Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

China will have an aircraft carrier "very soon," a top Chinese naval officer told a newspaper published Friday, fueling speculation over a pending official announcement on the long-awaited project.

The Global Times newspaper cited east China fleet commander Adm. Xu Hongmeng as saying China possessed both the ability and motivation to build a carrier — a weapon system that is strongly backed by the navy but somewhat less enthusiastically by the People's Liberation Army's top commanders.

"China really needs a carrier. Both technologically and economically, China already has the capacity to build a carrier," said Xu, who was quoted while attending the national legislature's annual session in Beijing on Thursday.

"China will very soon have its own aircraft carrier," he told the paper, published by the Communist Party mouthpiece People's Daily.

Xu's remarks came on the day the central government announced its 2009 budget, including a 14.9 percent rise in military spending this year to 480.68 billion yuan ($70.27 billion). No breakdown of the defense budget was provided.
Xu did not say when a carrier might be added to the fleet or whether work had already begun on one, saying only, "as for the specific construction situation, you need to ask the shipyard."

Beijing has been researching an aircraft carrier for years, having bought and towed to China a mothballed Russian carrier, the Varyag, in 1998. The PLA is also rumored to have purchased four carrier landing systems and up to 50 Russian Su-33 carrier-based aircraft.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD96OGIA80

US has 24 Aircraft carriers.

Detailed post got lost.

See graph here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rriers.htm

I think we should cut back to about 4.

AZGrizFan wrote:I think we should cut back to about 4.

Seriously?

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:I think we should cut back to about 4.

Seriously?

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Seriously?

basturd...dingleberry eating mo fo...

Eliminate the Navy as a whole and the DADT debate becomes moot....

Not surprising, it is probably embarassing that to them that countries like India, Thailand, and Brazil have them.

Country Inservice/Under Construction
United States 11 / 1
United Kingdom 2 / 2
Italy 2 / 0
Spain 1 / 0
India 1 / 2
Brazil 1 / 0
France 1 / 0
Russia 1 / 0
Thailand 1

dbackjon wrote:US has 24 Aircraft carriers.

Detailed post got lost.

See graph here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rriers.htm

US currently has 12 active carriers...


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-list.asp

11 if you don't count the GHW Bush, which is undergoing fitting right now...

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:US has 24 Aircraft carriers.

Detailed post got lost.

See graph here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rriers.htm

US currently has 12 active carriers...


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-list.asp

It depends on your definition of Aircraft carriers, which my second post that got lost pointed out

12 are traditional aircraft carriers, another 12 are the Wasp/Tarawa marine Harrier type carriers. Bigger than many of the other nation's carriers.

dbackjon wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
US currently has 12 active carriers...


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-list.asp

It depends on your definition of Aircraft carriers, which my second post that got lost pointed out

12 are traditional aircraft carriers, another 12 are the Wasp/Tarawa marine Harrier type carriers. Bigger than many of the other nation's carriers.

Understand, but they are not classified as carriers in the strict sense....they are basically floating Marine bases, with some Harrier jump jets and lots of helicopters...and a boat load of Marines and their stuff...

The traditional carrier (12) is what a carrier task force is built around...it's the power projection that China is seeking...

A carrier task force could include a Wasp/Tarawa class ship, but it's one of the big carriers that the task force is built around...

And thus, the single thing that no country can do that we can...take our force anywhere on the globe quickly...

But, as we've heard from some "experts" (and I'm sure we'll hear again), we just peel potatos, swab decks, and otherwise don't do much but leach off the taxpaers of this country as welfare recipients...

Agreed that they are not the Carrier Force (which is what China is after).

Col Hogan wrote:But, as we've heard from some "experts" (and I'm sure we'll hear again), we just peel potatos, swab decks, and otherwise don't do much but leach off the taxpaers of this country as welfare recipients...

Hey....we said you dig latrines too......

Appaholic wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:But, as we've heard from some "experts" (and I'm sure we'll hear again), we just peel potatos, swab decks, and otherwise don't do much but leach off the taxpaers of this country as welfare recipients...

Hey....we said you dig latrines too......

I knew I forgot one...

Even with just ONE aircraft carrier, the Chinese will kick our fvckin' asses. Out military is the biggest paper tiger in the history of the world.





"Yeah, I heard the Chinks was buildin' one, too. We're fvcked."

Cap'n Cat wrote:Even with just ONE aircraft carrier, the Chinese will kick our fvckin' asses. Out military is the biggest paper tiger in the history of the world.





"Yeah, I heard the Chinks was buildin' one, too. We're fvcked."

(Note to Self: Add Cap's name to Item #17 "45 Goals of Communism".)

Col Hogan wrote:,,,A carrier task force could include a Wasp/Tarawa class ship, but it's one of the big carriers that the task force is built around...

And thus, the single thing that no country can do that we can...take our force anywhere on the globe quickly...

The ramifications of China having a Strike Group presence are staggering. Their political goals are the same as any industializing nation looking to convert their economic dominance into a geo-political presence. The Chinese, however, do not operate under Western culture "Queens Rules" ethos.
This places them on a direct course to begin WWIII. And I don't see any way the other super-powers can prevent it other than setting up shop in the Sea of Japan, blocking their SG, and confronting them before they enter international waters. If they're allowed to go Global, we'll be fighting them on several fronts, not just one.
Their recent increases in defense spending should send a message to every free nation on Earth. As the old Guard begin to grow old and die off, their legacy is being written in the military might they pass on to the "new" generation. As much as the Maoists still wish to dominate the West, they also weathered several long wars and tempered their designs with the knowledge of the costs of war. The new generation has not experienced that, which is both good (pacifism) and bad (reactionary).

The U.S. needs to clear out of the fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and redirect those expenditures towards accelerating completion of our new-generation littoral (close to shore) combat ships and reduction of the 5 yr carrier completion cycle back to a 4 yrs cycle to accelerate replacement of the Nimitz class design to the Ford class CVX designs which allow longer deployments, faster response, larger airwings capable of continued operations in heavy seas, and adaptation to both traditional and new era JSF craft. Ultimately it will come down to whomever has the superior SG, and we need to always be 2 to 3 generations ahead of the other superpowers.

Fortunately, it appears Obama has accepted that he is out of his depth when it comes to military projection, and is keeping his dogs away from the Pentagon for the moment. Now, if Americans can just convince Congressional Dems to can Pelosi and Reid and select leadership with some intelligence...

travelinman67 wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:,,,A carrier task force could include a Wasp/Tarawa class ship, but it's one of the big carriers that the task force is built around...

And thus, the single thing that no country can do that we can...take our force anywhere on the globe quickly...

The ramifications of China having a Strike Group presence are staggering. Their political goals are the same as any industializing nation looking to convert their economic dominance into a geo-political presence. The Chinese, however, do not operate under Western culture "Queens Rules" ethos.
This places them on a direct course to begin WWIII. And I don't see any way the other super-powers can prevent it other than setting up shop in the Sea of Japan, blocking their SG, and confronting them before they enter international waters. If they're allowed to go Global, we'll be fighting them on several fronts, not just one.
Their recent increases in defense spending should send a message to every free nation on Earth. As the old Guard begin to grow old and die off, their legacy is being written in the military might they pass on to the "new" generation. As much as the Maoists still wish to dominate the West, they also weathered several long wars and tempered their designs with the knowledge of the costs of war. The new generation has not experienced that, which is both good (pacifism) and bad (reactionary).

The U.S. needs to clear out of the fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and redirect those expenditures towards accelerating completion of our new-generation littoral (close to shore) combat ships and reduction of the 5 yr carrier completion cycle back to a 4 yrs cycle to accelerate replacement of the Nimitz class design to the Ford class CVX designs which allow longer deployments, faster response, larger airwings capable of continued operations in heavy seas, and adaptation to both traditional and new era JSF craft. Ultimately it will come down to whomever has the superior SG, and we need to always be 2 to 3 generations ahead of the other superpowers.

Fortunately, it appears Obama has accepted that he is out of his depth when it comes to military projection, and is keeping his dogs away from the Pentagon for the moment. Now, if Americans can just convince Congressional Dems to can Pelosi and Reid and select leadership with some intelligence...

Drinking a little early are we, homey?

Carriers are rapidly becoming obsolete against any first world military, T-man. One inexpensive Silkworm missle (made in China) and your carrier suddenly becomes a large hole in the ocean. Let them waste their, oops, our money on carriers, it's a "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. Your yellow-peril mentality would be better directed at their space program. That's what's rendering carriers obsolete, just as carriers rendered battleships obsolete.

houndawg wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
The ramifications of China having a Strike Group presence are staggering. Their political goals are the same as any industializing nation looking to convert their economic dominance into a geo-political presence. The Chinese, however, do not operate under Western culture "Queens Rules" ethos.
This places them on a direct course to begin WWIII. And I don't see any way the other super-powers can prevent it other than setting up shop in the Sea of Japan, blocking their SG, and confronting them before they enter international waters. If they're allowed to go Global, we'll be fighting them on several fronts, not just one.
Their recent increases in defense spending should send a message to every free nation on Earth. As the old Guard begin to grow old and die off, their legacy is being written in the military might they pass on to the "new" generation. As much as the Maoists still wish to dominate the West, they also weathered several long wars and tempered their designs with the knowledge of the costs of war. The new generation has not experienced that, which is both good (pacifism) and bad (reactionary).

The U.S. needs to clear out of the fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and redirect those expenditures towards accelerating completion of our new-generation littoral (close to shore) combat ships and reduction of the 5 yr carrier completion cycle back to a 4 yrs cycle to accelerate replacement of the Nimitz class design to the Ford class CVX designs which allow longer deployments, faster response, larger airwings capable of continued operations in heavy seas, and adaptation to both traditional and new era JSF craft. Ultimately it will come down to whomever has the superior SG, and we need to always be 2 to 3 generations ahead of the other superpowers.

Fortunately, it appears Obama has accepted that he is out of his depth when it comes to military projection, and is keeping his dogs away from the Pentagon for the moment. Now, if Americans can just convince Congressional Dems to can Pelosi and Reid and select leadership with some intelligence...

Drinking a little early are we, homey?

Carriers are rapidly becoming obsolete against any first world military, T-man. One inexpensive Silkworm missle (made in China) and your carrier suddenly becomes a large hole in the ocean. Let them waste their, oops, our money on carriers, it's a "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. Your yellow-peril mentality would be better directed at their space program. That's what's rendering carriers obsolete, just as carriers rendered battleships obsolete.

Nothing like taking a shred of truth and expanding it...

Sure one inexpensive silworm missle could sink a carrier...if it sat there without any of the carrier battle group that defenses it, and the carrier refused to fire any of its own self-defense weapons...

But since that battle group has a number of ships designed to fight off Silkworms or Exocets or any other anti-ship missles...and as a last resort, the carriers have some of the deadliest any-missle defenses self contained...your assessment is so far off it isn't funny...

Carrier battle groups still are the power projection tool of choice...you aren't wrong about the Chinese Space program, and there are lots of people watching it very closely...but you are totally off-base on carriers becoming obolete any time soon...it will happen, but not yet...

Plans for the new super-strato-stealth Carrier extraordinaire, the George W. Bush have been scaled down to a one man midget submarine, code name De-Slider, used to check out the underwater plumbing exits around ports and ship yards.

I also heard the plans on his library are being held up by the scarcity of a couple collector series comic books, one where superman dies, and another one featuring spiderman as a hatchling.

Tell me how those zipper-heads are gonna compete with that!!

Col Hogan wrote:

houndawg wrote:


Drinking a little early are we, homey?

Carriers are rapidly becoming obsolete against any first world military, T-man. One inexpensive Silkworm missle (made in China) and your carrier suddenly becomes a large hole in the ocean. Let them waste their, oops, our money on carriers, it's a "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. Your yellow-peril mentality would be better directed at their space program. That's what's rendering carriers obsolete, just as carriers rendered battleships obsolete.

Nothing like taking a shred of truth and expanding it...

Sure one inexpensive silworm missle could sink a carrier...if it sat there without any of the carrier battle group that defenses it, and the carrier refused to fire any of its own self-defense weapons...

But since that battle group has a number of ships designed to fight off Silkworms or Exocets or any other anti-ship missles...and as a last resort, the carriers have some of the deadliest any-missle defenses self contained...your assessment is so far off it isn't funny...

Carrier battle groups still are the power projection tool of choice...you aren't wrong about the Chinese Space program, and there are lots of people watching it very closely...but you are totally off-base on carriers becoming obolete any time soon...it will happen, but not yet...

Sorry Colonel, but you're experiencing the "battle-ship Admiral" effect. The goal posts have been moved but you're still playing on the old field.

The only assessment that is off is your assessment of anti-ship missle defenses. I've worked on one of those programs (Phalanx) and let me assure you that very few of the Engineers that built that system believe that it is doing more than pissing on a barn fire. The problem is that all of the anti-missle defenses are easily overwhelmed at comparitively little cost. Just sit up in low earth orbit and rain Silkworms.....

Totally off-base on carrier groups becoming obsolete any time soon? Nice straw-man, Colonel, you forgot the part about first-world militaries which they are pretty much obsolete against already. But since you brought it up, perhaps you could bring us up to speed on how the air power we are projecting in the Indian Ocean right now is keeping us from getting bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, that's right, it isn't.......

It won't matter if China gets 20 freakin aircraft carriers, they have no, nota, zip experience operating them and it will take 10 years for them to become proficient in operating them when they do finally get one up and floating.

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Nothing like taking a shred of truth and expanding it...

Sure one inexpensive silworm missle could sink a carrier...if it sat there without any of the carrier battle group that defenses it, and the carrier refused to fire any of its own self-defense weapons...

But since that battle group has a number of ships designed to fight off Silkworms or Exocets or any other anti-ship missles...and as a last resort, the carriers have some of the deadliest any-missle defenses self contained...your assessment is so far off it isn't funny...

Carrier battle groups still are the power projection tool of choice...you aren't wrong about the Chinese Space program, and there are lots of people watching it very closely...but you are totally off-base on carriers becoming obolete any time soon...it will happen, but not yet...

Sorry Colonel, but you're experiencing the "battle-ship Admiral" effect. The goal posts have been moved but you're still playing on the old field.

The only assessment that is off is your assessment of anti-ship missle defenses. I've worked on one of those programs (Phalanx) and let me assure you that very few of the Engineers that built that system believe that it is doing more than pissing on a barn fire. The problem is that all of the anti-missle defenses are easily overwhelmed at comparitively little cost. Just sit up in low earth orbit and rain Silkworms.....

Totally off-base on carrier groups becoming obsolete any time soon? Nice straw-man, Colonel, you forgot the part about first-world militaries which they are pretty much obsolete against already. But since you brought it up, perhaps you could bring us up to speed on how the air power we are projecting in the Indian Ocean right now is keeping us from getting bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, that's right, it isn't.......

Now you go a change the rules and say my assessment is wrong...you said ONE inexpensive silkworm in your original post...

Now you say "rain Silkworms"....which is it...I responded to your claim that one Silkworm would sink a carrier...

And talk about a "strawman" when you bring up Iraq and Afghanistan...

Agree with carriers becoming obsolete.

I think they are very much needed. However, with us operating bases in other countries the need for them to operate as a sea base is dying ... that is until we have to go to war with a country(s) that we can't established a land base near.

That said, most ships we build these days have humanitarian capabilities among others that are secondry to their primary mission. Putting a carrier in port of a devistated country offers a power plant and a place to provide basic health care and food. Admittedly fuel is needed. Like this secondary mission, the future of our fleet is based on multi-mission ships/boats that can do more.

This whole talk of them being obsolete is based on fabricate or modified numbers IMO. The reason being is that a Carrier is expensive to build and even more expensive to operate. Money is the driver here.

Honestly though, if they are really obsolete, why would countries like China try to build/buy them.