Presenting The First Chinese Aircraft Carrier

Tyler Durden's picture

Your rating: None

- 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.

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