Ex-Varyag to be completed by China?

The term “minor power” is very appropriate for the modern United Kingdom.

Generally only amongst small-minded people that want it to be that way, but are constantly frustrated because it keeps doing well.

There is no real immediate threat in East Asia either. Japan or South Korea is no more likely to attack China than Belgium would attack the UK.

That’s a stupid comment to make. There is much more military tension in East Asia than there is in Western Europe.

China has gained broader global interests.

But it still has little desire to deploy its military around the world.

Long term military procurement is meant to fulfill long term needs. An aircraft carrier isn’t a short term purchase.

Well, duh!

None of that means China should start building aircraft carriers now just because it may want them in the future. Not only is it difficult to know when China will really need aircraft carriers, but I don’t believe its surface and submarine fleet is ready to take on escorting them in hostile locations where an aircraft carrier would most be needed.

So was Hong Kong before the 1997 turn over.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The Russian Far East was also within striking distance before China whimped out and gave up its claim to it to. So what?

You think that with the 5th largest GDP (nominal) and officially the 2nd largest military budget in the world we’re a “minor power”? :rolleyes:

The term “minor power” is very appropriate for the modern United Kingdom. British support or opposition is no longer a deciding factor in world affairs. Moreover, despite a relatively large military budget, high procurement costs and wages have diminshed the effectiveness of the British military.

The UK and China have different security concerns. Our military concerns are “over there”, as our European partners present no real threat, whereas China is most concerned about its neighbours.

There is no real immediate threat in East Asia either. Japan or South Korea is no more likely to attack China than Belgium would attack the UK.:lol:

China does have a broader interest in preserving stability in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. China is no longer a net exporter of oil, but has massive oil and gas interests in many potential troublespots. China has gained broader global interests.

Carriers could be useful for China in the future, but only if it has a specific power-projection need. At the moment, I don’t quite see that need for China.

Long term military procurement is meant to fulfill long term needs. An aircraft carrier isn’t a short term purchase.

Taiwan is already within striking distance.

So was Hong Kong before the 1997 turn over.:lol:

I would trust USN anti-submarine capabilities over the PLAN’s any day. 😉

To put into perspective, the regions where PLAn currently operates does not require the ASW capability USN posses. Any money spent on getting these capability is wasted unless China decides to confront USN on the pecific.

On the other hand if USN decides to fight PLAN within the second island chain then they too are restricted to the same conditions and capabilities as PLAN. A USN SSN won’t fair any better in shallow waters than an SSK.

Any new snaps of the spruced up Varyag??

Not that I have seen recently. Often they’re existing images re-posted by people who haven’t seen then before!

Any new snaps of the spruced up Varyag??

Or, OTOH, a Nimitz-class to a pair of ‘Shkvals’… 😉

If it floats… it can sink!

Regards,

Hammer

I would trust USN anti-submarine capabilities over the PLAN’s any day. 😉

That’s actually the small part of it. The biggest blast comes from something else.

Why does the US issue bonds in the first place? That’s because it’s on a continous deficit. The problem is that when the US goes into a war, financially it can no longer afford it. Someone has to pay for that war. From 2001 and on, from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq on, someone has been offsetting these deficits by buying a large amount of bonds, in effect, has become the indirect financier of these wars. That someone is China.

The fact is the US cannot go into war with China without someone going to to finance it, and that someone cannot be China itself. Even if China does not unload the bonds it owns, the fact that the biggest buyer of bonds isn’t buying is more than enough to cause a crash by itself. Once bonds become “worthless” it will trigger a chain reaction on other bond holders, even with other countries, causing the bonds to unload.

The problem is in the current peacetime situation, this feeds on itself. The buyer has to keep buying the bonds in order to protect the value of the bonds it previously owns. On the other hand, the US will have to pay several billions in interest alone each year; China can go into a major arms shopping spree just on this interest.

Good point, guys, the economic/debt bond issue can’t be forgotten or ignored in this scenario! I believe that the recent constant devaluation of the US dollar will invite major bond purchasers to move over to other currencies such as the Euro, putting further pressure on the US currency devaluation trend… Another possible problem is that the emergence of China and India as large and relevant commodities purchasers might encourage commodity producing countries to move over to the Euro as a more stable denomination in which to price their goods. Imagine the uncomfortable effect on the US economy of constantly raising commodities prices due to the devaluation of their currency. Also the US major industrial corporations seem to be already factoring/feeding into their prices the US dolar devalution something that may highten inflationary fears in that country.

One economic columnist in a major paper here cited some analysts’ idea that currently the major Chinese export today is “deflation”, not indistrial/manufactured goos, as we all might imagine… She also pointed out and that any real price hike of their yuan or any import restriction on Chinese goods may easily create substantial inflationary pressures in any major Western economy. Maybe that’s why the US governmenty can’t really effectively pressure the Chinese Central Bank into significantly raising the value of their currency against the US$.

Also, lets not forget that general costs in China are obviously lower than their similar costs in the US or Europe, for that reason the Chinese military can be (and is being!) upgraded and expanded at higher rate and at a much smaller unit cost than that the US has to bear itself. Imagine, just for the sake of argument, that a 100% identical Chinese-built Nimitz class carrier clone would normally be much cheaper to buy, construct and to man in China than in the US, and that certainly is the strongest invitation for the Chinese to join the carrier-using nation ranks.

The more Western ship operators choose to construct their merchant freighters in China, the better they will get at building high quality, high tech ships for their own navy. Its an inevitable trend. The Western world and the US in particular is the greatest responsible for the quantum leeps taking place in the Chinese Navy today. Thanks, “Globalization”! Thanks, Mr. Bush! 😉

Comments?

Hammer

Somehow I don’t think a Chinese carrier would be that much of a problem to a couple MK48s.:diablo:

Or, OTOH, a Nimitz-class to a pair of ‘Shkvals’… 😉

If it floats… it can sink!

Regards,

Hammer

THink another way…
Having a carrier not only mean you can operate and learn about it, but also mean you can learn how to sink one!.
One of factor Argentina navy SuE success sunk british ship because they trained to do that with Argentina’s frigate.

Have a carrier means China can learn how to break US CVBG formation and sunk the big mother…

I hope you are not suggesting that only other carrier operators can figure out how to sink a carrier belonging to the opposition….

THink another way…
Having a carrier not only mean you can operate and learn about it, but also mean you can learn how to sink one!.
One of factor Argentina navy SuE success sunk british ship because they trained to do that with Argentina’s frigate.

Have a carrier means China can learn how to break US CVBG formation and sunk the big mother…

Not necessarily.

What makes you think it would delay the US at all? So the US has to bring one or two more SSNs to the party. Whoopdee do. And do you really think the US wouldn’t know where that carrier was from the time it left port?

THink another way…
Having a carrier not only mean you can operate and learn about it, but also mean you can learn how to sink one!.
One of factor Argentina navy SuE success sunk british ship because they trained to do that with Argentina’s frigate.

Have a carrier means China can learn how to break US CVBG formation and sunk the big mother…

But that is also an extremely powerful weapon that is incalculably more demastating them any carrier battle group. It is like a finacial nuclear weapon. What do you think would happen if China suddenly flooded the market with hundreds of billions of dallors worth of US bonds? Sure, China will suffer gigantic losses, but the effects on the US economy will make the dotcom bust seem like a speed bump and may well bring about another great depression, though this time, a global one that will also greatly hurt China. A kind of financial MAD, and that is something US policy makers will have to factor in to any calculations

That’s actually the small part of it. The biggest blast comes from something else.

Why does the US issue bonds in the first place? That’s because it’s on a continous deficit. The problem is that when the US goes into a war, financially it can no longer afford it. Someone has to pay for that war. From 2001 and on, from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq on, someone has been offsetting these deficits by buying a large amount of bonds, in effect, has become the indirect financier of these wars. That someone is China.

The fact is the US cannot go into war with China without someone going to to finance it, and that someone cannot be China itself. Even if China does not unload the bonds it owns, the fact that the biggest buyer of bonds isn’t buying is more than enough to cause a crash by itself. Once bonds become “worthless” it will trigger a chain reaction on other bond holders, even with other countries, causing the bonds to unload.

The problem is in the current peacetime situation, this feeds on itself. The buyer has to keep buying the bonds in order to protect the value of the bonds it previously owns. On the other hand, the US will have to pay several billions in interest alone each year; China can go into a major arms shopping spree just on this interest.

Even a minor power such as Britain feels this need. Why would China be any different?

You think that with the 5th largest GDP (nominal) and officially the 2nd largest military budget in the world we’re a “minor power”? :rolleyes:

The UK and China have different security concerns. Our military concerns are “over there”, as our European partners present no real threat, whereas China is most concerned about its neighbours.

Carriers could be useful for China in the future, but only if it has a specific power-projection need. At the moment, I don’t quite see that need for China. Taiwan is already within striking distance. Apart from that, who would it need to attack at arms-length? Hitting the USN with one carrier in the Pacific wouldn’t do much to delay it if it were rushing to Taiwan’s aid. Hell, I’m sure there’s nothing more Washington would like to see than billions of $ invested in a single target for it to sink!

Bonds these days (like shares) are mostly traded electronically, with no paper certificate issued, & I’ve never seen a US Treasury bond, any more than I’ve seen a share certificate, though I own thousands of shares. Purchases are registered. Cancelling bonds owned by particular owners should not be a major technical problem, particularly a foreign central bank, as they are mostly held through the National Book-Entry System. i.e. the US Treasury knows exactly who holds them, & keeps an account on their behalf. In effect, China has several hundred billion dollars sitting in an electronic account at the US Treasury, in the name of “Central Bank of China”.

Problme with your reasoning is that while it is based on facts, it is only based on partial facts. Ever heard of the term brokers? That is the people/firms the vast majority of shareholders deal with as opposed to the central bank, and they are the ones who register individual transactions and hold paper bonds. In essence, they are the ones who create the stock/bonds market and allow it to work. In this case, both the central bank and the individual investors are clients of these middlemen (brokers). The central bank wants to borrow money, investors want to lend money (to anyone) for a good interest, and the brokers match the two. This is, of course a very stripped down basic summery as the detail workings can fill shelves of text books.

Fact of the matter is that all bonds are represented by a bond citificate which is as good as any hard currency. However, these are usually issued with huge face values of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of US$, thus you are not likely to get one of those babies unless you buy that much worth of government bonds directly from the government. If you want to buy smaller amounts, you need to go to a broker, who have the capital to buy these bonds and then break them up into smaller chunks and sell that on, electronically, to the average folk, who don’t typically have a couple million stash away under the matress.

The broker have the power to wipe your personal accounts, or freeze them if ordered by the government. The government doesn’t have such powers over the paper bonds they issued. And serial numbers are useless since these bonds are freely traded, so there is no way of telling where the bonds originally issued to one person would end up by the time it matures.

No one would ever buy bonds from any government if said government could wipe them out at a whim. All these safeguards are built into the system to make sure such things can’t happen, thus giving investors the confidence they need to hand over their hard earned money.

The issue you should be focusing on is the way bonds are issued, in US$, thus if the US$ falls down a cliff, all bonds follow. That is the issue China is really worried about, and that is why China can’t spend too much of its reserves too quickly. In a sense, China is ‘stuck’ with its bonds for a very long time.

But that is also an extremely powerful weapon that is incalculably more demastating them any carrier battle group. It is like a finacial nuclear weapon. What do you think would happen if China suddenly flooded the market with hundreds of billions of dallors worth of US bonds? Sure, China will suffer gigantic losses, but the effects on the US economy will make the dotcom bust seem like a speed bump and may well bring about another great depression, though this time, a global one that will also greatly hurt China. A kind of financial MAD, and that is something US policy makers will have to factor in to any calculations.

Anyways, I think I have made my point about bonds, and there is no need to drag this discussion further off topic.

No A/C carriers please! 😀 😀

Need more Maritime patrol aircraft (Y-8X maybe newer), AEW (Newer than Y-8J, maybe KJ-200), ELINT (Y-8(DZ) maybe newer). ASW helo carriers. Lot more dedicated anti-submarine vessels, and many more! Why spend so much on A/C carriers when you need to beef ASW capabilities big time :confused: . Small dedicated helo carriers is one thing but putting large resources centered around one gigantic A/C carrier?

ASW carriers have very little purpose in the post Cold War world. China’s main antagonist during the last part of the Cold War was the Soviet Union. Does anyone believe that the current Russian Pacific submarine fleet represents a major threat to China?

China might have a need for a large carrier for a power projection role, in the same way that Britain or France feels a need for relatively large carriers for the same purpose. The choice of a relatively large carrier might also be motivated by China’s current lack of a STOVL aircraft suitable to smaller carriers.

Currently, China’s position in East Asia is very secure, in the same way that the NATO countries remain very secure in Europe. There is no immediate threat within either region – with no reasonable possiblity of a local conflict for decades to come.

Still, major powers typically feel the need to develop power projection assets, such as aircraft carriers, to protect national interests in distant regions. Even a minor power such as Britain feels this need. Why would China be any different?

I

If China was to go down the Aircraft Carrier line (which I think it will!), it will have to dedicate a large amount of its Navy budget towards a battle group / escorts to support this carrier(s).
For if China does introduce aircraft carriers, one can guess that this (these) pride of the PLAN will become number one target priorities of the US Navy!
Regards
Pioneer

And they have built quite a nice escort fleet

No A/C carriers please!

AC carrier allows you to do things none of the below mentionned assets can.

Need more Maritime patrol aircraft (Y-8X maybe newer), AEW (Newer than Y-8J, maybe KJ-200), ELINT (Y-8(DZ) maybe newer). ASW helo carriers. Lot more dedicated anti-submarine vessels, and many more! Why spend so much on A/C carriers when you need to beef ASW capabilities big time . Small dedicated helo carriers is one thing but putting large resources centered around one gigantic A/C carrier? How do you counter multiple Seawolf & Virgina class SSN? And what about those ultra-quiet SSK? Why wont you ask Jonesy about ASW issue. He once gave a very detailed & interesting answer.

They are getting plenty of surveillence aircraft. What makes you think they can’t do both at the same time. As for ASW capabilities, do you have any idea how much their ASW capabilities have improved? How do you know they won’t build an helo carrier for ASW purposes?

One interesting part is to see how far Yu-6 has developed to gage on the rest.

Oh and what about building new, quieter SSN, SSK and maybe SSGN. And off-course quieter SSBN with much bigger punch (Carrying MIRVed DF-31/DF-31A) to increase the chance of a reasonable 2nd strike!

again, do you have any idea of the sub programs they are working on. Do you know how far 095 is progressing. Do you know about the successor to the 039 class?

I agree and think China would be wiser to purchase more SSK’s and SSN’s. Than to tie up alot of resources building Aircraft Carriers. As by doing so will just increase the current arms race going on in Southeast Asia. Which, China just can’t win……….

They are spending a lot on submarines. When are people going to get it? PLAN is not short on money. And they will need to start now to have some credible carrier operation and be able to protect their resources in the future (say 2030)

Bresides, the Chinese government would happily trade a carrier lost to the US Navy if it meant they delayed the US long enough to invade Taiwan and forcibly add it to their empire.

Unicorn

What makes you think it would delay the US at all? So the US has to bring one or two more SSNs to the party. Whoopdee do. And do you really think the US wouldn’t know where that carrier was from the time it left port?

Somehow I don’t think a Chinese carrier would be that much of a problem to a couple MK48s.:diablo:

Exactly! A single Seawolf/Virginia or even an LA class could cause a huge catastrophe! 😮

The soviets focused much of their efforts on their subs, but did they ever come close to matching the west in the seas?

The modern battlefield is multi-dimentional, and the air is purhaps the most important of them all. Without a carrier force, you are as good as surrendering control of the skies to the enemy, need I expand on what unchecked air power can do?

yes, subs are a great deterence and a fantastic weapon to be used in a defensive situation where they can be protected by land based air assets, but subs will have a much harder time if they are left unsupported and need to counter hostile air, surface and subsurface threats all at once. The most you can hope for is for a sub to be able to get one salvo off before it is forced to disengaged and/or destroyed. How many men crew a sub? How much will it cost to build a sub? How long? In all cases, the answer is, many many times that of a fighter.

Air power is also far more flexible and dependable then subs, and the operating costs in times of low intensity warfare is going to be far lower then a cruise missile popping sub. But the downside of a carrier is you have to be able to keep the carrier alive to enjoy all those benefits. In this regard, the sub has an inherant advantage.

The key is getting your priorities straight. If you want to take on the top dog and win in your back yard, then subs will give you far more bang for buck. If you want to bully poor third world countries and/or give yourself a few more cards to play at the negotiation table, then a limited carrier force is the way to go. But if you want to be top dog yourself, then you will need to at least have the potential to win control of the seas, and to do that, you will need as many of the biggest, meanest carriers as you can reasonably afford.

At present, the PLA’s top priority is Taiwan, so its logical that the lion share of their resources would be going into sub and other carrier killing means. But sooner or later, the PLAN is going to have to look beyound just Taiwan. For example, if one day the balance of power becomes such that even the US would have trouble to have a certain victory, and that the costs of the war, regardless of result is going to be extremely high for the US, then the Americans would likely adjust their strategy that would not need them to walk into the deathtrap the PLA has set up for them around Taiwan. Obvious strategy, go choke China’s sea lanes to inflict some major hurt on the Chinese economy and China.

Aside from the assumption that the cost to the US would be so high as to make such a move extremely unlikely, and maybe to wave the nuclear card around as a last resort, China has no other answers.

It’s amusing how often people seem to forget that the US can also “wave the nuclear card around”.

Tell that to Taiwan.

A carrier could be very useful for providing a threat to Taiwanese assets from a completely different threat axis than currently expected.

Not to mention making it more difficult for the US to intervene if China attempts to forcibly reunite the two countries.

Unicorn

Somehow I don’t think a Chinese carrier would be that much of a problem to a couple MK48s.:diablo: