Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
China Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Chinese navy floats three carrier plan
Zhang Fei    1/8/2008 1:22:24 PM
At least according to Russell Hsiao, an editor at the Jamestown Foundation's China Briefing: (Quote) On December 31, a Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Pao cited a report that no one in the Western media has detected concerning a Jane's Defence Weekly article which reported that China has plans to develop three-carrier battle groups over the next decade. News about this development has been widely discussed in the Hong Kong and Taiwanese press. Citing Jane's, Wen Wai Pao reported that as a part of its carrier battle group plans the People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN) intends to establish an even stronger submarine fleet; having added 20 nuclear-powered submarines in the past five years, increasing the total number of submarines to 55. The report indicated that the PLAN currently has 70 destroyers and frigates, 50 dock-landing ships and 45 coastal warships. Taiwanese news sources highlighted Gordon Jacobs, a Chinese military analyst based in the United States - whose report on the modernization of China's navy in the Jane's report was one of the sources for the report - as stating that if the Chinese government contracted for the construction of the carrier groups in 2006, then it is possible for the first battle carrier group to break water as early as 2011, be in service in 2014, and by 2016 be accompanied by a second service-ready aircraft carrier group. Jacobs cited Chen Yung-kang, an official in Taiwan's Ministry of Defense, who during a presentation at a defense conference held in Taiwan in 2006 argued that Taiwan needed submarines to strengthen its defense capability against China's quickly expanding naval power and its plan to develop two battle carrier groups by 2020. Chen added that the Soviet-made Varyag Carrier was being upgraded and repaired at Dalian in Northeastern China, and being prepared for training use. The Chinese government is still tight-lipped about its plans for the former Soviet aircraft carrier which is now dry docked in Dalian and painted in standard PLAN gray. Taiwanese experts believe that the PLAN intends to activate the carrier as a part of its three-carrier battle group plan. In 2007, Chinese government sources admitted for the first time that Beijing is researching and capable of building an aircraft carrier, as stated by Huang Qiang, a spokesman for the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense of China (CSTIND). Furthermore, Zhang Yunchuan, the CSTIND chairman, said last March that China was indeed researching the building of aircraft carriers: "China stands for strategic active defense and, even when it owns aircraft carriers, it will definitely not intrude into or occupy any other nation or resort to force with the use of carrier vessels," Zhang said. On December 4, 2007, during a meeting with a visiting US delegation headed by US Representative Eni Faleomavaega, chairman of the sub-committee on Asia, The Pacific, and the Global Environment in the US House of Representatives, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian asserted that China was planning to design an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) within the Taiwan Strait. Chen alleged that Beijing planned to submit the proposal to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and at the same time, Beijing planned to inaugurate a new air route on the Chinese side of the median of the Taiwan Straits. According to Joseph Wu - Taiwan's de facto ambassador to the United States - in early December, the General Administration of Civil Aviation of China issued a press release stating that the Central Military Commission and the State Council had approved the route and flights would run some 4.2 nautical miles (7.8 kilometers) west of the centerline. The Taiwanese government claims that since approval for the bid had to be attained from the Central Military Commission, which has authority over China's civilian aviation and airspace, China's bid to the ICAO to operate on Taiwan's side of the strait can be construed as a militarily provocative move, as it also gives them the ability to deny access to foreign aircraft in the area. China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang repeatedly denied any knowledge of China's plan to establish an ADIZ within the Taiwan Strait. In related news, citing Taiwanese military sources that Japanese government sources later confirmed, Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun revealed that Chinese Hong-6 bombers from the Huaining air force base in Anhui province conducted military maneuvers in areas of the East China Sea in September 2007, the route covered areas that are jointly enclosed by the Taiwan Strait Air Defense Identification Zone and the Japan Air Defense Identification Zone. The Hong-6 bombers reportedly made 20 sorties to the area on September 11 and 23, which forced Japanese F4 fighter jets based at Naha base in Okinawa Prefecture to respond by conducting a total of 12 sorties along the routes. In an interview with Kensu
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Softwar    Vapor Carrier   1/8/2008 2:04:15 PM
If the PLAN wants a carrier by 2016 they had better get some steel in place at the dock yards soon.  At this point - with satellite photos available over the Internet - we know that no such construction has taken place.  The fact remains - the Viagra is an engine-less hulk, the Kiev is now a landlocked theme park and no carrier construction is visible in any of the major yards large enough to build a carrier.  So this is is all wishful thinking on the part of PLA Admirals. 
 
That's not to say it might happen but without experience and with no construction under way - the only way the PLA can get a carrier is to buy one.  In the meantime, we can speculate all we want about what may be coming but it remains just that - speculation.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       1/8/2008 4:38:37 PM

If the PLAN wants a carrier by 2016 they had better get some steel in place at the dock yards soon.  At this point - with satellite photos available over the Internet - we know that no such construction has taken place.  The fact remains - the Viagra is an engine-less hulk, the Kiev is now a landlocked theme park and no carrier construction is visible in any of the major yards large enough to build a carrier.  So this is is all wishful thinking on the part of PLA Admirals. 

 

That's not to say it might happen but without experience and with no construction under way - the only way the PLA can get a carrier is to buy one.  In the meantime, we can speculate all we want about what may be coming but it remains just that - speculation.



Exactly.  China clearly would like to get some carriers, based on all their talk and preliminary preparations.  No one has any excuse to be "surprised" when we finally do see it/them under construction, and no one who actually watches China for a living will be.  It's like watching for pictures of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's kid; everyone has been waiting for years to see any evidence of carrier construction start in China. I fully expect to see some construction beginning sometime in the relatively near future.  However, no one has ever produced evidence of any construction already being underway (leastwise, not that I have ever seen).  As you point out, Softwar, if there is anyone out there who claims they have seen anything, all they need to do is leak the general location (e.g., "it's on the north side of Shanghai").  It is impossible for anyone to see it and yet not know that basic a level of detail, and there's no reasonable excuse to not be able to tell the world at least that minimal amount of information.  With only that little bit of information, the photos would begin appearing all over the internet and the trade press within days.  This obviously hasn't happened yet.  The only reasonable explanation for that lack is because no carrier is under construction yet.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       1/8/2008 6:07:24 PM
It is nice to see the level of contribution to the China board has vastly risen with the posts from Jim and Softwar, and the relative lack of loonys, thanks guys.
 
So, assume the date is 201X, nd China has three carriers at sea in the South China Sea, which have given reason to military action from the UK/US/Japan et al as a result of Y.
 
What anti-carrier capabilities do we poses?  It hasn't exactly been a ajor concern for us since the second world war, as since then none of our enemies have been large carrier fielding nations.  We don;t have legacy systems in place such as the Soviet developed SS-N-19 Shipwrecker missile system, or the earlier SS-N-12 Sandbox.  So are we talking heavy weight torpedos, or achieving air-superiority prior to dropping laser guided bombs en-mass?
 
I don't know how credable a threat systems such as Harpoon, SM-2 or Sea Dart pose against a large aircraft carrier, at least where it comes to sinking a carrier, if not knocking them out of action.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Seadragon       1/8/2008 8:45:31 PM
Apparently Jane's, East Asia Intel dot com, and most of the respectable China forums are all loonies then.  Shi Lang (with that presentation) has a listing in the Current Jane's Fighting Ships - and is estimated to be completed in (gasp) 2008 - and operational for flying in 2010.
Jane's takes the position this is a training ship - but with two sisters (in Russia and India) regarded as line ships - and with the intention to fit with better fighters - I regard that as silly.  They do that based on the hull number assignment - which indeed is an auxiliary series - although they seem to miss the other two ships in the series have emergency HQ implications. 

Whatever is going on is very serious - PLAN takes itself seriously - it is the new senior service in PRC - the first time in all history.  This is not to say things are rush rush - rather that they are deliberate and paced - and if war does not come - these ships will take a long time to be operational.  But in a war - they will be used.  It is PLA policy:  every branch will contribute what is appropriate to a Strait Crossing Operation.  It is PRC law - if a de jure or de facto move is made by ROC - there will be a war.  I think that is meant to deter such a move.  But if the bluff is called, PLA will fight.  Indeed, PLA wants to fight - it is CCP that might not - and will find itself boxed in by its policy.
 
It is often said "the PLA does not have officers old enough to remember being defeated."  But that applies more to the US.  WE have forgotten we can lose battles, on the ground, at sea, and in the air - and even at the hands of the PLA.  I was in a sea fight you don't often read about - because we failed to achieve our mission - and when it became critical - the Army had to go into Cambodia to cut the SLOT we could NOT cut with ships and planes - over water - from Malaya.  [Don't think it was small potatoes:  more tonnage came in than came down the Ho Chi Minh Trail]  I remember when we had to fly propeller attack planes (just written up in a magazine this winter) as fighter escort for jet fighters - because our jets could NOT compete with obsolescent Russian jets - and were losing action after action - months on end.  And if you think PLA can never achieve a land victory over a US force, read the River and the Gauntlet - by the official US Army historian of the period.  PLA achieved the greatest rate of advance by light infantry of all time - riviling the fastest armor advances - and force the longest retreat in US Army history ("and only such a retreat could have preserved the Army or its cause").   One division was wholly disintegrated and abandoned all its equipment.  By PLA mind you.  Not the PRESENT PLA to be sure - in between then and now a lot has happened - but being arrogant and not taking the enemy can still defeat us as surely as it did then.
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       1/8/2008 9:06:30 PM

Apparently Jane's, East Asia Intel dot com, and most of the respectable China forums are all loonies then.  Shi Lang (with that presentation) has a listing in the Current Jane's Fighting Ships - and is estimated to be completed in (gasp) 2008 - and operational for flying in 2010.

Jane's takes the position this is a training ship - but with two sisters (in Russia and India) regarded as line ships - and with the intention to fit with better fighters - I regard that as silly.  They do that based on the hull number assignment - which indeed is an auxiliary series - although they seem to miss the other two ships in the series have emergency HQ implications. 

Whatever is going on is very serious - PLAN takes itself seriously - it is the new senior service in PRC - the first time in all history.  This is not to say things are rush rush - rather that they are deliberate and paced - and if war does not come - these ships will take a long time to be operational.  But in a war - they will be used.  It is PLA policy:  every branch will contribute what is appropriate to a Strait Crossing Operation.  It is PRC law - if a de jure or de facto move is made by ROC - there will be a war.  I think that is meant to deter such a move.  But if the bluff is called, PLA will fight.  Indeed, PLA wants to fight - it is CCP that might not - and will find itself boxed in by its policy.

 

It is often said "the PLA does not have officers old enough to remember being defeated."  But that applies more to the US.  WE have forgotten we can lose battles, on the ground, at sea, and in the air - and even at the hands of the PLA.  I was in a sea fight you don't often read about - because we failed to achieve our mission - and when it became critical - the Army had to go into Cambodia to cut the SLOT we could NOT cut with ships and planes - over water - from Malaya.  [Don't think it was small potatoes:  more tonnage came in than came down the Ho Chi Minh Trail]  I remember when we had to fly propeller attack planes (just written up in a magazine this winter) as fighter escort for jet fighters - because our jets could NOT compete with obsolescent Russian jets - and were losing action after action - months on end.  And if you think PLA can never achieve a land victory over a US force, read the River and the Gauntlet - by the official US Army historian of the period.  PLA achieved the greatest rate of advance by light infantry of all time - riviling the fastest armor advances - and force the longest retreat in US Army history ("and only such a retreat could have preserved the Army or its cause").   One division was wholly disintegrated and abandoned all its equipment.  By PLA mind you.  Not the PRESENT PLA to be sure - in between then and now a lot has happened - but being arrogant and not taking the enemy can still defeat us as surely as it did then.


"It is often said "the PLA does not have officers old enough to remember being defeated."  But that applies more to the US.  WE have forgotten we can lose battles, on the ground, at sea,"

Could it be said that this no longer applies after Iraq and Afganistan?  Yes, we are winning overall, but we have lost territory, lives and "hearts and minds" on real battlefields.  And we have been getting real workouts on the seas with PLAN subs and Iranian fast boats.

As for the PLAN future carriers, SK and Spanish shipbuilders have been working with the Chinese for a long time to build advanced cargo ships.  How much of a stretch is it to go from building advanced cargo ships to the hull of a carrier.  The PLAN won't be building any Teddy Roosevelts, but maybe a CDG.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/8/2008 9:18:49 PM

and we have been getting real workouts on the seas with PLAN subs and Iranian fast boats.

I think the Iranian incident is very much overstated.  The USN if anything were being generous in allowing 200yd closure - if it was the chinese or russians (or north koreans) do you think that they would have let the OODA loop close to 12 seconds?  Highly unlikely.
Yet, if the local commander had elected to blow these FPB's out of the water then all hell and world oprobrium would have broken loose at the USN being trigger happy.  He made a safe tough call.
 
Personally I think they should be mounting a few of the new "gut and head grumbler" directional tech on any ships that transit the Straits.  They'll think twice next time.
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/8/2008 9:27:56 PM

And if you think PLA can never achieve a land victory over a US force, read the River and the Gauntlet - by the official US Army historian of the period.  PLA achieved the greatest rate of advance by light infantry of all time - riviling the fastest armor advances - and force the longest retreat in US Army history ("and only such a retreat could have preserved the Army or its cause").   One division was wholly disintegrated and abandoned all its equipment.  By PLA mind you.  Not the PRESENT PLA to be sure - in between then and now a lot has happened - but being arrogant and not taking the enemy can still defeat us as surely as it did then.
Oh come on Sid.  How about talking about what happened after?  That they were pushed back?  How about making it clear that the US forces at that point in time were below par and weren't ready to fight a war?  How soon did the replacement of the force commander chance the mindset?  How about talking about how US. Commonwealth and other allied forces were able to demonstrate that they could outfight and hold against superior chinese forces.  The lesson about the early chinese successes has been overstated and misused for a number of years.  The lesson about hubris has been well understood since then. (pick a number of post WW2 conflicts amongst 4-5 countries and you can get far more relevant lessons about hubris)
Apart from that, what US president is interested in engaging in a ground war on continental space?  The US is completely disinterested in engaging a continental land power on its own terms when there is no requirement to sieze and hold as part of the mission objective.
The ones who will be concerned about PLA land  forces manoucre are the russians.  They have a direct and immediate compelling issue.  The US doesn't.  The US has no intention of fighting a continetal land war where the logistics are against it dictating manouvre terms.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       1/8/2008 11:51:48 PM

Apparently Jane's, East Asia Intel dot com, and most of the respectable China forums are all loonies then.  Shi Lang (with that presentation) has a listing in the Current Jane's Fighting Ships - and is estimated to be completed in (gasp) 2008 - and operational for flying in 2010.

Jane's takes the position this is a training ship - but with two sisters (in Russia and India) regarded as line ships - and with the intention to fit with better fighters - I regard that as silly.  They do that based on the hull number assignment - which indeed is an auxiliary series - although they seem to miss the other two ships in the series have emergency HQ implications. 

Whatever is going on is very serious - PLAN takes itself seriously - it is the new senior service in PRC - the first time in all history.  This is not to say things are rush rush - rather that they are deliberate and paced - and if war does not come - these ships will take a long time to be operational.  But in a war - they will be used.  It is PLA policy:  every branch will contribute what is appropriate to a Strait Crossing Operation.  It is PRC law - if a de jure or de facto move is made by ROC - there will be a war.  I think that is meant to deter such a move.  But if the bluff is called, PLA will fight.  Indeed, PLA wants to fight - it is CCP that might not - and will find itself boxed in by its policy.

 

It is often said "the PLA does not have officers old enough to remember being defeated."  But that applies more to the US.  WE have forgotten we can lose battles, on the ground, at sea, and in the air - and even at the hands of the PLA.  I was in a sea fight you don't often read about - because we failed to achieve our mission - and when it became critical - the Army had to go into Cambodia to cut the SLOT we could NOT cut with ships and planes - over water - from Malaya.  [Don't think it was small potatoes:  more tonnage came in than came down the Ho Chi Minh Trail]  I remember when we had to fly propeller attack planes (just written up in a magazine this winter) as fighter escort for jet fighters - because our jets could NOT compete with obsolescent Russian jets - and were losing action after action - months on end.  And if you think PLA can never achieve a land victory over a US force, read the River and the Gauntlet - by the official US Army historian of the period.  PLA achieved the greatest rate of advance by light infantry of all time - riviling the fastest armor advances - and force the longest retreat in US Army history ("and only such a retreat could have preserved the Army or its cause").   One division was wholly disintegrated and abandoned all its equipment.  By PLA mind you.  Not the PRESENT PLA to be sure - in between then and now a lot has happened - but being arrogant and not taking the enemy can still defeat us as surely as it did then.



Does any of this post have anything to do with the Chinese *building* aircraft carriers?
 
BSD:  I do not and I bet Softwar and gf0012 do not dispute that Varyag *could* *possibly* be turned into an operational ship within a matter of many months if China made it a front-burner priority, and that China could acquire an operational air wing for it within a matter of many months if CHina made it a front-burner priority (sooner rather than later if Russia co-operates by ever actually supplying any carrier-capable jets), and that therefore it would be an aircraft carrier as much as any smallish carrier with a dozen big jets crammed on board and/or cycled through from shore, and with a crew green in operational experience, can be called such.  All your typical partronizing about "don't underestimate the Chinese blah, blah, blah" and non-pertinent anecdotes fall far short of the mark because we've all already acknowledged the possibility of the Chinese doing so, and moved on to assessing how *likely* it is that they will do so soon and how capable would it be if they did.  Catch up.
 
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    One word   1/9/2008 12:37:04 AM

It is nice to see the level of contribution to the China board has vastly risen with the posts from Jim and Softwar, and the relative lack of loonys, thanks guys.

 

So, assume the date is 201X, nd China has three carriers at sea in the South China Sea, which have given reason to military action from the UK/US/Japan et al as a result of Y.

 

What anti-carrier capabilities do we poses?  It hasn't exactly been a ajor concern for us since the second world war, as since then none of our enemies have been large carrier fielding nations.  We don;t have legacy systems in place such as the Soviet developed SS-N-19 Shipwrecker missile system, or the earlier SS-N-12 Sandbox.  So are we talking heavy weight torpedos, or achieving air-superiority prior to dropping laser guided bombs en-mass?

 

I don't know how credable a threat systems such as Harpoon, SM-2 or Sea Dart pose against a large aircraft carrier, at least where it comes to sinking a carrier, if not knocking them out of action.

 


Submarines.  PLAN carriers are in Davy Jones' locker the minute they cross the exclusion zone or war is declared.  We spot them on satellite or with SOSUS, vector a sub, and it's over.  It really is that simple.  Conqueror fired on Belgrano from less than 2000 yards.  Nuclear subs kick surface ship a-- all the time in exercises and peace time. 
 
Quote    Reply

Icarus    Varyag Sails out ?   4/28/2009 6:34:55 AM
Some reports are coming in about Varyag having sailed out of Dalian shipyard on 27 Apr 2009........
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics