# China's got a carrier! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856 "2011-06-09T15:26:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/21 "2011-06-09T17:00:01Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Besides the 2 carriers that article mentions are between 50 and 60,00 tons while current American carriers come in a +100,000 tons. That’s a big difference when the whole point of a carrier is to have lots of planes that can project power. Granted, if the USN was to be the enemy. They would still be handy for the “small” war situation. Let’s say they can now bring 20 fighter bombers per carrier to war against Somalia. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/22 "2011-06-09T17:01:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Where does it say 10 air craft carriers? I see them mentioning possibly two (small) home built carriers (supposedly to be ready by 2012…which, if it were true, they wouldn’t be talking about refurbishing a carrier designed in the 60’s and unfinished when the Soviets went tits up). Googling shows that the Chinese bought several carriers from the Soviets, but none of them would be very easy to rebuild (one was the Minsk, which was being used as some sort of theme park). > > I could see the Chinese building a couple of small carriers to gain some experience. They would be like what the Marine Corp has, perhaps. I could see them referbing an old Soviet carrier. But building their own, modern and fully capable air craft carrier capable of launching modern fighters? Let alone 10 of the things in 9 years?? No way. > > Even if they did the impossible and built the things, what would they do with them? It will take them years to figure out how to effectively use and support ONE big carrier…let alone an entire fleet. > > -XT I agree. Nitpick: the USMC has no carriers. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/23 "2011-06-09T17:26:46Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > A “refurbished Russian vessel”? 😛 I’m not seeing the bed wetting possibilities here. When China builds 10 of it’s own designed supercarriers then we might need to be in full bed wetting mode. It’s not like carriers transform into giant robots and engage in one-off duels with each other. Carriers don’t cancel each other out. The are additive - they grant projection range. They project power by transporting planes to a combat location. A refurbished Russian vessel can do that just fine. It doesn’t need to be better than an American carrier to fulfill that function. And once the Chinese can do that, the Chinese can fight in wars a long way away. Remember how everyone used to say “Yeah, the Chinese might have millions of soldiers and stuff but they can’t go anywhere”? Now they can, with air support. It’s not the carrier itself that’s scary. It’s the fact that this is a big step towards Chinese troops on the ground in remote locations. Which\* is\* scary, if you’re opposing them. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/24 "2011-06-09T17:40:51Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > In my opinion, the stated timeframe is… overly optimistic. If they counted the foreign hulls already purchased, they would only have to build six, assuming that the foreign hulls were made operational. I can’t see any of the hulls becoming operational ever again aside from the _Varyag_, although in her case it’d be becoming operational for the first time after being under construction for a quarter of a century. _Kiev_ and _Minsk_ were V/STOL carriers operating Yak-38s, and both of the hulls have a lot of miles on them, and _Minsk_ was retired rather than fixed by Russia in '93 after a major accident that could only be repaired at shipyards that were now in a foreign country, the Ukraine. _Melbourne_ was bought for scrap and studied by the Chinese before breaking her up, reportedly in 2002. Even if she hasn’t/hadn’t been broken up, she has/had serious miles on her, being launched in Feb 1945 and seeing operational service from 1955-82. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/25 "2011-06-09T17:47:30Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Granted, if the USN was to be the enemy. They would still be handy for the “small” war situation. Let’s say they can now bring 20 fighter bombers per carrier to war against Somalia. Congratulations? 😕 China’s primary naval concern is to be able to slow or restrict American reinforcement/support of Taiwan. Is it likely China invades? I don’t think so, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a concern of the little grey men in Beijing. To do that they need to be able to slow at \*least \*1 American carrier group down or threaten American interests to cause a diversion of strength. A 60,000 ton carrier with 30 planes is not going to do well against a Ford class carrier with 80 odd advanced planes and years of experience and training. Now if Chinese concerns centered on East Africa and establishing a naval base there it would be interesting but I can’t imagine why they would do that. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/26 "2011-06-09T17:57:37Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > I can’t see any of the hulls becoming operational ever again aside from the _Varyag_, although in her case it’d be becoming operational for the first time after being under construction for a quarter of a century. _Kiev_ and _Minsk_ were V/STOL carriers operating Yak-38s, and both of the hulls have a lot of miles on them, and _Minsk_ was retired rather than fixed by Russia in '93 after a major accident that could only be repaired at shipyards that were now in a foreign country, the Ukraine. _Melbourne_ was bought for scrap and studied by the Chinese before breaking her up, reportedly in 2002. Even if she hasn’t/hadn’t been broken up, she has/had serious miles on her, being launched in Feb 1945 and seeing operational service from 1955-82. Thanks. I made my comments before looking up the status of the purchases. I have no idea where the “10 by 2020” is sourced. Even in the link I gave above, the article still cites western (and Japanese) newspaper articles that are now several years old. The latest is a quote from a Chinese General stating that China is building one, but no other details offered. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/27 "2011-06-09T18:16:43Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Congratulations? 😕 > > China’s primary naval concern is to be able to slow or restrict American reinforcement/support of Taiwan. Is it likely China invades? I don’t think so, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a concern of the little grey men in Beijing. To do that they need to be able to slow at \*least \*1 American carrier group down or threaten American interests to cause a diversion of strength. A 60,000 ton carrier with 30 planes is not going to do well against a Ford class carrier with 80 odd advanced planes and years of experience and training. > > Now if Chinese concerns centered on East Africa and establishing a naval base there it would be interesting but I can’t imagine why they would do that. Historically China’s main concern has been close to home. It’s possible that they may be looking in to protecting their interests in more distant areas. I have heard that they have been active in procuring sources of raw material (for their industry) in Africa. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/28 "2011-06-09T18:29:59Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] I agree. Nitpick: the USMC has no carriers. [/QUOTE] Poor word choice on my part. I should have said ‘use’ instead of ‘has’. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/29 "2011-06-09T18:30:07Z")
I heard that the engines on the carrier are a piece of shit. The Russians have a similar carrier which also uses the same Ukrainian engines, and it’s been out of service for repairs more than it’s been in service. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/30 "2011-06-09T18:40:55Z")
[QUOTE=Candyman74] It’s not like carriers transform into giant robots and engage in one-off duels with each other. Carriers don’t cancel each other out. The are additive - they grant projection range. They project power by transporting planes to a combat location. A refurbished Russian vessel can do that just fine. It doesn’t need to be better than an American carrier to fulfill that function. [/QUOTE] You don’t seem to be grasping the point. Carrying a few limited capability fighters is certainly a plus for the country deploying them, but they aren’t a threat to anyone with a capable navy…let alone to the US navy. Look up the specs on that Russian tub sometime and what types of planes can be flown from it, then look back at what I was saying in terms of the OP’s assertion that the ‘US be wetting its panties’ over this. > [@](#): > > And once the Chinese can do that, the Chinese can fight in wars a long way away. Remember how everyone used to say “Yeah, the Chinese might have millions of soldiers and stuff but they can’t go anywhere”? Now they can, with air support. Sadly, there is more to supporting a million soldiers far from China’s shore than one or maybe two or three small aircraft carriers with a few limited capability fighters on board. Hell, there is more to supporting the CARRIERS than just building them and putting said fighters on board. Perhaps in 50 years the Chinese will have a navy capable of instilling fear and respect from countries like India who ALREADY have blue water capability and experience…but that ain’t gonna happen because the Chinese refurbish a 60’s era Soviet design that never even finished construction and working up, and that even if it HAD, would have been a very limited capability vessel even in terms of what the Soviets had, let alone what the US had not only in the 60’s but in the 80’s and 90’s when the thing was being built. > [@](#): > > It’s not the carrier itself that’s scary. It’s the fact that this is a big step towards Chinese troops on the ground in remote locations. Which is scary, if you’re opposing them. None of it is scary, and this is no huge step to allowing the Chinese to move a boyscout troop far away from their shores, let alone a meaningful number of troops OR air craft. When the Chinese build a real, honest to gods SUPER-carrier, and build the logistics and support vessels to support the task group needed for such a vessel, when they have the training and experience with blue water operations and the proven ability to operate such a vessel…AND they build the logistics capabilities needed to move, provision and support a meaningful number of troops far from their shores…and they can pay for all of this and support it economically as well as logistically…well, that’s when you may have a point of being scared or at least wary. Right now it’s not even all that interesting a development, and certainly not one to cause the US or anyone else incontinence problems at this point… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/31 "2011-06-09T18:45:49Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Historically China’s main concern has been close to home. It’s possible that they may be looking in to protecting their interests in more distant areas. I have heard that they have been active in procuring sources of raw material (for their industry) in Africa. I agree. The African piece is interesting but consider that the logistics chain would have to flow \*past \*India and that stationing half of your carrier fleet and its attendant task force away from your only coast makes it seem implausible. Neat thought experiment though. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/32 "2011-06-09T18:59:06Z")
Please, enemy carriers are the type of enemy our over funded military was designed and still structured to fight. It’s rickety Somalian speed boats and IED’s we can’t take care of. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/33 "2011-06-09T19:01:53Z")
[QUOTE=Sitnam] Please, enemy carriers are the type of enemy our over funded military was designed and still structured to fight. [/QUOTE] I was going to ask for a cite, but really this is just horseshit so don’t bother. The Soviets never even had a credible blue water navy, let alone a credible air craft carrier force worthy of expending much effort on. Our military, whether you think it is or isn’t over funded, wasn’t designed or structured to fight enemy carriers or even enemy navies, outside of submarines. -XT ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/34 "2011-06-09T19:10:05Z")
Countries reevaluate their Navy needs all the time. The US Navy plans to phase out the Frigate class of ships, all being gone by 2017. > **[The San Diego Union-Tribune - San Diego, California & National News](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/)** > > News about San Diego, California Frigates were primarilly ASW assets, I think, and apparently ASW is getting put lower on the priority list. Now they (the Pentagon) want ships that can support expeditionary forces ashore. There’s no reason why China couldn’t be thinking to expand it’s capabilities. As far as the OP goes: No. The U.S. is not crapping it’s drawers. I wonder if it’s caused/causing concern in Taiwan. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/35 "2011-06-09T19:11:08Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Congratulations? 😕 > > China’s primary naval concern is to be able to slow or restrict American reinforcement/support of Taiwan. I don’t think so. Despite all the sabre rattling, China is as content with the satus quo of Formosa as the Taiwanese and Americans. Their primary naval concern is protecting the shipping needed for their export dominated and oil hungry economy. Carrier groups in the Indian Ocean will help insure that the ships carrying their products abroad and the tankers bringing them oil continue to sail unhindered. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/36 "2011-06-09T19:25:53Z")
True but additional tools mean new avenues during negotiations. Carrier groups in the Indian ocean do nothing to secure Chinese trade while treading heavily on the toes of the India navy. From the appearance of things I’d say they want a decent sized deep water fleet as a bargaining stick but will really focus on near coast operations. The fact that Taiwan is near coast is likely just a happy coincidence. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/37 "2011-06-09T19:30:51Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] As far as the OP goes: No. The U.S. is not crapping it’s drawers. I wonder if it’s caused/causing concern in Taiwan. [/QUOTE] Can’t see why or how it would be. A couple of small carriers with limited capability fighters isn’t going to change the equation very much if at all. Current Chinese aircraft, with mid-air refueling capabilities would be more of a threat to Taiwan than a few carriers. If China wants to invade Taiwan they need to be prepared to soak up major losses from the Taiwanese air force, plus lots and lots of amphibious troop assets and logistics…and be prepared to take a butt load of causalities in trying to force such a crossing. And that leaves aside what the US would do. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/38 "2011-06-09T19:36:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > None of it is scary, and this is no huge step to allowing the Chinese to move a boyscout troop far away from their shores, let alone a meaningful number of troops OR air craft. When the Chinese build a real, honest to gods SUPER-carrier, and build the logistics and support vessels to support the task group needed for such a vessel, when they have the training and experience with blue water operations and the proven ability to operate such a vessel…AND they build the logistics capabilities needed to move, provision and support a meaningful number of troops far from their shores…and they can pay for all of this and support it economically as well as logistically…well, that’s when you may have a point of being scared or at least wary. Right now it’s not even all that interesting a development, and certainly not one to cause the US or anyone else incontinence problems at this point… > > -XT It is a _step_. It points towards future capabilities and intentions. Right now, it’s merely a gesture; it’s symbolic. But the first carrier is an important step. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/39 "2011-06-09T19:39:32Z")
Ok, that’s probably true enough. I agree, it will be a step for the Chinese to have a real, honest to gods carrier, assuming they finish it, run it up and actually use it for blue water operations. It will be a huge gain for them wrt a platform where they can learn all the stuff they will need to learn to do blue water operations, and figure out all of the things they will have to figure out to support such operations. ETA: Plus learn how to build their own ships with better capabilities…hell, a platform for them to figure out what capabilities they need or want, what doctrine they need and want to build, what training they will need to focus on, etc etc. Again, my own comment earlier was in response to the OP’s question about pant wetting by the US (or really anyone else). -XT ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/40 "2011-06-09T19:41:12Z")
Strangely enough, wet panties conjure a wholly different and much more pleasant image in my mind than what I believe was intended, but in any case [China must be busy with the rather wide-ranging demands it has been doing lately](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53300000/jpg/_53300339_south_china-sea_1_466.jpg) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856.md?page=3)