http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/re...e-of-junk/all/1

 

'Cause Shi Lang is a navalized version of "Potyomkin villages?

Points in article:

- Chinese have no experience whatsoever in conducting naval air ops

- It is just a one carrier against entire Pacific Fleet, augmented by its allies

- Chinese have only J-15 naval fighter (possibly with limited antisurface capabilities) and some helicopters for ASW and (possibly) AEW role, but nothing more. No EW planes, no AEW planes, no carrier cargo planes

- Chinese fleet have insufficent number of modern warships and submarines, comparable to Tico's, Burke's, improved Los Angeles, Seawolves and Virginias. So chinese fleet is unable to provide an adequate escort force for its lone carrier

- Shi Lang sea capabilities also could pose a problem, because of questionable quality of ukrainian-made turbines

BTW, Shi Lang, as a Variag, was rusting in port for many years. She was refitted, but...

 

So, in the end, are there NO worries for United States Pacific Fleet because of imminent start of Shi Lang sea trials?

So, in the end, are there NO worries for United States Pacific Fleet because of imminent start of Shi Lang sea trials?

 

I don't think Shi Lang poses any direct threat to USPACFLT either herself or in the short term.

 

In the short term, with an operational Shi Lang, there are potential foes other than the USA that might need to worry.

 

In the long term, with a Chinese build up that includes the acquisition of a credible naval aviation capability and blue water fleet, the story might be quite different.

In the long term, with a Chinese build up that includes the acquisition of a credible naval aviation capability and blue water fleet, the story might be quite different.

 

Yea, that's the point. When the Chinese will acquire enough experience? They are jumping into the deep water.

Yea, that's the point. When the Chinese will acquire enough experience? They are jumping into the deep water.

 

To understand that, you have to consider what the Chinese might like to achieve.

 

Do they want to dominate the entire Pacific and beyond? I doubt they think they need to.

 

Or do they want to build up a force that would allow them to better exert regional influence?

In the long term, with a Chinese build up that includes the acquisition of a credible naval aviation capability and blue water fleet, the story might be quite different.

 

Yea, that's the point. When the Chinese will acquire enough experience? They are jumping into the deep water.

 

With this, one would say. It may not be all that good, but it's a start.

Yea, that's the point. When the Chinese will acquire enough experience? They are jumping into the deep water.

 

To understand that, you have to consider what the Chinese might like to achieve.

 

Do they want to dominate the entire Pacific and beyond? I doubt they think they need to.

 

Or do they want to build up a force that would allow them to better exert regional influence?

Or will they conquer the world economically and have a symbolic navy to sail around waving the flag in all her subjects ports, needing only to be sufficiently functional to scare smaller locals who think they can pull a swifty?

Who else has chinese made national flags for sale in your supermarkets???

Don

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step...."

 

I doubt that half a dozen Varyag type carriers are going to appear in the next several years. Building carriers is not that hard, nor is getting the experiance. But the time involved is something else. A Navy is a huge investment and a much more visible one compared to the other services. The seat of purpose may be on land but allowing the Red Team to land there is a major epic fail of the navy.

 

It's easier to train 4 guys to operate a tank than it is to teach 400 to operate a destroyer. But the old Royal Navy saying still applies...."It's not defeat we face if the navy is defeated, it's starvation.". In this case from an embargo. China is a net fuel importer and closing that off would lead to a very quick escalation.

 

So what we see here is a nation that wants to protect it's sea line of communication. As a nation that espouses communism we may like to believe that they have more nefarious motives but they aren't carrying that out with this ship.....

 

Later

D

From China SignPost

 

[excerpt]

 

Gabe Collins and Andrew Erickson, “Flying Shark” Gaining Altitude: How might new J-15 strike fighter improve China’s maritime air warfare ability?,” China SignPost, No. 38 (8 June 2011):

 

... In addition, while a Chinese carrier group would not last very long in a head-to-head confrontation with the U.S. Navy, the very existence of a Chinese carrier capability, even a limited one, would potentially exert significant pressure on China’s South China Sea neighbors to settle maritime disputes in ways favorable to China. If regional leaders perceive “Shilang” as a confirmation of waxing Chinese naval power and something that erodes the credibility of U.S. security guarantees, this could potentially prompt Vietnam, Malaysia, and others to seek bilateral accommodation with China.

From Defense Aerospace

 

[excerpt]

 

China’s Aircraft Carrier Is A Highly Vulnerable Extravagance

(Source: Lexington Institute; issued June 27, 2011)

 

It has been more than twenty years since the U.S. Navy had a major naval vessel as a target in the event of war. In the 1970s and 1980s the Soviet Navy produced a series of major surface combatants to tempt the U.S. Navy. There were large destroyers, a number of cruiser classes and even the Kirov class of nuclear-powered battlecruisers. Then there were several helicopter and aircraft carriers of the Moskva, Kiev and Tbilisi/Admiral Kuznetsov classes. At its peak, the Soviet Navy deployed more than sixty large surface combatants. Today that number has been reduced to around 28 large surface combatants with no aircraft carriers.

 

Now China is kindly offering the U.S. Navy the opportunity to practice at least some elements of a fleet-on-fleet engagement.

I'm not going to say I disagree with anything in that article, but it sure does seem like an optimistic take on things ...

I'm not going to say I disagree with anything in that article, but it sure does seem like an optimistic take on things ...

 

I agree, and is probably missing the point with an assumption that Shi Lang is meant to go head to head with the US Navy. I don't think that was ever the intention.

I'm not going to say I disagree with anything in that article, but it sure does seem like an optimistic take on things ...

 

I agree, and is probably missing the point with an assumption that Shi Lang is meant to go head to head with the US Navy. I don't think that was ever the intention.

 

Mind you, it's going to have something devoted to it in the event of a Taiwan war and I don't think the PRC can exactly deal with a Virginia SSN at the moment.

Mind you, it's going to have something devoted to it in the event of a Taiwan war and I don't think the PRC can exactly deal with a Virginia SSN at the moment.

 

Assuming that the USA would intervene militarily in such an event (not a sure thing, imho), and of course, considering the current Virginia performance level, are you certain?

From DefenseNews

 

[excerpt]

 

Chinese General: Country Needs 3 Carriers

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 30 Jul 2011 09:10

 

BEIJING - China needs at least three aircraft carriers to defend its interests, a general said, days after the state media broadcast footage of its first carrier in a rare public mention of the project.

From DefenseNews

 

[excerpt]

 

Chinese General: Country Needs 3 Carriers

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 30 Jul 2011 09:10

 

BEIJING - China needs at least three aircraft carriers to defend its interests, a general said, days after the state media broadcast footage of its first carrier in a rare public mention of the project.

Clearly three is the minimum number for a reliable carrier deterrance, as the famous Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal