It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

chinese carrier progress ?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
much has been written about the aleged vulnerability of aircraft carriers and how they " cannot possibly survive " an engagement with russian / chinese " wunder waffen " - sentiments most recently voiced in a thread by janusfin

but one has to wonder , if as claimed carriers are " so useless " and chinese missiles " so effective " , then why is there new evidence that work has restarted on the chinese carrier program ?

the ` Shi Lang ` former varyag - has been moved under tow from its berth at the dalien naval base [ HQ of the PLA-N ] to a dry dock at nearby shipyards

source

the move has also been reported in chinese newspapers with a far more patriotic spin [ ommitting the fact that the vessel has no powerplants ]

opinion is divided on wether shi lang is to be the first operational carrier - and direct template for future construction or if its just a ` crib sheet ` to help avoid the errors and mistakes that might otherwise bedevil a navy attempting to build its first carrier

what ever the finished product , china is certainly dedicated to carrier aviation , as they have initiated a training program [ again at dalien ] to train fixed wing naval aviators and carrier crew

who said the carrier was defunct ?




posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Carriers are stupid. This is akin to Hitler wanting more ships when his generals wanted more U-boats.
Guess what that did to his ambitions?

China should make more subs so they can destroy America.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
The problem is you still have to get past 11,000 nuclear warheads before you think about destroying America. I have heard that between the US and Russia, there is enough nukes to destroy the entire planet 11x over.

That is one thing people don't understand, escalation. You can escalate a war with the US to the point of total planetary destruction. Now think about the shadow US Space Fleet when thinking about $1.4 Trillion Dollars simply disapearing year after year in the Pentagon. Now, who could find another planet to live on?

And I could have pulled out the facts and given sources, but it is 6AM and I haven't slept yet!



[edit on 16/5/09 by spirit_horse]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Hi,


Originally posted by spirit_horse
The problem is you still have to get past 11,000 nuclear warheads before you think about destroying America.


But who wants to 'destroy' America for the sake of destroying America? The 'aliens'? Do you realise that the large majority of those are tactical/strategic weapons needs to be delivered by weapons systems that are by no means as survivable as ICBM's?

Edit: Your numbers are not widely off target but both countries now have the majority of warheads ' in storage' which may or may not be saying very much in terms of how easily they may be deployed or re-deployed

www.carnegieendowment.org...


I have heard that between the US and Russia, there is enough nukes to destroy the entire planet 11x over.


You heard wrong but it's not surprising given how hard they tried to convince us of that. Nuclear winter was never substansiated by even generous presumptions about global weather patterns and physics.


That is one thing people don't understand, escalation. You can escalate a war with the US to the point of total planetary destruction.


There is no chance of destroying the planet, non. Who would escalate a war with the US other than Russia who have the capacity to both fight and 'win' ( depending on your value judgements of 'winning') such a war? China will never use her weapons in a first strike capacity and can't lose a conventional war so unless the US escalates....


Now think about the shadow US Space Fleet when thinking about $1.4 Trillion Dollars simply disapearing year after year in the Pentagon. Now, who could find another planet to live on?


There could be a space fleet but it's also possible that the money has just been lost trough corrupt practices and outright theft. Isn't that what Wall Street has done and continues to do?


And I could have pulled out the facts and given sources, but it is 6AM and I haven't slept yet!



Well i love sources so feel free to initiate that exchange.


As to the original question by Ape i don't think carriers are defunct in their primary third-world-intimidation role and given the rise of both China and Russia i think we will see carriers long into the future in their new role of massive floating UCAV deployment bases.

What i , and many others have said, is that in a Cold war gone hot North Atlantic situation the US carriers would have taken a beating without being able to find much to strike back at. What isn't often added to that conclusion/assumption is that the USN does not just operate a dozen carriers but also hundreds of cruisers,destroyers and submarines that could either protect the carrier or function quite independtly of it.

Stellar

[edit on 16-5-2009 by StellarX]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by spirit_horse
 


the USA has 500 ICBM with 1300 warheads and 432 SLBM on 16 subs with 1920 warheads meaning a total of


982 missiles with 3420 warheads

a further 72 aircraft with the largest yield weapons brings the total available to the usa at

1074 delivery systems with approx 5200 warheads.


Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana hosts 200 Minuteman IIIs. The remaining 300 missiles are split between Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and Francis E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming


the last MX was retired in 2005

[edit on 16/5/09 by Harlequin]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Carriers during wartime (a major war that is) would be much better protected against attack than during peacetime. Also, enemy subs would be a first priority target, and the US Navy has very good ASW capabilities. Sure, a Chinese sub managed to trail a carrier group and popped up onto the surface within strike range not too long ago, but that is not the norm and I´m sure the Navy took corrective measures. Since that incident, there have been no more reports of Chinese submarine aggression against carrier battle groups. I´m not surprised.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
This morning, I was reading an article, from a Japanese perspective, about this same topic. It is a good read, if such things interest you.

"Should we worry? Not yet. First, development and deployment of carriers, and all their paraphernalia will take decades. Second, the substantial price tag is not the only cost of such a project. Other countries in the region are likely to become wary of Chinese intentions as it develops power projection capabilities."

From the same article quoted above:


And third, a Chinese carrier strike group would be no match for a US carrier strike group, which is said to have striking power on par with a middle power nation and a defensive perimeter up to 700 kilometers. The United States is the only country with the capacity to operate the top-of-the-line carrier-based aircraft - and it can deploy as many as 11 such strike groups around the world.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
There are also many small countries in this world. A carrier is a very effective way to bully them.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
If China wants to go down the carrier road then they'll see real quick that a carrier gruop isn't like destroyers or guided missile cruisers.

Carriers are enormous resource users.

I'd like to see the videos of their aircraft attempting night, bad weather landings.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
It is not like China is a poor little country which could only afford 1 Aircraft Carrier... give them enough time and they will have more then US... as soon as they collect US Dept that is


In my opinion Aircraft Carriers are only for Superpowers... for protection and intimidation... I believe they will only work if the other side has no means of taking them out...



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CTPAX
 



Er... Actually China is a poor county, or at least the average citizen is poor. Step outside of the Shanghai or Beijing and the third world (to use that politically incorrect term) is apparent.

Regards



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 

The carrier killer are missiles like the Sunburn.

There are also some very large nuclear torpedoes ppl do not hear about.

Some of the torpedoes start as missiles, and convert on delivery.

Their names used to be Azroc and Subroc many years ago on the
US side of naval warfare.

Their are others now held by many different nations.

Cruise missiles capable of going Supersonic in their final stage
with a nuclear payload are also notoriously hard to shoot down.

Now that their are stealth cruise missiles flying around and it
has been admitted to publicly by the russians, no ship of any size
is truly safe.

Kh-102 / KH-55 / X-555

When you consider that cruise missiles are carried by most ships, subs,
and planes of the major powers nothing and nowhere is safe with
the stealth feature added to a terrain hugging, passive avoidance
enabled stealth nuke.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by CTPAX
 



Er... Actually China is a poor county, or at least the average citizen is poor. Step outside of the Shanghai or Beijing and the third world (to use that politically incorrect term) is apparent.

Regards


Same might be said of the millions out of work in the US, hell we got
ppl living in tent cities that are being referred to as modern day
hoovervilles.

They like to quote the U3 unemployment rate, but the U6 rate broke
16% months ago. Once it crosses into the 20%+ range you are face
to face with Depression level unemployment.

China's ppl that are poor are only that way because the industrialists
have started the largest building boom in the history of the country.

Their are more new millionaires in Russia than the US...

The shift is already under way, and it was predictable years ago...



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


well the minor flaw in your thinking is that once you have resorted to firing a nuclear tipped munition to ` get rid of your enemies carrier `

then they have carte blanche to retaliate with nuclear weapons - on the grounds ` you started it `

no one wants to be the first to lauch - because it raises the ante of the conflict



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jmurman


I'd like to see the videos of their aircraft attempting night, bad weather landings.


Edit

I just love watching carrier landings






[edit on 22-5-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


and none of them are chinese navy landing at night
(which i believed he asked for)



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



I know I just like Carrier landings. Night, Day, Good or Bad weather they are just cool



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
lookie here!


So its quite obvious that they plan to build a large surface fleet (warships and/or carriers) to 'patrol their areas' in 2 oceans. No doubts here.
I wonder what parts of the Indian ocean they consider their 'patrol areas'.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spirit_horse
The problem is you still have to get past 11,000 nuclear warheads before you think about destroying America. I have heard that between the US and Russia, there is enough nukes to destroy the entire planet 11x over.

That is one thing people don't understand, escalation. You can escalate a war with the US to the point of total planetary destruction. Now think about the shadow US Space Fleet when thinking about $1.4 Trillion Dollars simply disapearing year after year in the Pentagon. Now, who could find another planet to live on?

And I could have pulled out the facts and given sources, but it is 6AM and I haven't slept yet!



[edit on 16/5/09 by spirit_horse]


Your post was rational and sane until the point you started talking about space fleets and moving to other planets.

China will not attack the US.
Their military doctrine is set up to prepare them and build up their military capabilities for the event of a war with the US, but so was the US and USSR in the Cold War and they never went to war for obvious reasons.
China and the USA will not go to war either for the same obvious reasons.

China is the emerging global power to rival the USA. As a result the US will be and is out to hamper Chinas growth. Why do you think they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Oil and gas pipelines and control. What does China need? Natural resources. Same as the US. Who ever secures control of the majority, rules the world.
Therefore China needs a military force capable of allowing it to project power and enforce its foreign policy, as well as protect and secure Chinese interests abroad.

For example if anymore of Rio Tinto is sold to China by Australia, expect Chinese warships to be visiting Australian ports for regular visits just like American ships come for visits.

There is no space fleet - if there is show us the evidence. Video footage. Locations. And if you you know there is a space fleet, something that if secret is a secret so monumental most people will not get their heads around it - EVER - then you know the location/s...

And we most certainly are not at the point of colonizing distant planets..

1.4 trillion dollars missing does not prove the existence of a space fleet or colonisation of other planets.
All it proves is one of two things(logical) 1) that certain people and circles are corrupt to the core, or 2) that 1.4 trillion has funded black projects and programs abroad(oh I dunno, financing proxy wars maybe?) that we are yet to find out about..

Or we can go out into whacky tabacky world and make unsubstantiated and unrealistic claims like space fleets, colonisation of other planets. Heck why not claim we have built time travel machines and that any given significant event in recent history is a result of time travel?

[edit on 2-6-2009 by BLV12]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join