Chinese to build two 50-60,000 ton Carriers

Lenght of ski jump on Kuznetsov: 50m
Length of C13 cat (incl deflector): 120m

They could do cat’n jump, if they don’t mind starting from halfway down the deck. 😀

Its all a drawing :p

Clearly, that smoke is from the smoking lounge below deck. Looks like the Chinese are getting French assistance as well. :p

On second thought it does look like a steam cat, see the jets following that white line and see where it ends in.

It’s not steam, it’s smoke from those Russian jets!

YourFather’s getting old.. not noticing things anymore… 😮 Give some slack. :p

But steam cats can’t follow the contour of a ski ramp, IINW, unlike an EMCAT.

Distiller probably got mislead by what looks like the steam vapour usually emanating from a steam cat.

Distiller probably looked at the little insert picture depicting a boiler and cat.

Distiller probably got mislead by what looks like the steam vapour usually emanating from a steam cat.

There is no cats in that picture. See the ski jump.

That picture is pure fiction. A Kuznetsov with cats. :rolleyes:

Well, gee, that looks somehow familiar. I wonder if Russia is going to sell anything more to China after this?

Su-33. The various articles so far say this is the plane of choice, though I wonder what new variant they’ll come up with? The old Su-33 is out of date.

Maybe a navalized Su-35BM equivalent? :diablo: Might be based off the Su-30MKK, though.

Most of the PLAN is out of date. It will fit right in. New avionics are being developed all the time and those that fit the land based SU-27 family will fit the sea based SU-33 family too.

Its clearly a STOBAR carrier and the picture looks exactly like the Kuznetsov. So a Varyag copy then :rolleyes:

Does anyone know which fighter is shown in the second picture ?

Su-33. The various articles so far say this is the plane of choice, though I wonder what new variant they’ll come up with? The old Su-33 is out of date.

Maybe a navalized Su-35BM equivalent? :diablo: Might be based off the Su-30MKK, though.

Can anyone Translate ?

Ok I used Google translator and here it is:

Dong Chang Li-day special correspondent

Since China’s official announcement, “are seriously considering the construction of aircraft carrier”, the international public opinion on the setting off a new wave of “China fever carrier.” East Asian region as a strategic pattern of “defenders” of greatest concern to the United States. January 6 of the “Wall Street Journal” published entitled “China in the sea,” a commentator’s article on China’s aircraft carrier the political and military influence is analyzed.

South China Sea will become the “China Lake”

The article pointed out, in terms of money or time, the construction of aircraft carriers are an unprecedented scale projects. Even if the next 10 years China has had several aircraft carriers, the technology level will also work with the United States has a generation gap, not enough to pose a fundamental challenge to the latter. However, taking into account the status of other Asian countries, China would continue to be sufficient to allow themselves to be the leading naval power in the region.

The article said that the East Asian pattern of the existing balance of power is bound to be shaken so. With the aircraft carrier stationed in the newly completed expansion of the base on Hainan Island, in the South China Sea islands, the issue of sovereignty, Beijing will have more time to make adequate emboldened. From Malacca into the vast waters of the Taiwan Strait are likely because of the presence of an aircraft carrier to become the “China Lake.”

China has announced its plans to the time the aircraft carrier also worth pondering. The article maintains that China’s “carrier complex” has a long history, the reason for the long delay was mainly due to worry about the tension caused by the Southeast Asian countries. Now, China has the courage to open the construction of the carrier’s intention is mainly based on the shift in Sino-US economic strength. The new government if Washington failed to timely respond to this signal, it may lead to shaken Southeast Asia, and ultimately abandoned by the side of China, the United States.

In fact, the whole Asian region naval construction, accelerate the trend of recent years have shown. The article maintains that the only motivation and the ability to challenge China at sea, and can only be regarded as the life line of maritime transport in Japan. If the concerns of China’s aircraft carrier led to the re-arming of Japan, then most of them facing the two countries is a long-drawn-out arms race.

The release of three positive signals

Of course, China’s aircraft carrier plans to also have positive aspects. The article maintains that the People’s Liberation Army has always been popular, “asymmetric war”, hoping to use unconventional means to offset U.S. military superiority. Now, the carrier plans to open, seems to indicate that the thinking of China’s army to return to “normal” road, which will be a reduction of future war mode of unpredictability, due to misjudgment of China and the United States reduced the risk of conflict and aroused.

Not only that, the aircraft carrier project started, the situation in the Taiwan Strait is also evidence of a gradual easing. The article pointed out, that in the past tense situation, the Chinese tend to resources will be invested in long-range missiles, such as submarines and weapons, the wish to prevent the intervention of U.S. troops, aircraft carriers because of the mainland and Taiwan too close to not have much significance. In other words, the People’s Liberation Army will now begin playing the “aircraft carrier card”, how many notes the importance of Taiwan issue has been reduced, Beijing only put more thought toward the ocean.

Friendly exchanges on the implementation of an aircraft carrier task of great value. The article said that in other Asian countries due to lack of the same class platform, the carrier will undoubtedly become a powerful tool for Paul declared. Not only that, in regional peacekeeping and disaster relief, etc., the carrier also has more advantages – as the U.S. Navy in 4 years ago in the Indian Ocean tsunami, as shown.

The article stressed that Beijing’s move, Washington will be based on a serious look at the attitude, and transferees from all over the world’s elite air and sea forces, and accelerate the transformation of the western Pacific base group for emergency use. In addition, Southeast Asian countries on how to explain the current situation, so that they are fully aware of the so-called “potential threats from Beijing,” the United States to adjust the direction of future policy.

So like Scoot and I pointed out. Japs are worried and this is going to promote an arms race.

Does anyone know which fighter is shown in the second picture ?

本报特约记者　常砺天

　　自从中国官方宣布“正认真考虑建造航空母舰”以来，国际舆论就掀起了新一波的“中国航母热”。作为东亚地区战略格局的“维护者”，美国对此最为关切。1月6日的《华尔街日报》刊登题为《中国在海上》的评论文章，就中国航母带来的政治及军事影响进行了分析。

　　南海将成为“中国湖”

　　文章指出，无论从金钱还是时间来看，建造航母都是空前浩大的工程。即便中国在下一个10年中拥有了几艘航母，其技术水平也将与美国有一代的差距，不足以对后者构成根本性挑战。不过，考虑到其他亚洲国家的现状，中国此举仍足以让自己成为首屈一指的区域海军强国。

　　文章称，东亚现有的实力平衡格局势必因此动摇。随着航母进驻新近扩建完成的海南岛基地，在南海岛屿的主权归属问题上，北京将拥有更充足的底气。从马六甲到台湾海峡的广阔海域，都可能因为航母的存在而成为“中国湖”。

　　中国公布其航母计划的时间也值得玩味。文章认为，中国的“航母情结”由来已久，之所以迟迟未能公布，主要是因为担心引起东南亚诸国的紧张。现在，中国之所以敢于公开建造航母的意向，主要是基于中美经济实力的此消彼长。如果华盛顿新政府没能及时就这个信号作出回应，则可能导致东南亚诸国出现动摇，最终抛弃美国而倒向中国。

　　事实上，整个亚洲地区的海军建设，近年来都呈现加速趋势。文章认为，惟一有能力并且有动机在海上挑战中国的，只能是视海上运输线如生命的日本。如果对中国航母的担忧导致日本重新武装，那么两国面临的多半是一场旷日持久的军备竞赛。

　　释放三方面积极信号

　　当然，中国的航母计划同样有积极的方面。文章认为，解放军过去一直青睐“不对称战争”，希望用非常规手段抵消美国的军事优势。现在，航母计划的公开，似乎表明中国的建军思想重返“正常”道路，这便减少了未来战争模式的不可预知性，降低了中美因误判而激起冲突的危险。

　　不仅如此，航母工程的启动，也是台海局势逐步缓和的证据。文章指出，以往在局势紧张时，中国往往倾向于将资源投入到潜艇和远程导弹等兵器上，想以此阻止美军的介入，航空母舰则因为大陆与台湾过于接近而不具备太大意义。换言之，解放军现在开始打“航母牌”，多少说明台湾问题的重要性已有所降低，北京才把更多心思放到了走向远洋上。

　　航空母舰对执行友好交流任务也很有价值。文章称，由于其他亚洲国家缺乏同等级的平台，航母无疑会成为中国宣示国威的有力工具。不仅如此，在地区维和与灾害救助等方面，航母也拥有更多的优势——正如美国海军在4年前的印度洋海啸中所展现的那样。

　　文章最后强调，对于北京的一举一动，华盛顿会本着严肃的态度予以审视，进而从世界各地调遣精锐海空力量，并加速改造西太平洋基地群以备不时之需。此外，如何向东南亚国家解释目前的形势，使他们充分认识到所谓“来自北京的潜在威胁”，也是美国今后政策调整的方向。

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2009-01-10/1017538248.html

Save for the one small point there Swerve that the only way we now know that there were no weaponised stocks of WMD ready at hand was that the Iraq Survey Group finally got the unfettered access they were always meant to have after the 2003 action.

Had we not done the job we would still likely be in the dark as to what was there and what wasn’t and it may even have been one of Husseins sociopathic offspring at the helm by this time.

True, to a certain extent. But certain knowledge is a hard thing. There was plenty of evidence to support a reasonable belief that Saddams WMD programme had been dismantled, & his stocks (save for small & rapidly aging into ineffectiveness fragments) destroyed by the late 1990s, & very little evidence to support a reasonable belief that he did have WMDs or a functioning programme to build them thereafter. I think you don’t generally support acting on the assumption that the less probable of two hypotheses is correct if it hasn’t been definitively disproven.

Saddam, fool that he was, appears to have believed that maintaining some level of uncertainty was a protection against both external & internal enemies, & perhaps a sop for wounded pride, but vain posturings by someone known to be a braggart aren’t worthwhile intelligence.

Very off-topic, but I can’t help wondering what a government headed by either Uday or Qusay would have been like. I can’t imagine both living long: one would probably have killed the other pretty quickly. And they were probably – especially Uday – too sociopathic to have been able to hold things together. Total collapse, or an army coup.

Whatever – the Husseins are no loss to the world, & their removal has given Iraq a chance, however poor, of a tolerable future, but that doesn’t make the stated reason for their overthrow a sound one.

There’s a difference. SK and Japan could take an LHP and make a carrier pretty quick and easy if they wanted the F-35B, a STOVL platform not requiring a lot of the effort that goes into making a serious carrier. Look at what England did during the Falklands with Harriers on container ships. Same basic idea, large flat area for VTOL capable fighter jet. Making an actual fast jet carrier along the lines of Kuznetsov or Nimitz is a far different proposition for a lot of reasons, many of them having to do with the non-STOVL airwing.

I’m sure SK and Japan could design and build proper carriers if they so wished, just like China. That was not what I took issue with.

What I found incredulous was that Scooter would suggest that the notion he dreamed up in the course of this discussion that SK and Japan might enlarge their LHP designs and turn them into mini-carriers had the same weight of evidence as China planning to build carriers. Thats just plain nonsense. I have already listed just a part of the evidence publicly available that points to China’s carrier ambitions and plans. The only thing that even hints at the mere possibility of SK or Japan enlarging their LHPs is what Scooter himself wrote in this thread. There is no comparison between the level of credibility of the two different possibilities.

Could China build two carriers by 2015? With the right shipyard space it’s certainly possible. It’s also possible that they have an issue or find a design problem while working and have one or none complete by 2015. This is something they haven’t done before. There is no ligical reason to reject the latter posibility outright, because like I said, they haven’t done this before. Sure, with Russian help and with the Varyag to pore over (the two Kievs are not likely to be much help) they could certainly do it. They aren’t stupid enough to claim that they want two by 2015 when they know there’s no chance in hell that they can pull it off, there’s no reason to make that absurd of a claim in that context. So if they say they want two by 2015, they have likely looked at it and think they can do it. But completely discounting the possibility that they might encounter some issues or have to correct a problem delaying the second vessel is just ignorant.

They can do it. But stating that because they can unequivocally means that they definitely will is not very bright and is indicative of a degree of ignorance relating to the development and production of large scale military hardware.

Well I would respectfully ask you to also read what I have written.

Nowhere did I state that China 100% will have two carriers built by 2015.

All I have done was point out that it is well within China’s capability to build two carriers by 2015 if they so chose, and point out the gaping logical black hole in the arguments of those who keep bring up the CdG. Just because France encountered problems in their carrier design and construction is no indication that the same thing will happen to China. It is those who insist that China cannot possibly build two carriers in 6 years because XY&Z takes AB&C years to build their carriers who are far more deserving of your accusations of ignorance.

Could China have two brand new, home designed carriers at sea by 2015?
Logically speaking the answer is yes they could. They are capable of designing, constructing & deploying such vessels. If NB if, they go ahead will such vessels be any good? Compared with US CVN’s answer no. Will they be able to deploy them effectively, again I must answer no.
Like I’ve stated before China is the biggest (population) country in the world, followed by India, both are now economic superpowers & possibly in their minds now have to be big players militarily also. Carriers are a status symbol therefore if you want to play as one of the big boys you certainly need them.
Until we actually see hulls forming in Chinese shipyards we won’t know for certain if this is all hot air or not. Only time will tell. This is for sure India will have.
Can’t wait until 2015 to see for sure if China can.http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/images/smilies/wink.gif

Source – Random House Webster’s Dictionary

Propaganda: information or ideas methodically spread to promote or injure a cause, nation, etc.

Sigh, some people can’t even find out what one single word means by looking it up in a dictionary. :rolleyes:

The proper definition:

“Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.”

Who is the one who conveniently left out all the facts presented in this very thread and made the pronouncement that there is ‘no facts’ to suggest that China might build carriers?

Who is the one here trying to make this thread one about an arms race at every turn?

Who was the one comparing China to Imperial Japan and Nazi German?

From the facts, it looks like your repeated attempts to derail the topic fits the bill of ‘propaganda’ far better then what I have been doing.