-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Chinese Carrier
- Thread starter tomcatfan
- Start date
Interested in the info though.
we are
So there's Indians in the RAGs?
In the VT's....
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/10/photos-indian-navy-pilots-carrier.html
and apparently in Russia as well for Fulcrum specific stuff:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...-pilots-go-russia-carrier-based-training.html
oh, and we are/were training Pakistani Viper dudes as well:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59026
When India and Pakistan eventually go to war with one another we'll just have to go through old grade sheets to predict a winner!
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
My money is on the Indians.. Less "inshallah".
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Is it bad if I read that in Apu's voice?
They also have operated a carriers in some form or another for 50 years so it ain't new for them either.
I've stayed out of this for a bit, but it seems that I'm not the only one who doesn't just blow off the consequences of a Chinese carrier. I am not a "sky is falling" kind of guy, but to me, it's just ignorant to ignore what this will mean. No, I'm not worried about about Chinese flight ops off the coast of Norfolk, but it will change things when it comes to the South China Sea and our interests in the region.
The Chinese are very good at figuring things out. To think that they haven't gotten their hands on our UNCLASS CV NATOPS is also foolish. It isn't rocket science. Have you seen some of our pointy nose guys? My point is that any time we invite them to observe anything, tactics or admin around the boat, they are learning from us.
The Chinese are very good at figuring things out. To think that they haven't gotten their hands on our UNCLASS CV NATOPS is also foolish. It isn't rocket science. Have you seen some of our pointy nose guys? My point is that any time we invite them to observe anything, tactics or admin around the boat, they are learning from us.
When it comes to learning and being good students, they're not much for the chaos of creativity but they are certainly adept at copying and imitation. I'm with you and Brett in the "sky is not falling, but..." camp.
Getting the pilots to make the airplanes take off and land from the boat is a big piece of the puzzle but it's not the only piece-
They have to figure out how to maintain the boat, figure out how they want to use it with the rest of their navy and the rest of their military, figuring out sustainment of a capital ship (underway for more than a couple weeks straight and more than a few thousand miles from home is actually a big deal; not every modern navy regularly does that like we do). Lots of details and problem solving for what might be a significant capability decades from now, but Chinese are pretty smart when it comes to not reinventing the wheel.
Random8145
Registered User
Just a few questions on this subject, but:
1) Isn't a carrier ship itself, all by its lonesome, not much? Doesn't it need to be supported and protected by a bunch of other ships as well...? (a carrier battlegroup?)
2) Wouldn't the worry right now more be about China building up an aggressive anti-ship submarine fleet? I wouldn't be as concerned about them having a carrier as I would their submarines, which they could use to try and sink U.S. Navy ships. For example, how they managed to sneak a submarine up behind the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk during an exercise back in 2007 for example.
1) Isn't a carrier ship itself, all by its lonesome, not much? Doesn't it need to be supported and protected by a bunch of other ships as well...? (a carrier battlegroup?)
2) Wouldn't the worry right now more be about China building up an aggressive anti-ship submarine fleet? I wouldn't be as concerned about them having a carrier as I would their submarines, which they could use to try and sink U.S. Navy ships. For example, how they managed to sneak a submarine up behind the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk during an exercise back in 2007 for example.
It was only a matter of time until they started acquiring large aircraft carriers, and it remains only a matter of time until they get more and more large carriers--likely the homegrown variety. It's a matter of economics and priorities.
America has had both the economy to support and the priorities to maintain the largest blue water Navy in the world for a long time--our interests are global and we could "afford it" to keep the sea lanes open or we thought that we couldn't afford not to contain the Soviets.
China's economy is continually growing and, despite whatever trickery is involved in the actual numbers, you can tell just from photographs that it is growing very fast. Their priorities are global too; they are even more reliant on international (especially sea) trade than we are. It is no surprise that they would have a national priority to build up a naval force with (eventual) global reach.
Now our national priorities are different now and our economy is faltering because we largely forgot what it means to maintain and develop wealth and continue to pursue the avenue of distributing the wealth (take that to mean either concentrate "at the top" or to hand out "to the poor," because both are true simultaneously). I still would not be surprised if we stood down half of our operational ships and squadrons over the next decade or so, though I selfishly hope we hold what we have.
America has had both the economy to support and the priorities to maintain the largest blue water Navy in the world for a long time--our interests are global and we could "afford it" to keep the sea lanes open or we thought that we couldn't afford not to contain the Soviets.
China's economy is continually growing and, despite whatever trickery is involved in the actual numbers, you can tell just from photographs that it is growing very fast. Their priorities are global too; they are even more reliant on international (especially sea) trade than we are. It is no surprise that they would have a national priority to build up a naval force with (eventual) global reach.
Now our national priorities are different now and our economy is faltering because we largely forgot what it means to maintain and develop wealth and continue to pursue the avenue of distributing the wealth (take that to mean either concentrate "at the top" or to hand out "to the poor," because both are true simultaneously). I still would not be surprised if we stood down half of our operational ships and squadrons over the next decade or so, though I selfishly hope we hold what we have.
They'll probably build copies of it just like they manufacture copies of cars, trucks, and just about everything else- copied down to the last bulkhead and rivet for better or worse. I don't mean that as a positive or negative opinion, just a simple statement.
China is very interested in being important in their own neighborhood but I don't see them as aspiring to build a global empire - that just isn't part of their culture. National interest in having a blue water navy to protect their sea-borne trade (imported natural resources from Africa or exported manufactured goods to the Americas and everywhere else) and to discourage foreign navies from playing in China's own backyard yes. Using that power to become the next global hegemon for the sake of being a global hegemon, no, I don't see that happening.
edit: There's a fine line between protecting your global trade and being a global hegemon. But the difference is that for the last 65 years we've chosen to make it our own national priority to influence global events because of things like the Domino Theory, Kennedy Doctrine, Carter Doctrine, Bush Doctrine, and defining human rights as one of our stated national interests... as opposed to our isolationism from 90 years ago.
China is very interested in being important in their own neighborhood but I don't see them as aspiring to build a global empire - that just isn't part of their culture. National interest in having a blue water navy to protect their sea-borne trade (imported natural resources from Africa or exported manufactured goods to the Americas and everywhere else) and to discourage foreign navies from playing in China's own backyard yes. Using that power to become the next global hegemon for the sake of being a global hegemon, no, I don't see that happening.
edit: There's a fine line between protecting your global trade and being a global hegemon. But the difference is that for the last 65 years we've chosen to make it our own national priority to influence global events because of things like the Domino Theory, Kennedy Doctrine, Carter Doctrine, Bush Doctrine, and defining human rights as one of our stated national interests... as opposed to our isolationism from 90 years ago.
Random8145
Registered User
Well that I think remains to be seen. Personally, I think much of their so-called growth as of late is nonsense, just a bubble that is going to burst on them, but that's a separate discussion altogether.