2011 1
So this puts Chinese naval air power at about where the US was in 1919. Good luck with that.
7:15 pm on August 10th, 2011 2
Modern war weapons are not so much about the structure of the platform but about the sophistication of the systems inside the platform.
They can get a few carrier fleets and squadrons of fast agile aircraft, but without 21 century, smart and long range weapons, defense and intelligence systems they still won’t be competitive. Expect to see them pulling out all the stops to “acquire” those next.
5:31 am on August 11th, 2011 3
““We’re already a maritime power, and so we need an appropriate force, whether that’s aircraft carriers or battleships, just like the United States or the British empire did,””
Ironically, China once scoffed at aircraft carriers as tools of imperialism (propaganda and sour grapes all wrapped into one).
12:40 pm on August 11th, 2011 4
Made in China….
1:12 pm on August 11th, 2011 5
I think the point will likely be that the carrier makes them effective against a number of nations in the area.
In the coming years, I expect China to start forcing the US hand as well as trying to offer a check to the American standby of sending an aircraft carrier to Taiwan everytime things heat up there.
China will get useful play in the media in neighboring countries, the world press, and for internal consumption by sending aircraft carriers here and there and having the US shadow them with its own fleet.
I wonder what it will do if/when the US starts selling higher capability antiship missiles to neighboring nations…?
3:47 pm on August 11th, 2011 6
Made in China…
Negative, Ghost Rider.
Since 1985, China has acquired four retired aircraft carriers for study: the Australian HMAS Melbourne and the ex-Soviet carriers Minsk, Kiev and Varyag.
Several days after ex-Varyag went on its first-sea-trial the ex-Kiev welcomed guests in its new role as a luxury hotel with a £9.6 million ($15.6 million) refit.
In other, related, news:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7356595&c=AME&s=TOP
TAIPEI – In the event of war, Taiwan plans to sink China’s new aircraft carrier, the Varyag, with its new “aircraft carrier killer” missile, the ramjet-powered supersonic anti-ship cruise missile Hsiung Feng 3. The revelation was made Aug. 10 on the same day China launched the Varyag for its first sea trials.
4:30 pm on August 11th, 2011 7
Aren’t aircraft carriers obsolescent? How could an advanced country fear them? Even a retarded country, if it can find an advanced patron, doesn’t need to fear them, in this age of smart missiles.
5:41 pm on August 11th, 2011 8
Carriers never deployed alone. They are always surrounded be a fleet. They are still the most significant way to project a national presence far from your shores without permission.
A carrier fleet cruising in the international waters just outside the territorial waters of lesser countries sends a message. They can bolster the confidence of allies or intimidate those that are not.
6:47 pm on August 11th, 2011 9
Ship-busting missiles will laugh at the surrounding fleet. They’ll fly over, under, around, and through the defense.
6:57 pm on August 11th, 2011 10
Maybe … But that’s a big gamble to take on something that’s never been proven or tried in real world conditions.
There are counter measures.
8:41 pm on August 11th, 2011 11
Send ‘em a Rod From God.
That’ll take out the carrier, the surrounding fleet, nearby whales, and unlucky observers on nearby coasts.
9:29 pm on August 11th, 2011 12
“Ship-busting missiles will laugh at the surrounding fleet. They’ll fly over, under, around, and through the defense.”
Laughing at this, really.
Not all missiles are created equal, not all missile defense systems are created equal either. Shooting down a missile isn’t hard provided you can get a target lock. The US Navy has invested billions over the years to ensure that no other nation has a missile that can pose a threat to a US Carrier.
And BTW, no misses don’t laugh at surrounding fleets. The defense systems on all the ships link together and coordinate target acquisition, locking and counter-firing. Thus it can track and counter-fire dozens of incoming missiles simultaneously.
But please, continue the fantasy of some Chinese built missile with 1980′s technology coming along and blowing up an Aircraft Carrier.
12:05 am on August 12th, 2011 13
someotherguy 12, do you remember the good old days when no airplane could sink a battleship?
12:13 am on August 12th, 2011 14
Red herring fallacy. You attempt to divert attention away from a fallacious argument.
The debate has nothing to do with WWI airplanes vs battleships. It has to do with the US spending billions of USD to keep ahead of all other nations when it comes to military developments. If the US didn’t develop those defense systems then yes our ships would be vulnerable to hostile nations 1980′s era technology. Seeing as the US does spend this money and develop these systems, then we’re pretty impervious to any automated weapon currently in existence. You’d have a much better chance attacking a US Carrier by subsurface torpedo’s fired from a sub, or a a terrorist blowing themselves up while being strapped to the hull underwater then by launching a missile, or even a bunch of missile’s.
1:34 am on August 12th, 2011 15
14. Agreed, case in point:
from the Daily Mail 10 November 2007
When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.
At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world’s only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.
That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.
American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk – a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior NATO officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was “as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik” – a reference to the Soviet Union’s first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.
The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.
According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.
It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was “shadowing” the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its “backyard”.
The People’s Liberation Army Navy’s submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.
Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.
Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane’s Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.
He said: “It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.
“It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan.”
In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.
2:25 am on August 12th, 2011 16
The B-17 had so many guns that an enemy fighter would not dare approach it. The U-2 flew so high that no missile could shoot it down.
3:26 am on August 12th, 2011 17
#16
You claimed a disputed quote I referenced a while back was an assertion. How does what you put @13 and @16 support the explicit assertions you make @9 ?
4:16 am on August 12th, 2011 18
JoeC 17, I’m making predictions about the future, not assertions about the past. To be really factual, I’ll retract one prediction: the missiles will not laugh. Beyond that, time will tell. I hope there is never a naval war between major powers, but if there is, missiles will sink carriers. Glans 13 and 16 are just examples of aircraft whose defenses were overcome; the defenses of ships will be overcome, too.
5:45 am on August 12th, 2011 19
#18
I guess I’m not following you then. This started when @7 you suggested carriers were obsolete (a thing of the past) “in this age of smart missiles.”
Seemed pretty clear you were making a statement about current capabilities, not future.
6:16 am on August 12th, 2011 20
Well, if you make a missile that upon exploding can release an advanced chaff that jams the aegis radar and then follow up with ballistic missiles…
6:39 am on August 12th, 2011 21
The Red Chinese space capsules are a modified Soviet soyuz design and their first aircraft carrier is a former Soviet aircraft carrier that was never completed. They are developing their own stealth fighter thanks to a crashed F117 in Serbia. They are developing an powerful antiship missile that will prove to be a threat against our carriers. I read an article recently where a Red Chinese general claimed that their technology is only two years behind ours. I doubt that but their is no doubt that they are rapidly catching up to us. All the companies that are building stuff over there are obviously causing a huge technology buildup over there. They are building the EAST Tokamak which is developing nuclear fusion technology which they acquired from the ITER international nuclear fusion project being built in France. These random thoughts of mine are just trying to make the point that I hope our leaders are paying attention to Red China as I’m afraid with their aggressive stance as to their neighbors we may at some point have to go toe to toe against them, especially when they can design & build their own technology from scratch. There are thousands of Red Chinese students going to US universities now, many of whom are studying science & engineering.
7:35 am on August 12th, 2011 22
#12,
Yup, as a former air defense gunner (I shot the missiles), I concur. The system on each ship are most definitely linked as a network in order to detect and hit a greater variety of targets over a greater distance. The system I worked on covered an area of about 80 square km, and that was just SHORAD.
7:49 am on August 12th, 2011 23
#21,
Nah, I foresee the CCP being deposed in my lifetime. Inflation, corruption, a growing middle-class which is demands its rights to be respected… The CCP can no longer rely on terror and starvation to stifle dissent like it did in the past.
8:08 am on August 12th, 2011 24
Great, this comes at a time when the US administration wants to gut the DoD and reduce funding. Death by a thousand cuts…
10:21 am on August 12th, 2011 25
Teadrinker #23, I hope you’re right but there is one big difference between Red China & the former USSR. The difference is that Red China has embraced to a large extent a free market, capitalist type of economic system which has enriched & strengthened their country greatly. They now have the capital (pun intended), technology, and the know how to make themselves a great world power. The USSR on the other hand did not embrace capitalism (with the exception of the short lived NEP which was adopted in 1921 I believe and glasnost under Gorbachev which happened too late in history to matter) and because of that the Reagan arms buildup bankrupted them. The reasons that you listed are all very valid however so I hope that you prove to be right. With the materialism now present in Red China I really doubt that there are many true believers in socialism left.
10:37 am on August 12th, 2011 26
#3
“Ironically, China once scoffed at aircraft carriers as tools of imperialism (propaganda and sour grapes all wrapped into one).”
Ahaha.
#21
I would agree with you, EXCEPT that China’s govt isn’t free to do whatever it wants any more. Sure it can jail a few officials/businessmen/citizens here and there but they can’t ignore their people wholesale, which would hurt their economy, which would undercut the legitimacy of the communist leadership. And the people want more things, more $, more life of consumerism. You can’t give that with wars on YOUR border. I’ve heard SO many stories of rich Chinese people buying up property abroad to use to flee China in case of something bad happening politically.
Yeah we should stop giving away stuff to China.
It is ironic there’s more disparity of wealth in China now compared to when the communist took over China. The communists were able to succeed because of the people’s discontent over the unequal distribution of wealth.
1:26 pm on August 12th, 2011 27
No, JoeC 19, I said they’re obsolescent. Not obsolete yet, but getting there.
12:58 am on August 13th, 2011 28
Carriers are always being upgraded. See here.
They will never be obsolete.
2:39 pm on August 15th, 2011 29
@27,
You were referring to ~current~ modern systems, not as of yet created future systems.
And I responded that currently and for the foreseeable future there is no missile system that poses a threat to an Carrier Battle Group.
Doesn’t mean someone won’t invent one next year, or that some other unforeseen technology won’t be developed. But this is why the US spends such large amounts of money on defense research, so that ~when~ (not if) a better technology is discovered, we are the ones who discover it first and can create a better defense before our enemies even develop the weapon. That is how this game is played. The Russians tried to keep up and it destroyed their country, and while the Chinese have an economy, their methods involve stealing technology from everyone else then reverse engineering it for their own use’s. This ensures their always at least a few generations behind the USA at best. They would need to shift to developing new technology’s instead of trying to copy everyone else, this required an order of magnitude or two increase in defense research.
Case in point, a Navy friend of mine saw that whole article about the Aircraft Carrier. His first response? “Great, now who’s gonna teach their pilots how to land on the damned thing”. It was a reference to the amount of money the Navy spent on simulators and training programs so that their pilots wouldn’t crash when trying to land a jet fighter. Also the steam cannons and catch systems required to launch and receive a jet aircraft traveling at high speed. We also get into the variable ramp at the end of the flight deck, you’ll notice most other nations aircraft carriers have a static ramp, meaning it can only launch aircraft with specific flight characteristics. US Navy has a variable launch ramp that can quickly be adjusted to launch aircraft of different mass and flight characteristics. And these are just the little things, that most people don’t think about but can take years and tens of millions to get right.
And please remember, whatever you think you know about the US Military capability is only what’s been made public. The real magic isn’t whats on the outside but what’s on the inside.
12:34 am on September 2nd, 2011 30
I’m not sure what to make of this:
A lot of their statements and actions strongly infer this, but I don’t know if anyone in high office had explicitly stated that so broadly … yet.
If their economy doesn’t implode and their military build up continues apace, I’m looking forward to seeing what comes out of their Central Committee leadership change next year.
1:43 am on September 2nd, 2011 31
All countries should try to be friendly to China, but no country should tolerate this kind of nonsense from China.
10:57 pm on March 11th, 2012 32
Hmm, I wonder if the “heyday” of cloak and dagger CIA spy assets is long gone in foreign military intrests…