palaweno22
New Member
i read in a news article somewhere that a Chinese patrol in the South China Sea threatened an Indian vessel on its way to Vietnam. yup, China is flexing its military and political muscle and will get way with it.
chinese first Aircraft carrier posted by a chinese guy
The Indian vessel didn't bother and sailed on. It will get very interesting in the future between those two navies.
Regardless as to what china's intention on the carrier might be, this sino-phili incident was instigated by ur country. i suggest u do some research before expressing ur biased opinion. ignorant hurt when naive and laziness combined.
Us carriers use a steam and in the future carrier an electromagnetic catapult. Russia doesn't, so they need the ramp to get aircraft aloft.
It's like the old cowboy saying "it's not the Indians you see it's the One's you don't see". I've read we're china is building two more.
It's like the old cowboy saying "it's not the Indians you see it's the One's you don't see". I've read we're china is building two more.
Last edited:
Thailand has one- but it is more used as logistic support ship rather than what it is supposed to be... financial issues...
Malaysia has none...
The thing about this issue of aircreaft carriers is this- everyone is using the USN as a yardstick. Becasue USN maintained a fleet of carriers, everyone think they should have one- China is one of them...
The US, Brits, French and even the Aussies had experience in carrier operations. The Indian NAvy inherited this too from the Brits. Russia had some expereince in this, and so therefore the Chinese want some of it, too...
For the USN, it is part of their strategic planning to have carriers. For some, it is just to show that they too, can have a carrier. Thailand is a good example...
For china to have a real carrier capability, in terms of operation and management, it will take some time...
The US, Brits, French and even the Aussies had experience in carrier operations. The Indian NAvy inherited this too from the Brits. Russia had some expereince in this, and so therefore the Chinese want some of it, too...
For the USN, it is part of their strategic planning to have carriers. For some, it is just to show that they too, can have a carrier. Thailand is a good example...
For china to have a real carrier capability, in terms of operation and management, it will take some time...
Since you've mentioned that, Argentina has one too...
This is what I mean exactly, because one has a carrier, the other guy must have one too...
This carrier issue, is a case of what you want, as compared to what you really need...
The question, coming back to this topic, does China really need a carrier...?
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Often reminds one of the battleship game of the 1920's and 30's, everyone had to have a symbol of national power and prestige so they invested in their own battleship programs. Even when the world economy crashed nations still focused on launching new vessels of questionable use during the next war they were intended to fight.
Exactly what I am trying to put across, for the USN the carrrier is a necessity in their naval opeartions and power projection. To some of the rest, the carrier is just to show off to the other nations around that it has one- I suspect China habours these notion when they move towards having a carrier...
One question to all- how long do the Chinese took to develop and built a ballistic missile submarine? Another question- why do they need it?
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
To project a responsive nuclear deterent that is hard to detect, and very hard to neutralize. It's also mobile and can be sent close to your adversaries coast for a quicker delivery time in case of nuclear war.
Where did China learn this strategic lesson from?
From where else... From watching the United States and Russian Navies play a strategic game of cat and mouse all around China's waters for the past 50 years...
The problem with being a successful world Super power for any empire or country is that you obviously accomplished something militarily and/or economically that just works.
When you do what works, people watch you, when people want to be successful they want to know how to do it and what works best.
Hence why China copies every Russian jet engine to make it over the border, and mimics USN deployment strategy all around her waters. All maybe in the hope that you don't have to be original to win your battles...
Last edited:
That is only one problem with this, Yoss...
When you want to play with big boys, you gotta play by big boys rules...
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Shoe horning your thinking that world events and warefare itself with will follow a certain set of parameters at all times is a sure way to lead any operation towards complete diaster.
Continully under estimate your situational parameters and eventual chaos will follow.
History has proven that not all the time does one combatant need the most effective and expenisive hardware to achieve it's goals, and China is anything but stupid.
They are not going to engage in a total war against the U.S. carrier for carrier, submarine for submarine. If anything why on Earth would they walk into a engagement where they fight against the U.S. strength's?
America's strength can lie in being ready to fight a uniformed, traditional military force, despite the sideshow of what we are seeing in the recent war on terror.
It would be far too expensive and not in line China's goals to build a super carrier fleet and squadrons of stealth fighters, China doesn't want standing armies spread across the world. They want their regional goals firmly secured, you don't need trillions of dollars of toys for that.
Let alone if China is starting to demostrate militarily, very cheap, easily avaible and expendible military hardware, such as super sonic anti ship missiles, mobile platforms and cheaper faster produced attack subs in conjunction with mines. Can spell just as major a threat to warships in China's waters as an a incrediblly expenisive naval Air Wing.
They don't have to necessarily have sink the U.S. Navy in any war here, just impedede and cause as much damage as possible. If you mauled enough incredibly expensive Aegis cruisers or damaged a super carrier. Causing billions of dollars of damage with very cheap methods of attack, you may cause your adversay to rethink how they deploy their forces and impede further action here.
Also China has shown that they will use their buying power and trade to sway the table in affairs in this portion of they world, as well as abroad to secure material assets needed to fuel such an growing economy.
Last edited:
I think showing our strength by crushing Iraq in Kuwait was the pivot point. Up to that moment China felt secure with what they had, after seeing Iraq who had a top 10 army fold in three days and the pictures of the highway of death they knew what they had was a joke.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
In warefare throughout the ages, you don't necessarily have to "win" your battles to secure victory in the over all confrontation.
The American Revolution Ironically illustrates this, as does the American Vietnam Conflict, as well as what the Afghan insurgents did to the Soviets and what they are trying to accomplish now agianst the Coalition.
If China swings resources behind it's attainable goals and plans for them. Then the numbers game of who delt the most out may become irrelevent.
The complexities of these scenarios can often make any assumption almost impossible to validify.
I think Malaysia has 2 Scorpene subs bought from the french.