China's first aircraft carrier 'starts sea trials'

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53320000/jpg/_53320368_jex_1071131_de27-1.jpg


The 300m (990ft) carrier has been one of China's worst-kept secrets, analysts say

The Chinese navy's first aircraft carrier has begun its sea trials, the state-run Xinhua news agency has said.
It quoted military sources as saying that the refitted former Soviet warship left its shipyard in the north-east and the trial "would not take a long time".
The move is likely to raise fresh concerns over China's rapid military build-up.
Beijing is currently involved in several maritime territorial disputes, particularly in the South China Sea.
The aircraft carrier left its shipyard at Dalian Port in northeast Liaoning Province on Wednesday morning, Xinhua reported.
"Military sources said that the first sea trial was in line with the schedule of the carrier refitting project," it said.
"After returning from the sea trial, the aircraft carrier will continue refit and test work."
Xinhua did not provide any further details.
The BBC's Michael Bristow in Beijing says China is years away from being able to deploy this carrier as a potent military tool. Even so, the country's neighbours will be worried.
Many are involved in disputes with China over maritime borders - and they will be looking anxiously at Beijing's naval build-up, our correspondent says.
Run-ins at sea The carrier in question is a former Soviet warship, which was formerly called the Varyag.
It is a relatively old design and it was not built by China. It was constructed in the 1980s for the navy of the USSR, but was never completed. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the rusting hull of the Varyag sat in dockyards in Ukraine.
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14470882#story_continues_1) http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54517000/jpg/_54517575_011003974-1.jpg


China extending military reach (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13761711)


As other Soviet warships were cut up for scrap, a Chinese company with links to China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) bought the Varyag claiming it wanted to turn it into a floating casino in Macau. It took several years to finally tow it all the way to China, where it was then taken to Dalian.
In June, the PLA confirmed that China's first aircraft carrier was under construction.
However, Beijing has recently sought to downplay the capabilities of the carrier, saying it would be used for training and research.
China's military is generally believed to be 20 years behind America's in its development. But in its rapid expansion, China is focusing on weapons designed to blunt US military power, analysts say.
The PLA has invested heavily in submarines. It is believed to be close to deploying the world's first "carrier-killer" ballistic missile, designed to sink aircraft carriers while they are manoeuvring at sea up to 1,500km (930 miles) offshore, and it is building its own stealth fighter aircraft along with advanced carrier-based aircraft built from Russian designs.
All of these can target US bases, US ships and US carriers in Asia. They will make it much more dangerous for US carrier fleets to operate close to China's coast, pushing them out further offshore.
Taiwan, Korea and Japan that look to the US for their security may start to question how much America can really protect them in future, analysts say.
A Japanese defence study last week expressed concern about what it called China's failure to explain its military ambitions.
In the past year, China has had maritime run-ins with Japan, Vietnam and also the Philippines over disputed territories in the area.
SOURCE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14470882)

Note: 10 August 2011 Last updated at 04:03 GMT

[TLAM Strike]

I can confirm the Shi Lang's slip in Dalian is empty... (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--sEoA8sVero/TkI13sa92GI/AAAAAAAALw0/y8yHzll7qhw/s1600/1312947139_52708.jpg)

[Torplexed]

It's weird to think that a ship that was laid down when Reagan was just beginning his second term, Madonna and Wham! were on top of the music charts and Back to the Future was the highest grossing movie is only now under going sea trials. :hmmm:

[Bubblehead1980]

We should sink it if possible, China having a carrier is just bad news bears all around.

[em2nought]

Every time an american spends a Chinese sailor gets his "wings". :D

[Anthony W.]

We should sink it if possible, China having a carrier is just bad news bears all around.

I think we could do it discreetly and blame it on North Korea. Hell, our attack subs are faster and probably quiet enough to avoid detection, even after the carrier group's run in with one of their nuclear subs (surfacing in the middle of the group - we didn't even know it was there).

No doubt something must be done about China. Any time a country designs a missile specifically to take out a carrier, I think we could call it a hostile act.

[TLAM Strike]

Any time a country designs a missile specifically to take out a carrier, I think we could call it a hostile act.

These weren't for hunting crab poachers you know...
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1424/tu95k22bearg4s.jpg

Just building a weapon is not Casus Belli, its the intent behind it that provides that.

[Raptor1]

No doubt something must be done about China. Any time a country designs a missile specifically to take out a carrier, I think we could call it a hostile act.

That would be rather impractical. Quite a few of the ASMs designed by the Soviet Union and Russia were made primarily for destroying aircraft carriers (Often with nuclear warheads too). Besides, the missile will stay the same even if you say it is designed for killing aircraft carriers or fish, it is only its effectiveness at either task that actually says anything about it...

[Diopos]

...
No doubt something must be done about China. Any time a country designs a missile specifically to take out a carrier, I think we could call it a hostile act.

Very interesting logic. I have the right to possess an excelent "superweapon" (as a CVN) but you have no right to attempt to defend against it or counterbalance it. Extending this kind of "preemptive strike" logic in USA's overall strategic posture (military, diplomatic, trade/financial and technological) would probably result in "us against all" situations. Do the US really want that? :hmmm:

.

[Jimbuna]

Do the Chinese have an effective means of protecting her?

[TarJak]

Do the Chinese have an effective means of protecting her?
Yeah a few years ago they built this great wall...
http://www.tourismtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Great-Wall-of-China.jpg
:D

[Growler]

Do the Chinese have an effective means of protecting her?

hmm...

Wal*Mart, Target, 5 Below, Ace Hardware, Home Depot, Lowes...

Yeah, I'd say they do.:03:

[TarJak]

hmm...

Wal*Mart, Target, 5 Below, Ace Hardware, Home Depot, Lowes...

Yeah, I'd say they do.:03:
:har:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Special update:

The carrier has suffered a catastrophic malfunction and is now taking on gratuitous amounts of water. The cause is uncertain, however it might have something to do with a stray torpedo fired from the USS Spearfish in a completely unrelated exercise to see if The old boat could potentially sink a chinese carrier.

:D

[Bubblehead1980]

Very interesting logic. I have the right to possess an excelent "superweapon" (as a CVN) but you have no right to attempt to defend against it or counterbalance it. Extending this kind of "preemptive strike" logic in USA's overall strategic posture (military, diplomatic, trade/financial and technological) would probably result in "us against all" situations. Do the US really want that? :hmmm:

.

China claims a sovereign nation(Taiwan) as it's own and will no doubt try to take it back if/when they feel they can get away with.China is emboldened by their prosperity(sadly fueled by the US) and has no legitimate reason to build up it's military as it is doing, other than those pulling the strings in that nation plan on trying assert power in the region down the road, fueling another cold war that could get hot times.The sad irony of it, US lives will prob be lost to equipment paid for with money paid to China by the US.Damn Nixon for even visiting, damn Clinton for his involvement, should have kept these people in the dark ages for as long as possible, that's how you prevent a war, well one that will cost much anyway.

[Oberon]

C'est la economy

[Diopos]

China claims a sovereign nation(Taiwan) as it's own and will no doubt try to take it back if/when they feel they can get away with.China is emboldened by their prosperity(sadly fueled by the US) and has no legitimate reason to build up it's military as it is doing, other than those pulling the strings in that nation plan on trying assert power in the region down the road, fueling another cold war that could get hot times.The sad irony of it, US lives will prob be lost to equipment paid for with money paid to China by the US.Damn Nixon for even visiting, damn Clinton for his involvement, should have kept these people in the dark ages for as long as possible, that's how you prevent a war, well one that will cost much anyway.

China does not need CVs to deal with Taiwan it is too close to the mainland. A "prosperous" China has much to lose in case of a war.


.

[Oberon]

China does not need CVs to deal with Taiwan it is too close to the mainland. A "prosperous" China has much to lose in case of a war.


.

This is true, a good deal of the PRC trade is between Taiwan and the mainland. War is not in the PRCs best interest, particularly not a protracted war which it would be at the moment. So, I believe the latest estimate put it at about 2018 before the PRC will be at a technological parity with the forces on Taiwan and/or have enough forces to be able to withstand attrition rates. Even with a short war though Taiwan will fight like a tiger and PRC losses will be high, and more importantly for the PRC, the infrastructure of Taiwan will be badly damaged which will screw up their trade. The stock markets in Asia will go mental, and there is a risk of a conflict with the United States of America depending on who is in charge and what their approach to the Taiwan question is, so all in all it just isn't worth it for them.

[Jimbuna]

Agreed...good assessment :yep:

[Molon Labe]

China is emboldened by their prosperity(sadly fueled by the US) and has no legitimate reason to build up it's military as it is doing, other than those pulling the strings in that nation plan on trying assert power in the region down the road, fueling another cold war that could get hot times.

China has a rapidly growing economy that requires massive amounts of oil and raw materials to support. That means they need access to the Sea Lanes of Communication and is a very legitimate reason to build up a powerful navy; it's the same reason we have one.

[Bubblehead1980]

China does not need CVs to deal with Taiwan it is too close to the mainland. A "prosperous" China has much to lose in case of a war.


.


No, but they need one to project power and it's the basis for building a powerful fleet than can do so in the future.

[TLAM Strike]

China has a rapidly growing economy that requires massive amounts of oil and raw materials to support. That means they need access to the Sea Lanes of Communication and is a very legitimate reason to build up a powerful navy; it's the same reason we have one.

And the Kuznetsov class carriers are (surprisingly given their designer) perfect for that role. They carry a moderate number of high grade fighters, a better than average number of ASW helis and a standard complement of AEW aircraft. Just about what any country would need to keep the average 'stan in line.

[Jimbuna]

I'm honestly not convinced they've chosen the right platform unless it is directed solely at third world countries :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

I'm honestly not convinced they've chosen the right platform unless it is directed solely at third world countries :hmmm:

Most of the planet is 3rd world countries.

But this carrier "tops" their neighbor's carriers (India, S. Korea, Japan.)

[Jimbuna]

Well it certainly tops ours as well :oops:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Well it certainly tops ours as well :oops::haha: It will be interesting to compare British and Chinese aircraft carriers when both commission their newest classes. Btw if currently speculative information in Wikipedia proves to be correct then China gets its carriers operational faster than Britons - 2015 vs. 2020. :o

[TLAM Strike]

Well it certainly tops ours as well :oops: Dont feel so bad...

...back when you had them everyone's topped yours anyways...

...except maybe Italy's...

:O:

[Oberon]

Dont feel so bad...

...back when you had them everyone's topped yours anyways...

...except maybe Italy's...

:O:


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3-9-BAkm0TXtGbr8KU3DP5iWhVehZI8j_qvBugwM7UWtnk6wf

[TLAM Strike]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3-9-BAkm0TXtGbr8KU3DP5iWhVehZI8j_qvBugwM7UWtnk6wf

I wasn't even talking WWII, I meant last year when you had them! :har:

[Oberon]

I wasn't even talking WWII, I meant last year when you had them! :har:

We had carriers? :o Next you'll be telling me that we had aircraft for them too! :nope:

[TLAM Strike]

We had carriers? :o Next you'll be telling me that we had aircraft for them too! :nope:

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/4374/4harriergr9landing.jpg
Its ok, we don't consider ships that carry Harriers to be "Aircraft Carriers" either...

It would be embarrassing!

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I wasn't even talking WWII, I meant last year when you had them! :har:
If I'm not mistaken Lusty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_%28R06%29) is still in service... ya'know that Her Majesty's rowing boat... :O:

[Jimbuna]

We had carriers? :o Next you'll be telling me that we had aircraft for them too! :nope:

I'm currently re-reading this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Buccaneers-Operational-Service-Royal-Airforce/dp/1852606118/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313347638&sr=8-1

In the Carrier Operations chapter names like HMS Eagle, Victorious, Ark Royal and Hermes rekindle a lot of memories for me when I was a youngster :sunny:

[TLAM Strike]

Well the Shi Lang returned to port after only 3 days... :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Well, oil is at an all time high :hmmm:

[TarJak]

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/4374/4harriergr9landing.jpg
Its ok, we don't consider ships that carry Harriers to be "Aircraft Carriers" either...

It would be embarrassing!It's been quite a few years since our mob (RAN) has had a fixed wing FAA capability. Can't see that changing either even with the Chinese launch.

Mind you a Collins class should be able to knock it out if it got too near.:03:

[Jimbuna]

It's been quite a few years since our mob (RAN) has had a fixed wing FAA capability. Can't see that changing either even with the Chinese launch.

Mind you a Collins class should be able to knock it out if it got too near.:03:

Provided there were enough crew members aboard to manage the weapons systems :O:

[Oberon]

Provided there were enough crew members aboard to manage the weapons systems :O:

And it didn't spring a leak ;)

[Osmium Steele]

Provided there were enough crew members aboard to manage the weapons systems :O:

And it didn't spring a leak ;)

http://psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/Useful%20Smilies/snap.gif

[Jimbuna]

And it didn't spring a leak ;)

Awaiting an 'Astute' response :03:

[TarJak]

Or make too much noise.:O:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Awaiting an 'Astute' response :03:The crew that can read a map and knows difference between shallow water and too shallow water may somewhat improve submarine's navigation capabilities.


:DL