This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Presenting The First Chinese Aircraft Carrier

Tyler Durden's picture


After reverse engineering virtually every product known to man, the Chinese have now applied the same skill to the only component of their military that was so far missing: an aircraft carrier. Earlier today, Xinhua revealed the first official pictures of what will soon be China's first aircraft carrier, now expected to enter operation by the end of the year. As the NYT reports: "The photos of the carrier, the Varyag, which China bought from the Ukraine in 1998, appeared Wednesday on the Web site of Xinhua, the state news agency. It was the first time that Xinhua had given visual evidence of the carrier project, which is widely seen as a linchpin of China’s military modernization and naval ambitions. The carrier is being rebuilt in the waters of Dalian, a coastal city in eastern China. Xinhua cited a military analysis magazine based in Canada, Kanwa Asian Defense Review, as saying that the ship will be ready to sail this year. The fact that Xinhua used that information in a photo caption appeared to be an official endorsement of that view."

More photos here and the wiki entry on the Kuznetsov-style Varyag can be found here.

One thing about the Chinese: they sure can reverse engineer quick:

Andrei Cheng, the founder of the magazine in Canada said in a telephone interview on Thursday that the photographs published by Xinhua showed the carrier at a much more advanced stage of construction than he had expected. He said his magazine had gotten photos of the carrier taken in February, but that those photos did not show any paint on the ship’s upper structure, while the ones published by Xinhua did.

“The speed is very, very amazing, he said. “It’s surprised me.”

As to whether this is a big strategic deal or just military posturing, here is Stratfor's analysis on the implications of China getting its first aircraft carrier.

China’s state news agency, Xinhua, has published pictures of the Varyag, an aircraft carrier that the Chinese bought from the Ukrainians that they’ve been slowly working to develop and deploy. The pictures are accompanied by a note that suggests that after 70 years of Chinese hopes, this carrier is finally going to float this year.

It’s interesting that Chinese state media is finally publishing pictures of the carrier. This has been about the worst-kept secret in the history of military development; everyone has seen pictures — either satellite pictures or on-the-ground pictures — of the Varyag throughout its refit by the Chinese. That they’re finally putting imagery in the state media suggests that they may actually be nearing the point of putting this to sea.

There’s been a lot of concern raised by China’s neighbors — by the United States — of Chinese maritime intent, of the expansion of Chinese activities in the South China Sea, of a seemingly more assertive China in pushing what it considers to be its own naval territory. The deployment of the Varyag finally into this mix will certainly add to those concerns. The Varyag would technically allow the Chinese to move air assets further away from their shore, give them additional capabilities within the narrow constraints of the South China Sea. There’s been a lot of debate as to whether or not the Chinese included the South China Sea as one of their “core national interests” in some documents last year. It’s unclear whether they did or they didn’t, but certainly the Chinese have been acting in a manner that suggests that they are going to be much more aggressive in pushing their claim to the territory, as well as pushing to work bilaterally with some of the countries along the region, in an effort to keep the United States out of the mix.

Carrier operations are not something that’s easy to do, it’s going to take a very long time for the Chinese to be able to work through the various technicalities of this. It’s also not something they’re going to be able to learn from other people. The Russians haven’t done carrier operations a very long time and United States is certainly not going to be training them. So this is going to be years before the Chinese really have the coordination to be able to move large carrier battle groups anywhere. And that assumes also that China builds more carriers. A single carrier gives you almost no capability. It’s got to be in port, it’s got to be in for refit, it can only go to one location. Until they have about three carriers, they really don’t even have the opportunity to maintain a single carrier on station at any given point in time.

This is really more about politics rather than about military capabilities at this moment. Certainly, the Chinese will use this to learn, to train, to be able to develop new capabilities. But it’s about giving the sense that China has emerged, that China really is no longer just a second-tier country, but economically, politically and militarily, China is one of the big boys now.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 04/07/2011 - 16:58 | 1146905 JimBobOMG
JimBobOMG's picture


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:16 | 1147034 dlmaniac
dlmaniac's picture

What's the use of it really?


I can understand the need of gunboats in 19th century when there was vast amount of new land to colonize so a gunboat or two definitely helped enforce your authority over it.


It's 21st cenrury now. There's nothing to colonize no more so what's the deal here?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:31 | 1147103 magpie
magpie's picture

Appearances of national prestige always trump economic downturn and internal dissent.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:47 | 1147146 Gene Parmesan
Gene Parmesan's picture

Plus this one transforms into one big fucking robot.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:50 | 1147169 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

It's Chinese, not Japanese.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:18 | 1147259 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Nuclear, but with less radiation...

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:01 | 1147453 nope-1004
nope-1004's picture

Need some way to bring all those PM's out of Australia and Africa.

No pirates will fuck with that ship.


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 21:32 | 1147952 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

No pirates will fuck with that ship.

Keep thinking that.  I wouldn't fuck with a navy that has a carrier air wing named the Jolly Rogers (VFA-103).  If the US can't get by otherwise, maybe we can turn to piracy.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:35 | 1147189 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

*hand claps* LOL...

-1 junk for Parmesan


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:58 | 1147439 EvlTheCat
EvlTheCat's picture


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:40 | 1147571 thefatasswilly
thefatasswilly's picture

Yes, the Varyag is little more than a symbolic form of power. China has little use for aircraft carriers, which serve as mobile command centers, because it is not stuck on an island, sandwhiched between two weak, subservient states. The U.S. needs to travel all the way to the other side of the world to expand its empire; China does not.

China's short term goal is to slowly consume, infiltrate, and assimilate its inferior neighbors. It has already accomplished this goal in half of the Corean peninsula, all but the eastern coast of the Indochinese peninsula, Siberia, the southwestern Pacific Islands minus the Phillippines, and Central Asia.

North Corea, Burma, and Pakistan are Chinese client states; their political, military, and economic policies all revolve around decisions made in Beijing.

Chinese elites directly control the economies of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia.

China is also busy making natural gas / oil business deals, which are heavily in favor of China, in the central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Chinese immigrants flood into the sparsely populated Siberia (and all of the above nations) as we speak. It is, by now, Northern China.

This leaves India, Vietnam, the Phillippines, and South Corea unaccounted for. The eastasian theatre of war will be located in these pivotal regions (Vietnam and the Phillippines are important reasons China is so interested in the South China Sea), although I strongly suspect that the loss of Japan makes South Corea's position extremely tenuous. N. Corea, backed by China, will roll over the tip of the peninsula in a week. The U.S., without its key bases in Japan, will be able to provide little assistance.

India itself is a vast nation, but, thanks to the pacifist pansy known as Ghandi, it is more a confederation of provinces than an actual united country. Its government will do more to defeat itself than China will; China has already been confiscating territory militarily in Aruchunal Pradesh and Kashmir for years and decades, respectively. New Delhi's response has been feeble and pathetic. Much like Ghandi.

The Vietnamese have historically put up fierce resistance to Chinese assimilation. I am less familiar with the Phillippines.

As such, the South China Sea is, and will remain, an extreme hotspot for some time. Despite this, because of its proximity to China itself, the middle kingdom does not need to deploy carriers in the region in order to dominate it; submarines are more than enough. On the other hand, America needs carriers in order to exert influence in the area.

Lastly, the contingency called Taiwan is a conundrum. I believe that it will act pragmatically and ally itself with China, in order to avoid complete and utter annihilation. However, this is not for certain. Its leaders may act based on ideology and vendetta.

"He who believes that amongst great personages, recent benefits allow old injuries to be forgotten, deceives himself greatly." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:52 | 1147635 Cthonic
Cthonic's picture

Conquer, er, concur.  This is also the reason behind the new military interest in Africa.  Chinese have been very busy forging political and economic inroads on that continent.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 00:15 | 1148524 Fish Gone Bad
Fish Gone Bad's picture

Back in the old days of colonization, the continent of Africa pretty much killed 98% of the white military forces.  It was not that the Africans were a bunch of "bad asses", it was just that all the diseases wiped out all the colonizers.  Maybe it was hemorrhagic fever, malaria, schistosomes, or maybe gun wielding lions, whatever it was, the continent killed a lot of whites.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 00:40 | 1148623 Logan Tassajar
Logan Tassajar's picture

Yes before quinine.  The gin and tonic made the Empire "Great"

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:35 | 1147114 levelworm
levelworm's picture

Then what's the deal that US has much more carriers?

Actually it's a simple question. When you have carriers, you can protect your oversea interests. Of course you can also use it to bully small countries, like US has done so many times.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:38 | 1147125 patb
patb's picture

Or you can conduct a offensive military op.

The US keeps 4 steaming more or less world wide, but China has different needs, if they decide they want to sally out

and bully a US Recon ship or sally out and tail a Carrier battle group or a cruiser or push out and take a spratley or



a carrier is useless without a battle group unless it's operating in close

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:44 | 1147138 levelworm
levelworm's picture

When I talked about a carrier I meant a group as we all know a carrier is useless without support. By saying "bully" other countries I mean smaller countries, surely not US. Only the reverse can happen. I'd say China won't challenge US directly (and fully) in at least 20-30 years.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:36 | 1147330 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

+1, 'cuz the integration of ASW, AAW, ASUW is kinda' fricken' hard to do.  Let alone trying to do something operationally "effective".  And spot-on about "group".  Gotta' train Tyler and gang that it isn't e.g. "Enterprise" but rather "Enterprise Group" that plays.

It ain't the thing--it is the team.

- Ned

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:48 | 1147153 astartes09
astartes09's picture

The Chinese Navy has FOUR aircraft carriers in various stages of construction.  Minsk, Kiev, Varyag and the former HMAS Melbourne.  But I dont know if they still have the Melbourne, they may have bought it just for the schematics.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:42 | 1147265 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

The Chinese Navy has FOUR aircraft carriers in various stages of construction.  Minsk, Kiev, Varyag and the former HMAS Melbourne.  But I dont know if they still have the Melbourne, they may have bought it just for the schematics.

^^ interesting.  So eventually it will come down to logistics / management / training which I'm sure the Ruskies are providing intel & support. 

So let me see, either the dumbed down public wakes the fuck up and we take the USSofA back now or we wait until we're over-run by the Chinese and Russians, hell you can probably throw Korea in there too, then try to regroup and take it back from them......hmmmm.....yup, a lot of people are gonna die in this next great war.  Should be a good one.



Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:54 | 1147414 astartes09
astartes09's picture

Even with the four carriers, they are all only capable of launching and recovering around 30 aircraft each (10-15 at a time really).  In comparison the Nimitz class carrier up to 60 air craft, and can launch and retrieve aircraft with heavier payloads.

I would be more worried if I were Taiwan or the Spratley Islands (which are rich in oil).  Possibly smaller asian countries such as the Phillipenes or Indonesia.  Think any country in that area with oil or could be a choke point for shipping.

If you want a cool movie to watch, some Australians made a "Red Dawn"-esque movie about a fictional chinese invasion of thier homeland called "Tomorrow When the War Began".  Complete with a J-10 vs. F-18 engagement.  Good stuff.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:08 | 1147478 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

Yeah I understand that, but that's just for the time being.  For someone who has done a lot of traveling over the last 10 year's to China's mfg plants, their mfg has come a loooong way especially for the goods they really want to do good on unlike their knock-off / cheap retail market segment which they choose to cut corners.

The Chinese are very shrewd and wise.  This carrier is just for show.  Unlike most Americans, their natural tendency is to keep things under wraps.  I have no doubt that the "real" goods will be revealed when the time is right.

I enjoyed "Red Dawn" so I will definitely check that flick out.  Good day!


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 21:21 | 1147917 astartes09
astartes09's picture

They are remaking Red Dawn too, but this time with Chinese advesaries.  Its currently being filmed in Detroit which is convienently destroyed already.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 22:08 | 1148052 dracos_ghost
dracos_ghost's picture

Nope, the original script was China and the studios didn't want to piss of the Chinese market. It's NORTH KOREA takes over America now.


MGM are nothing but pussies.


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:21 | 1147280 Maxter
Maxter's picture

"There's nothing to colonize no more"

Looks to me that we are currently engaged in a colonial war in Libya.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:43 | 1147366 Confucious 222
Confucious 222's picture

And there are many other resources in Africa, for example, looking for "protection". 


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:48 | 1147392 magpie
magpie's picture

Gunboat diplomacy never really was sensu strictu about colonization, it was about reminding defaulters.
Thus shall the 21st century meaning be once again.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:25 | 1147290 Sabibaby
Sabibaby's picture

"It's 21st cenrury now. There's nothing to colonize no more so what's the deal here?"

Try to start using your brain, a two thirds of the world is covered by ocean primarly dominated by the US.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:30 | 1147308 George Orwell
George Orwell's picture

You use an aircraft carrier battle group to project power.  Why do you think oil can flow freely from Saudi Arabia to the rest of the world?  Because we have two aircraft carrier groups in the Persian gulf ready to take down anybody attempting to block the flow of oil.  Particularly when it comes to Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

So yes, it is about OIL once again. Pretty much every military intervention after WWII is about securing the supply of oil.

The Chinese aircraft carriers will make sure that the oil deals that they have been making in Africa actually results in oil flowing from Africa back to China.  Pirates in Somalia?  Fuck them. The chinese will kill first and fuck the consequences.  Especially when in international waters.


George Orwell


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:41 | 1147359 Drachma
Drachma's picture

It's also about civilization building and destruction. The dominant minority are done with the US. On to China for the next phase of the end-game.


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:44 | 1147373 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture




Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:13 | 1147500 nonentity
nonentity's picture

Aircraft carriers are obsolete as they are easily sunk. 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:33 | 1147567 Rainman
Rainman's picture

....haha....the US carriers are not easy to sink from above or beneath. At sea, carrier task forces know all that's going on within 200 miles or more, they won't say. Their firepower is immense and extremely accurate. American malinvestment for decades has reaped the reward of outstanding weaponry.

All hail the Bernank for continuing to finance it.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 03:56 | 1148988 Finn
Finn's picture

For some funny reason I recall seeing news of Chinese subs unexpectedly surfacing in the middle of US fleet, in near collision with an US sub. But perhaps that's just my memory playing tricks, or else just rumours of a false flag operation.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:40 | 1147590 punishmentnotrevenge
punishmentnotrevenge's picture

Only when playing battleship, there are at least twenty other cruisers, frigates, destroyers and or subs protecting one carrier.  Their sole mission is to protect that carrier and intercept by any means inbound missiles, torpedoes or watercraft.  That carrier extends that battle groups reach by hundreds of miles and chinas nuclear ballistic missile's accuracy suck.  If you can deliver that pay load accurately, WOW! or POW! Lets not be naive!

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 21:27 | 1147936 ChookChoker
ChookChoker's picture

Military analysts have been saying for a while that the US carrier groups have little protection against ballistic missile attack.

Chinas ballistic missile accuracy may suck, but how close do you have to get a nuke?


In a full on war, things may not turn out as expected.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 01:34 | 1148784 PolishErick
PolishErick's picture

True... some good thoughts on that are presented in two episodes of an old documentary flick:


Conventional war will probably go on for anything from 30 minutes up to 2 days... then nobody knows whats going to happen- and there probably wont be too many people to analyze it afterwards.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 05:19 | 1149042 Ethics Gradient
Ethics Gradient's picture

You don't need a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile to sink an aircraft carrier. With an accurate enough guidance system you just plough through the deck at mach 10. This is what China is working on.

They were working on a version of Trident without a warhead so targets a long way away can be destroyed within minutes. The Russians then popped up and said something like, "Yes, but when we see ballistic missile on early warning radar screen, how we know it not got nine warheads?". They decided to drop the idea.

China might be being a bit reckless here. You need to keep your big weapons massive and unuseable and keep your other weapons small. Otherwise you confuse the issue and things get dangerous.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 15:26 | 1151001 treemagnet
treemagnet's picture

Whats the story with the wankel rotor?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:39 | 1147596 thefatasswilly
thefatasswilly's picture

A carrier is ultra overkill against pirates. A single destroyer or submarine is just as effective.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 01:02 | 1148697 Popo
Popo's picture

Yes and no.  Control of the air is increasingly accomplished through unmanned craft  -- and that trend is in the process of going exponential.  

Small unmanned drones require a smaller flight deck and a different type of support fleet. 

China is building yesterday's air strategy.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:03 | 1147449 carbonmutant
carbonmutant's picture

Skateboarding that forward ramp ought to be interesting...

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 20:09 | 1147688 Snake
Snake's picture


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:16 | 1147514 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture
Why bother with aircraft carriers when you can have one these:   Sunburn Missile mach 3 .....  good-bye. More bang for your buck.
Thu, 04/07/2011 - 20:47 | 1147785 jedimarkus
jedimarkus's picture

I assume they will use this when they come to collect on all those worthless treasury debt they have bought from little Timmy and Uncle Ben?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 21:05 | 1147856 BorisTheBlade
BorisTheBlade's picture

It's 21st cenrury now. There's nothing to colonize no more so what's the deal here?

Africa and Middle East, the space shouldn't necessarily be empty to colonize it btw. Americans grew so complacent and arrogant about presence all over the world that don't even appreciate value of good ole' force projection, which, by coincidence, is one of the main reasons why gasoline costs much less than in Europe (except taxes, but then why do they keep taxes so high in Europe, hehe). That is one tiny glimpse into American source of prosperity, which many mistakenly attribute to the reserve status of the currency alone (which is just a derivative of a force projection itself), but there we go: See, the presence of aircraft carrier gives a nation an ability to wage a proper war almost anywhere it chooses to, moreover, it gives an ability to establish air superiority by parking it next to whoever you think are the 'bad' guys. It is not so much notable that China developed its aircraft carrier, it's that it did almost all by itself without much of external support, this baby was bought from Ukraine and was 'officially' designated as a casino in Chinese Monaco aka Macao. It also means that going forward Chinese will also be able to replicate their experience of the build up of the carrier and multiply their fleet by a factor of whatever. The Great Game, that's what it is.


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 21:37 | 1147977 reader2010
reader2010's picture

Will it be manned by suicidal workforce of Foxconn?  To bad, they just don't have any fucking brains to come up with their own stuff of their own design. In late 1880s, the Chinese had the largest navy with two largest battleships in Asia, the fourth in the world. History is repeating itself again. Is this time different now?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:29 | 1147547 bankonzhongguo
bankonzhongguo's picture

Those Chinese carriers will sure some in handy with an amphibious assault on the Japanese coast.

Nanjing payback pengyou.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:44 | 1147610 thefatasswilly
thefatasswilly's picture

A carrier would be unneccessary for China to assault Japan. The two countries are very close together.

In addition to this, why would China assault Japan? Japan has already been destroyed. It has no power and is heavily irradiated. Its economy, industry, land, have all been devastated. China didn't, and won't, need to do a thing for Japan to collapse.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:32 | 1147561 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Cash for Clunkers makes sense now.


We send them all our scraped steel, they build aircraft carriers. Perfect

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:37 | 1147585 bud-wiser
bud-wiser's picture

Rats. I knew I should have bid on that on ebay.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 16:56 | 1146908 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Haha.  Goodbye, American Exceptionalism.

I am Chumbawamba.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:09 | 1146983 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

Actually, its design looks more like a vertical takeoff carrier for sub-sonic aircraft. Pretty useless against major powers or a modern defense systems. IMHO a waste of money and resources as it will easily be deep sixed and its aircraft knocked out of the air if used in a combat role.

For a military Propaganda / political role against western powers and its military industrialized complex it will have a good affect. It will signal more military spending is needed of course. Buy defense stock.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:11 | 1147000 Sancho Ponzi
Sancho Ponzi's picture

Does it come with a 90 day warranty?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:21 | 1147054 Idiot Savant
Idiot Savant's picture

Mmmm..... that's a lot of lead and melamine.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:58 | 1147196 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

as it will easily be deep sixed...

Riiiiiight.  Kinda like the chinese sub that just pops out of nowhere during a naval exercise.  Easily deep sixed....riiiiiiiiight.


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:42 | 1147606 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

The last time I checked, carriers do not submerge. This carrier is operationally limited. It can easily be destroyed.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 21:05 | 1147775 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

Hey numb-nuts, who needs a fuckin' carrier when you got subs that can go undetected and you have Russian missiles at your disposal?  DOH! 

Like I mentioned earlier, this "carrier" is nothing but a dog-n-pony show to open yet another page to revealing Chinese military mfg potential / ability as if their stealth jet wasn't proof already and who says you'd need Chinese pilots manning that aircraft when there's already suitable Rusky pilots able to do the job.

Don't play chess much do you?


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 21:32 | 1147953 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

Do you honestly believe the chinese are a strong military power? If so, you don't know much. I would look in the mirror before you call anyone numb-nuts.  Why do you think China hasn't invaded Taiwan? The U.S. knows where every chinese sub, ships, and planes are at all times. 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:28 | 1147299 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

It has a ski ramp bow for short take offs (STOV). The Max take off weight of its combat aircraft will be greatly restricted. Russia flies a version of the Su-27 off its carrier of the same class. The fighters can onmy take off with air to air missiles and limited fuel. So Russia included a battery of long range anti-ship missiles flush mounted under the deck. Unclear if the Chinese have retained these.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:13 | 1147002 Rider
Rider's picture


Nice piece of gear from our allies in China. They are always trusted, peaceful and democratic.

Cannot wait for their nuke capability and to see in action their new anti-aicraft carrier missiles which are available NOW!

Congrats to our Chinese allies.

/bootlicking off


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:19 | 1147038 magpie
magpie's picture

Steel from the WTC and interest from how many treasuries ?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 16:57 | 1146913 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Enter the Dragon.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 22:24 | 1148094 long juan silver
long juan silver's picture

12 halted Chinese RTOs have a better photo-shop providor and what good did it do them?


Fri, 04/08/2011 - 06:14 | 1149093 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture

beware the reptilian brain.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 16:58 | 1146917 Infinite QE
Infinite QE's picture

First they launched an ICBM off the CA coast after having their super silent sub sneak within miles of the coast. Now this!

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:09 | 1146984 astartes09
astartes09's picture

Oh. My. God.

That was not an ICBM.  If you were anywhere remotely close to it in CA, and were listening to the news (or looking up) you would know it was an airliner coming from Hawaii.  Every news outlet covered it and agreed.  People who speculate it was anything other than an airliner are idiots.  I saw the damn thing.  It. Was. An. Airliner.

Take your fearmongering elsewhere.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:19 | 1147042 Cdad
Cdad's picture

Lol!  You are so full of it.  It. was. not. an. airliner.

Take your stupidity elsewhere.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:31 | 1147105 astartes09
astartes09's picture

Lets see what is more probable.

Super secret chinese stealth submarine off the coast of CA launches another super secret ICBM.  Whackos come out of the woodwork to claim it was an ICBM with little or no proof but a claim of a giant government coverup over one of the largest shipping lanes in the world.


A daily flight from HI to AZ's contrails are caught in the setting sun.  Yeah, definitely the former.

Seeing as I saw it arc over LA myself (just like everyone else) and I also heard of no impact east of CA, normal people concluded the flight landed safely in Phoenix.  Come out to LA sometime and see it yourself.  The flight is daily right around sunset.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:47 | 1147147 Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

I can't confirm the missile came from a Chinese sub but that was a rocket/missile no doubts, you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:59 | 1147198 astartes09
astartes09's picture

Its great to think it was a rocket/missile but from where?


I have someone below claiming an EMP ICBM (which doesnt exist) hit a cruise ship...somewhere.  Too bad the range of any current ICBM doesnt extend OVER the United States to hit a target in the Atlantic.  The reason of which to create such a weapon, nor to fire it toward the Atlantic rather than the Pacific remain unknown (or pointless).  

Also, if an enemy were to create something like this, the point of launching it prematurely over the US would negate any suprise attack to which it would be used.  Essentially blowing its load way to early to be an effective weapon.


Dont get me started with angles of ascent and "smoke".  I've seen ICBMs launch from Edwards, I know what it looks like and that was no missile.  

It arced over LA, towards the southwest just like it does ALL THE TIME.  Im not reading reports from whackos.  I am talking about what I saw, and continue to see every day.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:13 | 1147238 Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

Since it happens ALL THE TIME, it should be easy to find another video clip showing the same thing. I have never seen it..  It was not an Airliner.. It was a missile.. No doubt about it.. If you think that was a plane, you should change your handle to Mr. Magoo..

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:25 | 1147289 astartes09
astartes09's picture

There you go buddy.  Let me know what crow tastes like. 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:13 | 1147504 Bent Nail
Bent Nail's picture

What a joke. I wasted my time watching that video. I've seen contrails like that far too often to even count. I will affirm the contrail is from a jet. Howver, it doesn't even remotely compare to the captured video of the rocket launch.

Do you prefer crow avec or sans feathers?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:16 | 1147508 Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

Are you fucking kidding me?.. You are an absolute joke.. That video provided proof of absolutely nothing..

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:29 | 1147312 Bent Nail
Bent Nail's picture

My dad, a retired Marine Sargent, was stationed at a naval air station not far from Cape Canaveral (or Cape Kennedy back then) most of his career. I grew up watching commercial and military aircraft fly at various altitudes from sunrise till sunset. Hell, some jets used to rattle our windows at supersonic speed at low altitudes. I've also watched several dozen rocket launches over those decades, again ranging from sunrise till sunset.

Here is the problem. You are asking me to disbelieve what decades of experience of eyewitness accounts have taught me. I call BS. I've watched the video of the launch numerous times. There is no doubt in my mind a rocket was launched that day.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:49 | 1147164 msamour
msamour's picture

The angle of ascent, and the width of the combination smoke/water vapour plume confirmed it was an SLBM launch. There are even some Rocket specialists that confirmed it. I don't know which agency you work for, but you will need more "disinformation" than that to convince the many that think it could be nothing else but an SLBM launch. The profile of the plume matches the U.S. submarine launched Trident II which the Chinese copied in the last 10 years almost prefectly. The JL-2 is the model number for the particular SLBM.

The only reason why the U.S. Government refuses to release the true nature of this launch is quite simply they would not win a war at this point against China economically.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:08 | 1147231 astartes09
astartes09's picture

Dont assume because I disagree with you that I am working for some government agency.  I merely am refutting your argument as an eye witness.  

Basically every "rocket specialist" at JPL has stated it was an aircraft.  LAX said it was an aircraft.  Believe what you want, but think before you connect the dots.

And a JL-2 is based of a landbased designed copied from Russia, not a Trident II.  It can only be launched by Jin-class subs (of which one is know to exist).  Ok I will give it to you that there might be more Jins out there, but chinese nucular subs are notoriously noisy and have poor performance to make it so far across the Pacific.  If it did, why launch an ICBM over the US?  If it was to scare us, it didnt seem to work.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:23 | 1147536 Infinite QE
Infinite QE's picture

JPL are military stooges and will parrot whatever they are instructed to. Experts at Janes stated it was without question a missile.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:05 | 1147210 rocker
rocker's picture

Oh yes, china could have never got that close to California. LOL. Go watch Fox, they will tell all how to think tomorrow.

Try this, a little while back the Pentagon Shit their pants when China shot down one of their old satellites without notice. Who said they need to notify anybody and whose going to make them. Helicopter Ben.

The pentagon said they would appreciate advanced notice. Why, because our whole Command and Control system flows to our carriers via satellites.  This may be hard for some to understand why the pentagon was so concerned. LOL

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:12 | 1147236 astartes09
astartes09's picture

I abhor Fox, and any traditional "news" source.  I am merely coming to a different hypothesis.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:31 | 1147097 Infinite QE
Infinite QE's picture

Yes indeed. I'll take what he's drinking!

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:30 | 1147101 iota
iota's picture

So in other words trust the news and airliners travel vertically trailing thick plumes of exhaust gas?

Normally I'm sceptical of the sceptics, but like fuck that was an airliner.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:42 | 1147129 iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

no....  It was one of ours.. An EMP ICBM..  Testing the defense systems of the USS R.R.

It ( the USS R.R.) worked just fine. But the Cruise ship near the pulse didn't fare so well.

Fortunately the R.R. was close by and assisted them back to port..

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:49 | 1147165 astartes09
astartes09's picture



Do you listen to the words in your head before you press enter?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:13 | 1147219 iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

Yup..  I look, listen, think, and chose to believe..  I hear MSM say it was a plane..  I hear MIC men say it was an ICBM..  I'm in SoCal..  I see the jets come in from Hawaii too..


I was bullshitting about the EMP ICBM..  I really don't know what kind of ICBM it was..

I do know that Cruise ships have triple backup redundancy power systems.. Never has one totally lost power..  never..  Until that one did..



Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:13 | 1147247 astartes09
astartes09's picture

Then we are merely in disagreement.

I guess I will call of the unmarked black vans then.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:14 | 1147249 Orly
Orly's picture

I read an article also wherein a missile expert said it was an EMP-type of missile, most definitely launched from a US submarine.  He said he could tell by the special signature of the rocket pulses that it left in the air.

I hadn't read about the cruise ship having to be towed back in.  It would make sense, since their electronics systems would have been compromised by the EMP pulses.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 19:27 | 1147542 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

-1 Out of your league ...

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 20:12 | 1147636 Orly
Orly's picture

Are you sure?


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:07 | 1147221 Hugh_Jorgan
Hugh_Jorgan's picture

You. Are. Clueless.

Airplanes don't leave a corkscrew con-trail, missiles do.


Get them to plug you back into the Matrix, you aren't going to like what happens to us during the next couple of decades.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:14 | 1147252 astartes09
astartes09's picture

Have you ever seen an ICBM launch?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:39 | 1147121 astartes09
astartes09's picture

The Song-class was just a copy of a Romeo-class submarine from Russia in the 1950s.  Deisels are quiet enough to sneak up on a carrier, but far from secrect.  I bet a few butts on the Kittyhawk were kicked though.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:01 | 1147205 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture



Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:01 | 1146926 Jason T
Jason T's picture

so that's where all our clunkers went.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:29 | 1147304 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

nah, just the steel from the wtc

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:00 | 1146931 firstdivision
firstdivision's picture

Is that carrier rocking an erection?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:10 | 1146978 Antarctico
Antarctico's picture

Is that carrier rocking an erection?

Brings new meaning to the phrase plowing through rough seas.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:00 | 1146932 avonaltendorf
avonaltendorf's picture

Jeez, I hope it works better than Chinese R/C toys.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:00 | 1146935 A Man without Q...
A Man without Qualities's picture

Project NWO takes another step forward....


UPDATE: IMF Wants Ability To Tap Financial Markets


(Adds report details, background)

WASHINGTON (AFP)--The International Monetary Fund has asked member nations to consider allowing it to borrow directly from financial markets in time of severe crisis, according to an document published Thursday.

"There may be circumstances where it is either necessary, or preferable on effectiveness grounds, to augment significantly the Fund's own resources," the IMF said in a report dated March 23.

"While in 2009-2010 it was possible to do so by turning to member countries, the process took time and may not always be politically feasible," it said.

Instead, establishing the means to borrow from the markets at short notice to supplement its existing resources "could be worth exploring," it said.

The publication of the report came one day after Portugal, struggling with a debt crisis, said it would seek aid from the European Union. On Thursday, Portugal still hadn't approached the IMF for assistance.

In the middle of the global financial crisis in 2009 the IMF sought to triple its resources to broaden lending capacity.

While it was able to garner pledges from the Group of 20 major economies, it only managed to meet that goal in March this year.

The "usable resources" of the crisis lending account for medium and high-income countries today totals $671 billion, the highest level since the IMF was founded more than 60 years ago.

Click here to go to Dow Jones NewsPlus, a web front page of today's most important business and market news, analysis and commentary: You can use this link on the day this article is published and the following day.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

April 07, 2011 16:54 ET (20:54 GMT)

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:37 | 1147119 levelworm
levelworm's picture

And the Popular just sits and waits, like they have done in the last 20s' and 30s'. Really sad. But again, I'm not in the position to criticize others...

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:00 | 1146937 AR15AU
AR15AU's picture

Wasn't this the carrier featured in Top Gun?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:00 | 1146938 Mae Kadoodie
Mae Kadoodie's picture

Ukrainian under the hood with fine Chinese stylin. 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:04 | 1146942 TheGreatPonzi
TheGreatPonzi's picture

Strange name. The Varyags were Viking mercenaries under the service of the Emperor of Byzance. 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:12 | 1146996 magpie
magpie's picture

Also name of a Russian ship in the Russo-Japanese War 1904.

"Get up you comrades, take your places,
The final parade is at hand.
Proud "Varyag" will not surrender to enemy,
No one wants their mercy."

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:37 | 1147120 trendybull459
trendybull459's picture

Amen! :) v bou ne sdaetsy nash gordij Varyg,poshadi nikto ne zelaet!

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:00 | 1147194 Holodomor2012
Holodomor2012's picture

Sadly many were captured.  And the seeds of the revolutionary ideology were implanted.

(The Kennan-Russel Anti-Tsarist Propaganda Campaign among Russian Prisoners of War in Japan, 1904-1905 by Frederick F. Travis)

This propaganda campaign brought to you by the usual tribe.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 00:04 | 1148489 chindit13
chindit13's picture

Note that the carrier was built in Dalian.  In the early 1900's the name for Dalian was Port Arthur.  The Japanese sunk the Russian fleet at Port Arthur.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:16 | 1147021 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yup.  These interesting fellows carried their longships over land until they reached navigable waterways that would take them to the Caspian and Black/Mediterranean and associated bodies of water.

They were also allies to the Arabs at various points, principally due to the fact that neither set of peoples were Christian.  They eventually converted to Christianity and became the Russian people.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:03 | 1146944 augie
augie's picture

Sorry but the fact they are using a ramp instead of a catapult to launch aircraft is like being intimidated by a sling shot when you have an ICBM. Just like all their economic data this is one big smoke and mirrors charade.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:03 | 1146949 brandy night rocks
brandy night rocks's picture

Next step:  sink it, then rebuild it.  It is China, after all.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:13 | 1147010 magpie
magpie's picture

Not before it serves for DongFeng 21 target practice that is.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:04 | 1146950 punxsutawney phil
punxsutawney phil's picture

Somebody at Stratfor once said that the world reserve currency goes to the country with the most powerful military.  It is a ways away but the Chinese are going to make a bid.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:04 | 1146951 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Interesting shape on that flight deck.

But why the hell are they investing money in something as obsolete as an aircraft carrier?  Missile frigates and subs are far more capable.  The only reason to have an aircraft carrier is to provide close air support for troops in an area where there are no friendly air bases.  Or bragging rights, I guess.

I'm not sure that this bodes well.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:09 | 1146975 TheGreatPonzi
TheGreatPonzi's picture

Aircraft carriers have never been offensive facilities. 

But I agree with you, it was not a priority. If their aim was really attack and defense, they'd better invest in missile neutralizers, drones, radars and renovate their fighter jets. 

In war, evolve or die. 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:31 | 1147320 dearth vader
dearth vader's picture

Supposedly, they're going to build 64 empty aircraft carriers. They seem to like it that way.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:12 | 1146985 Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

The Chinese Army is presently along the border of India as guests of the Pakis. They also guard the oil pipeline near Darfur where they pump oil under contract. And I think they have a presence in Africa.  Of course a well placed Exocet could turn the big Junk into little junk.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:30 | 1147092 Escapeclaws
Escapeclaws's picture

Maybe they're thinking straits of Malacca and having a group of carriers? After all, they are concerned about securing their oil supplies.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 00:26 | 1148562 chindit13
chindit13's picture

They don't have to worry about the Straits of Malacca.  China is busy constructing two pipelines from the Yakhine (Arakan) Coast of Burma to Kunming.  One pipeline will carry natural gas from Burma's offshore fields.  The second will carry crude oil shipped from the Middle East.  China has been offering the Burmese sweeteners in the form of "aid", which is to say more money in the pockets of the ruling junta, to speed up the construction.  Because the pipelines will be some 300 miles in length and run through areas under the control of autonomy-seeking rebel groups, approximately 40% of Burma's standing army will be used to provide length-of-line security.

As part of its ongoing colonial takeover of Burma, China also gets an Indian Ocean port for its navy, who is already using Yangon as an R&R port-of-call.  Couple this with the port China is building in Pakistan, and they've got India surrounded.

Within a decade the problem of sanctions against Burma will be obviated by the fact that Burma will become the new Tibet.  No doubt an "ancient document" is being produced and properly aged right now to justify "the Motherland's historical and rightful claim to Myanmar/Burma/Pyu/Amarapura".  The Burmese leadership, who continue to use the term "Neocolonialists" to refer to Brits and Americans, are either too greedy or too stupid to see that they are losing their autonomy, natural resources, and land itself to the invading Chinese.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:15 | 1147011 jmac2013
jmac2013's picture

Maybe they built it for the same reason that the US military builds so many outdated, useless, overpriced weapons/systems.... to transfer wealth from the state to private investors/contractors. 

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:25 | 1147074 Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

Speaking of those contractors, this development ought to line their pockets. 

Then again every development lines to contractor pocket.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:39 | 1147126 levelworm
levelworm's picture

Simple. You can bully other small countries. And again, US may need to station more carriers in East Asia in the next 10-20 years. I'd expect one more for China.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:07 | 1146954 nah
nah's picture

A supposed Macau firm, bought the Varyag from the Ukraine for $20 million dollars with the stated intention of making the Varyag a casino for commercial profit.


its shooting craps and lazerbeams man


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:05 | 1146955 Alea Iacta Est
Alea Iacta Est's picture

The article goes on to mention that while the Chinese were excited by the progress, that excitement was tempered by the realization that the waters off Eastern China will be far to irradiated to allow for the ship to officially launch until 2043.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:05 | 1146962 Antarctico
Antarctico's picture

That is an odd looking design.  I am sure there must be a good reason why our carriers are flat-tops vs. having that skater friendly rise on the front end.  I really shouldn't care, but it is hard to leave behind the military-tech porn.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:12 | 1147004 Alea Iacta Est
Alea Iacta Est's picture

The SKI-JUMP style launch decks are a more recent development.  They allow you to remove the arrestor cables and catapults which means more space and weight savings.

The downside is that some of the heavier, slower aircraft that the US uses (E-2, F-18 Super Hornet) cannot launch in that configuration or when fully loaded in the F-18's case.


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:42 | 1147139 Antarctico
Antarctico's picture

Thanks for the tech lesson! :)

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:11 | 1147171 nonclaim
nonclaim's picture

The catapult is expensive and complex but makes the whole thing a lot more efficient. Add the fuel transfer system between FA-18s and your air range/firepower is unmatched. [One is launched fully loaded with weapons to carry the attack mission; a second may be launched fully loaded with fuel acting as a mini tanker to extend the mission range.]

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:23 | 1147288 Hugh_Jorgan
Hugh_Jorgan's picture

The ski-jump is NOT a new development. It is indicative of the low-rent aircraft carrier that the rest of the world must to settle for. Go look at the early carrier designs. ONLY the advanced Western countries have fielded carriers with catapults, because it takes a highly competent crew of both enlisted and officers working together with the rest of the flight deck personnel. Communist block countries don't train their enlisted well enough to make it safe, (they think it is a waste of money to train peasants).

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 21:15 | 1147899 Alea Iacta Est
Alea Iacta Est's picture

It IS a "recent" development as i said. it first appeared in the British Navy in the 60's i believe.  So in terms of Carrier design, it is more recent than our traditional design.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:49 | 1147154 trav7777
trav7777's picture

I will explain below

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:06 | 1146966 SparkyvonBellagio
SparkyvonBellagio's picture

That's not a Carrier, that's a Landing Craft!



Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:06 | 1146968 minosgal
minosgal's picture

'...photographs published by Xinhua showed the carrier at a much more advanced stage of construction than he had expected.'

Hope their construction methods are a bit more thorough than some other rush jobs:

That said, several years ago, I did walk a 65-ft yacht mfg. in China, berthed at a big Palm Beach, FL boat show. The finish and cabinetry was well done, and it did float.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:06 | 1146971 Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

Beware of Chinese joining the U.S. Navy!

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:09 | 1146976 Creed
Creed's picture

goodbye american exceptionalism?


retarded, flat out retarded


thank an AMERICAN for your freedom

China will never fight for you and yours to stay free while America always has.

The stated goal of the communists is world domination.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:22 | 1147059 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Who is communist, now?

Also, America hasn't fought for freedom since WWII at best (I suspect numerous alternative motives were in play rather than simply "Stopping Hitler").  In reality, we haven't fought for freedom since the Civil War, and we haven't WON a war for freedom since the Revolution.  This is where the Civil War "freed" the slaves, but reduced all other citizens to slaves themselves.  They just didn't have anything asked of them other than their "loyalty" until fifty years later, and more was demanded every year thereafter.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:25 | 1147213 Holodomor2012
Holodomor2012's picture

You're both right.

"The stated goal of communism is world domination"

Now we understand why the US participated in WW2.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:24 | 1147066 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

And the "unstated goal" of what was The American Republic is what?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:08 | 1146981 Orly
Orly's picture

An old Soviet carrier that was never completed, bought by a Chinese travel company with the idea to take it to Macau and float it as a casino.  They bought it with no motor and nothing to steer it with and had to tow it from Ukraine for over two years to get it into place.

I bet most military analysts would say it's a rusted piece of junk.


I'm scared.


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:19 | 1147037 terryg999
terryg999's picture

The Chinese also have a cultural fear of flying over water.  It's no surprise that Carriers would be last on their list.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:40 | 1147360 dearth vader
dearth vader's picture

They're more fearful of watering over their fly, I suppose.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:40 | 1147130 trendybull459
trendybull459's picture

Scare will coming soon,when chieneese and russians will coming to save americans from dictator Obama and FED!I will vote they do it quick and without destroy Capitol Hell

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:11 | 1146982 TaxEstate
TaxEstate's picture

How long do you give it before it breaks ;-)

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:10 | 1146991 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

what a beautiful dinasaur.....

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:54 | 1147181 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture


Thu, 04/07/2011 - 18:46 | 1147385 dearth vader
dearth vader's picture

You said that without realizing this boat is really a camouflaged submarine.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:11 | 1146999 Bill DeBurgh
Bill DeBurgh's picture

Yawn. Big deal.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 17:12 | 1147007 treemagnet
treemagnet's picture

Wait till they park that thing off the coast of say, L.A. or something - that'll get some attention

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!