# 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:** 6
**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:** [August 10, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/101 "2011-08-10T17:59:41Z")
If I’m reading this right in the Wiki cite, it’s interesting that they use the same CV designation for carriers in the Indian Navy as the US does. I would have thought that they would go with the Soviet model…wasn’t a lot of their early doctrine and equipment Soviet? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/102 "2011-08-10T18:06:12Z")
I’m not sure where those came from. The Indian Navy uses the UK’s “Rxx” pennant designations. India has traditionally bought most of its _aircraft_ from the Soviet Union, but it also had lots of British legacy equipment following independence, and both of its previous carriers (Viraat and Vikrant) were purchased from the Royal Navy. ---
**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:** [August 10, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/103 "2011-08-10T18:24:12Z")
That’s why it seemed odd. Maybe those are USN designations for the new Indian carriers. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/104 "2011-08-10T18:42:01Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Don’t forget the upcoming [Vikrant and Vishal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant_class_aircraft_carrier). Soon the depraved Indian hordes may be knocking on the door of California :eek:… Not to worry. It’ll only be to run our hotels, staff our hospitals and write our software. D&R ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/105 "2011-08-10T18:46:40Z")
…and run our gas stations. > [@xtisme](#): > > That’s why it seemed odd. Maybe those are USN designations for the new Indian carriers. > > -XT I think those are standardized across NATO (CV, DD, BB, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/106 "2011-08-11T23:06:16Z")
This is a perfect reason for the US Navy to request another fleet carrier! ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/107 "2011-08-11T23:26:06Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > This is a perfect reason for the US Navy to request another fleet carrier! Except for the fact that this line of reasoning makes no sense whatsoever, I agree. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/108 "2011-08-11T23:41:26Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > This is a perfect reason for the US Navy to request another fleet carrier! Assuming you weren’t talking tongue in cheek here…why? Even assuming this retread carrier was something really radical (it’s not), it’s going to take years and years before it’s in operation fully. They will have to build and fit out (and train the crews) of not only the folks to run the carrier and air wing, but all the escort ships and logistics assets to support it. Having done all of that, they should have a good shot of being on par with either the Indian or British navies TODAY in, oh, another 40 or so years. If they really push hard. -XT ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/109 "2011-08-12T00:32:25Z")
Yeah, this carrier definitely isn’t something even in the same league as U.S. carriers, but they have to start somewhere to gather the requisite experience and training. This is more about projecting their power into nearby resource-rich waters that are disputed territories amongst their neighbors. Here’s some excerpts from a couple of interesting stories from _TIME_: (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > _(Aug. 10, 2011) China’s neighbors, particularly Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, have responded with tough talk and posturing of their own. Last year **China and Japan sparred over islands in the East China Sea that Japan administers and both nations claim** , known as the Diaoyu to the Chinese and the Senkaku to the Japanese. > \ > **The more contentious cockpit is the** **South China Sea**. Its 3 million sq km are dotted by tiny islands, and many of its waters are thought to hold rich oil and natural-gas deposits. Tensions have been rising between China, which claims almost all of the South China Sea, and some of the other Asian states that assert sovereignty over parts of it. **The Philippines** , which says that Chinese ships have harassed its survey ships and fishing boats a half-dozen times since the spring, **announced it would begin to refer to the area as the West Philippine Sea** and sent its navy’s flagship, the World War II — era frigate Rajah Humabon, to patrol it. Vietnam accuses Chinese vessels of deliberately cutting, twice this summer, the cables of survey ships belonging to PetroVietnam. \*\* Hanoi_ **says it is considering a possible reinstatement of the military draft** and carried out live-fire drills in June. China responded with three days of naval exercises of its own. > \ > In such a heated environment, China’s new aircraft carrier will stoke fresh fears. The ship has yet to be given a Chinese name, but some mainland netizens are calling it Shi Lang, after the 17th century Chinese admiral who conquered Taiwan. > [http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087973,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087973,00.html) \*\* \\*\* > [@](#): > > \*(\*_July 08, 2010)_ If China’s satellites and spies were working properly, there would have been a flood of unsettling intelligence flowing into the Beijing headquarters of the Chinese navy last week. A new class of U.S. superweapon had suddenly surfaced nearby. It was an _Ohio_-class submarine, which for decades carried only nuclear missiles targeted against the Soviet Union, and then Russia. But this one was different: for nearly three years, the U.S. Navy has been dispatching modified “boomers” to who knows where (they do travel underwater, after all). Four of the 18 ballistic-missile subs no longer carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Instead, they hold up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each, capable of hitting anything within 1,000 miles with non-nuclear warheads. > \ > That’s why alarm bells would have sounded in Beijing on June 28 when the **Tomahawk-laden 560-ft. U.S.S. _Ohio_ popped up in the Philippines’ Subic Bay**. More alarms were likely sounded when the **U.S.S. _Michigan_ arrived in Pusan, South Korea, on the same day.** And the Klaxons would have maxed out as the **U.S.S. _Florida_ surfaced, also on the same day, at the joint U.S.-British naval base on Diego Garcia** , a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean. In all, **the Chinese military awoke to find as many as 462 new Tomahawks deployed by the U.S. in its neighborhood.** “There’s been a decision to bolster our forces in the Pacific,” says Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “There is no doubt that China will stand up and take notice.” > U.S. officials deny that any message is being directed at Beijing, saying the Tomahawk triple play was a coincidence. **But they did make sure that news of the deployments appeared in the Hong Kong–based South China _Morning Post_ — on July 4, no less.** > \ > Sure, the Navy could have retired the four additional subs and saved the Pentagon some money, but that’s not how bureaucracies operate. Instead, it spent about $4 billion replacing the Tridents with Tomahawks and making **room for 60 special-ops troops to live aboard each sub and operate stealthily around the globe.** “We’re there for weeks, we have the situational awareness of being there, of being part of the environment,” Navy Rear Admiral Mark Kenny explained after the first Tomahawk-carrying former Trident sub set sail in 2008. “We can detect, classify and locate targets and, if need be, hit them from the same platform.” > \ > **Many nations in the western Pacific, including Australia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam, have been encouraging the U.S. to push back against what they see as China’s increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea.** And the U.S. military remains concerned over China’s growing missile force — now more than 1,000 — near the Taiwan Strait. The Tomahawks’ arrival “is part of a larger effort to bolster our capabilities in the region,” Glaser says. “It sends a signal that nobody should rule out our determination to be the balancer in the region that many countries there want us to be.” No doubt Beijing got the signal. > [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2002378,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2002378,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/110 "2011-08-12T01:03:07Z")
one kurk missile sub can melt that carrier and most of its escorts. talk about cost-benefit. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/111 "2011-08-12T06:40:45Z")
What is China’s anti-submarine warfare capability like? AFAIK, the US has the absolute best, quietest subs in the oceans right now. A torpedo or two to the shaft of a carrier would turn it into the world’s most expensive parking lot for aircraft. I know the Chinese will probably copy standard naval doctrine and surround their prized asset with support ships that can put in ASW work… but does that matter beyond a Seawolf having to load four torpedo tubes instead of just one? Also, I’m assuming this thing will have some form of point defense but could it be overwhelmed by sub-launched missiles such as Tomahawks? ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/112 "2011-08-12T07:10:09Z")
a nuke sub sitting nice and quiet under the thermocline will just wait for some noise signature and launch a special 3-tonne torpedo. it would have fired long before ASW units could catch it on their waterfall sonar monitor. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/113 "2011-08-12T07:36:19Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Here’s some excerpts from a couple of interesting stories from _TIME_: > > A new class of U.S. superweapon had suddenly surfaced nearby. It was an Ohio-class submarine, which for decades carried only nuclear missiles targeted against the Soviet Union, and then Russia. But this one was different: for nearly three years, the U.S. Navy has been dispatching modified “boomers” to who knows where (they do travel underwater, after all). Four of the 18 ballistic-missile subs no longer carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Instead, they hold up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each, capable of hitting anything within 1,000 miles with non-nuclear warheads. This isn’t really such a big deal, and certainly isn’t a new class of super-weapon. The limiting factor on Tomahawks has always been the cost per missile, not the availability of launch platforms. The [Mk 41 Vertical Launching System](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_launching_system#Mk_41) has been in service since 1986, and each cell can carry a Tomahawk. If they wanted to, there has been no reason the USN couldn’t for example send a Ticonderoga cruiser to sea with 122 Tomahawks since 1986. If a target is worth firing a $1 million dollars at to deliver a 1,000lb warhead has been the limiting factor on its use. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/114 "2011-08-12T07:56:13Z")
Modern carrier protection requires a hell of a lot more than a few escorts and an ASW capability. The U.S. carrier fleet is protected by a flotilla of ships, satellite monitoring, AWACS planes, hunter-killer subs, undersea hydrophone networks, and a huge amount of sophisticated processing power. And even then, I’m not sure a carrier could survive the opening rounds of a real shooting war against a major power. I think a Chinese carrier would last about 10 minutes in a real conflict against the United States. So I don’t think that’s what it’s for. It’s pure power projection - the ability to move the Chinese Flag to disputed regions or coastal conflicts and display a threatening amount of air power - the same use the U.S. makes of its own carriers. There’s something about a carrier group steaming into a region that causes everyone there to take notice and pay attention to what you have to say. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/115 "2011-08-12T13:03:41Z")
Speak softly and carry a big boat? ETA: That article wasn’t joking about the Phillippines’ flagship being “WWII-era”. It was launched in 1943 as the USS Atherton, served until 1975 in the Japanese Navy as _Hatsuhi_, and has been in Filipino service since 1978 (although it was apparently decommissioned for some time). She’s due to be replaced this year as flagship by the _Gregorio del Pilar_, a Canadian Coast Guard cutter that was launched in… 1967. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/116 "2011-08-12T14:36:32Z")
> [@](#): > > And the Klaxons would have maxed out as the **U.S.S. Florida** surfaced, also on the same day, at the joint U.S.-British naval base on Diego Garcia, a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean. Wha… why? Diego Garcia is no where near China. It’s a way point for the west coast based US Navy ships headed for the Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf area… ---
**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:** [August 18, 2011, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/118 "2011-08-18T13:28:41Z")
[QUOTE=MyIntellectality] This is the insular mentality that has made ‘USA - fuck yeah!’ the collapsing empire it is today. [/QUOTE] And yours is the kind of knee jerk anti-American horseshit that can be easily dismissed just as easily. > [@](#): > > Jingoistic Uncle Sams rest on the laurels of their “technological superiority”, ridiculing countries like China and their military machinations. Yet at the same time they elide such underlying integral issues as said country’s 97% control of rare earth minerals; without which the oh so “mighty US military” may as well be firing musket rounds at the relatively crappy Sino junk-cum-carrier! And the simplistic ‘but, but…they control 97% of rare earth minerals’ without looking into why that is (here’s a hint…we don’t mine them in quantity in the US because of the environmental impact, not because we don’t have them), or frantic handwringing because the Chinese have a carrier designed in the 60’s and begun construction in the 80’s…as if even if it were the greatest designed carrier in history that will magically give the Chinese the instant ability to utilize said carrier, and having gained that magical ability it will make their one retread carrier some sort of superpowerful weapon, nomnomnom. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion) -XT ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/119 "2011-08-18T14:10:00Z")
> [@MyIntellectality](#): > > This is the insular mentality that has made ‘USA - fuck yeah!’ the collapsing empire it is today. > > . . . > > Jingoistic Uncle Sams rest on the laurels of their “technological superiority”, ridiculing countries like China and their military machinations. Yet at the same time they elide such underlying _integral_ issues as said country’s 97% control of **rare earth** minerals; without which the oh so “mighty US military” may as well be firing musket rounds at the relatively crappy Sino junk-cum-carrier! So, you quote a simple fact as a launching point to go on a tirade against the U.S. that really has little to do with the thread and nothing to do with the factual statement you quoted? You are welcome to express your opinions, but you would be better served to stay on topic with any thread in which you post. We have a perfectly nice [BBQ Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5) forum if you simply want to rant. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/120 "2011-08-18T20:10:36Z")
I take no offense to the poster who quoted me but it’s moot anyway as he seems to have gone off to join a band or something… But in any case, the US has the best, quietest, deadliest submarines in the world and that is just a fact. Jingoism does not make it that way. “America Fuck Yeah!” has nothing to do with it (and I’m Canadian so…). US subs are quiet and deadly. Carriers are big and vulnerable. Therefore, if China wants to protect this expensive asset they will need to surround it with extremely competent ASW forces because carriers can project power in all directions except underwater. Forget rare earth minerals as a short-term US vulnerability. The subs and torpedoes and cruise missiles are already built and just need to be addressed to whom it may concern. Running out of unobtanium in the meantime won’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856/121 "2011-08-18T20:47:33Z")
By the time the Chinese Navy has a carrier force, it wil be obsolete. In a few years, carriers will be launching drone aircraft, with autonomos capapbilities. Manned fighter planes will become a thing of the past. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-got-a-carrier/584856.md?page=7)