NationStates Jolt Archive

Did you know that China has a fully functional aircraft carrier to project itself anywhere in the world?

They can now launch airstrikes against Taiwan (eh, they've always been able to do that)
But now they can do airstrikes in Africa, in the America's. They could potentially attack Pearl Harbor or even a sneak attack on Europe.

Fortunately they only have one carrier so the fact that the US has more carriers with more planes might deter them.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/aircraft_carrier.asp

I'm not worried. War with the United States would probably severely fuck up their economy, simply because they produce so many consumer goods.

Response to Chinese aircraft carrier:

American submarines.

Brazil has a fully functioning aircraft carrier to!
Brazil must be planning to attack the United States! Theyre a threat to world peace! And they speak Portugese! Thats like the bastard child of German and Spanish!

Nice for China.

EDIT: I think I deserve credit for not using gun smileys in my first post.

Did you know that China has a fully functional aircraft carrier to project itself anywhere in the world?

They can now launch airstrikes against Taiwan (eh, they've always been able to do that)
But now they can do airstrikes in Africa, in the America's. They could potentially attack Pearl Harbor or even a sneak attack on Europe. I am going to be impressed if the type 94s are as stealthy as projected.

I know.. I know.. they are not Ohio class or Triumphant class.. but still.

Chinese Carriers? they are nothing to worry about, we own the Air and the Seas.

Response to Chinese aircraft carrier:

American submarines.

Response to American submarines:

Chinese Destroyers

etc etc etc...

It sounds scary?

Good for China. The nation itself has proved itself to be responsible with their armed forces, and the chances that China attack the USA is next to none. Currently, China profits from a 300 Billion USD trade deficit with the USA, a profit that would disappear if they preformed any act of aggression against a USA aligned nation.

Without this deficit, China would never have been able to fund an Aircraft carrier.

What are the Chinese going to do with it, anyway? Bomb student demonstrations across the world? I think nobody should be too worried about this.

oh, big deal, someone who doesn't play in americas pond has a military:eek:

China is no more a threat to world security that America is.

What are the Chinese going to do with it, anyway? Bomb student demonstrations across the world? I think nobody should be too worried about this.

Wow for sweeping generalizations and strawman.

Wow for sweeping generalizations and strawman.Hooray beer!

Wow for sweeping generalizations and strawman.

Wow for MASSIVE sense of humour failure.

China lol.

They have as much a right as anyone else to field aircraft carriers as part of their national defense. If anything, it might be good to have Chinese force projection power in the event that we need their aid on a particular issue in the region.

Brazil has a fully functioning aircraft carrier too!
*...*

The São Paulo ?

Almost fifty years old and only carrying fighters (A-4). I don't think they can afford to refit it properly ... I certainly wouldn't want to be on it in any kind of war.

It sounds scary?

Good for China. The nation itself has proved itself to be responsible with their armed forces,

Uh, Tibet? Korea? Vietnam? Their claim on the ROC? Their dealings with the DPRK?
I would agree that they seem to have a good sense of their own strategic interests, unlike *cough cough*
But their idea of "self-defence" might be a little more proactive than you think.

and the chances that China attack the USA is next to none. Currently, China profits from a 300 Billion USD trade surplus with the USA, a profit that would disappear if they preformed any act of aggression against a USA aligned nation.

Without this surplus, China would never have been able to fund an Aircraft carrier.

It's only a deficit when you look at it from the US side. But yes, they live by trade just now.

The US has a better, faster, bigger, more powerful navy then China. The US could sink that aircraft carrier before it got in range to do anything to Hawaii, our allies or our navy.

The US has a better, faster, bigger, more powerful navy then China. The US could sink that aircraft carrier before it got in range to do anything to Hawaii, our allies or our navy.

Considering the obscene amount of money the US spends on all of its military, there would be something seriously wrong if it wasn't the biggest, fastest etc.

Considering the obscene amount of money the US spends on all of its military, there would be something seriously wrong if it wasn't the biggest, fastest etc.

It's probably going to turn around and bite the US in the ass when it loses superpower status.

Brazil has a fully functioning aircraft carrier to!
Brazil must be planning to attack the United States! Theyre a threat to world peace! And they speak Portugese! Thats like the bastard child of German and Spanish!

Don't you mean drunken Spaniards?

Did you know that China has a fully functional aircraft carrier to project itself anywhere in the world?

No they don't. They have a ship being refurbished that hasn't left drydock. They also currently lack any tested carrier aircraft. Both are necessary to declare a carrier "operational".

But now they can do airstrikes in Africa, in the America's. They could potentially attack Pearl Harbor or even a sneak attack on Europe.

No they can't. If you are going to get all worried, then go after a current capability, like the Xia submarines that carry SLBMs with nuclear warheads.

Did you know that China has a fully functional aircraft carrier to project itself anywhere in the world?

No, they don't. Sinodefence is an uber nationalist type and even that says

the ship would be finally converted into a fully operational aircraft carrier for training purpose.
..
China is also believed to be developing a suitable multirole fighter for its future aircraft carrier

There is a saying in my native language....when my aunt grows a moustache, I will call her my uncle.

Chinese navy is essentially a brown water one. They are attempting to modernise, but they have a long way to go.

India has one operational carrier, one in the renovation works with Russia, and one indigenous in the planning. Even Thailand has an operational carrier. Chinese navy has a long way to go.

Isn't the Varyag nothing more than a rusting hulk stuck in the middle of a bizarre military amuesment park?

They hardly need an aircraft carrier to screw with us. China could send our economy into something close to a nosedrive whenever they wish.

Response to American submarines:

Chinese Destroyers

etc etc etc...

Surface ships have never been a viable response to quiet nuclear submarines, especially destroyer running with 30 year old technology. I doubt they could even track a Los Angeles running at flank speed, let alone sink it.

The best response to a nuclear attack sub is another nuclear attack sub. China's Han class is simply not in the same technology generation as the Los Angeles, Seawolf, or Virginia's. The Han is about as stealthy and capable of detecting other subs as the Skate class. The Skate is 3 generations behind the Los Angeles, let alone the Virginia.

Personally, I'd be scared of the USS Ohio as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
154 Tomahawks, and the Ohio-classes are very, very, very quiet.

I get the impression we will know the precise location of that carrier at all times until the day it is decommissioned.

I get the impression we will know the precise location of that carrier at all times until the day it is decommissioned.

Hello? It's a freaking aircraft carrier. They're huge. How are they going to hide it even if they wanted to?

What next? China hides Beijing. US intelligence services baffled.

Hello? It's a freaking aircraft carrier. They're huge. How are they going to hide it even if they wanted to?

What next? China hides Beijing. US intelligence services baffled.

Considering he said "we will know its location at all times until they decommission it", I think that was his bloody point.

Can see where this thread is going:

'Mericah has mizziles!'

'NAAA CHINA HAS SHIELDS!!!'

Leaves....

Can see where this thread is going:

'Mericah has mizziles!'

'NAAA CHINA HAS SHIELDS!!!'

Leaves....

Good riddance. Come back when you learn something about naval technology, forces, and tactics.

Hello? It's a freaking aircraft carrier. They're huge. How are they going to hide it even if they wanted to?

What next? China hides Beijing. US intelligence services baffled.LOL

:D

Hello? It's a freaking aircraft carrier. They're huge. How are they going to hide it even if they wanted to?

What next? China hides Beijing. US intelligence services baffled.

In other news: China's trade surplus dramatically decreased this year, backed by large purchases of canvas and green/olive paint.

Come back when you learn something about naval technology, forces, and tactics.so tell me (if you know so much about military capabilities) what are the Countries most capable of destroying US ??

Lets say you must lauch an all out nuclear preemptive attack on one of these

# China,
# India,
# Israel
# UK
# France

which do you pick first/last, based on their pay back capabilities.

Response to American submarines:

Chinese Destroyers

etc etc etc...


Responce to Chinese Destroyers that lack good sonar technology to detect American attack subs:

Below surface to surface vessel missile, or torpedo.

China's military technology sucks, They only have numbers, and those numbers are only in men, not in boats.

It's probably going to turn around and bite the US in the ass when it loses superpower status.

US won't lose superpower status for a loooooooooooooong time.

Maybe sole superpower, but thats if China becomes a superpower, which they are still not.

US won't lose superpower status for a loooooooooooooong time.

Maybe sole superpower, but thats if China becomes a superpower, which they are still not.
Really? What makes you say that? Why wouldn't the U.S. lose its superpower status?

Or, for that matter, under what circumstances would it lose said status? I keep getting mixed signals from everyone on this, so I figure I ought to ask for a detailed explanation of at least one point of view.

China's military technology sucks..we expend more in weapons, the problem is.. they -communist leaders- are wise.


Responce to Chinese Destroyers that lack good sonar technology....Ok, so they are not investing their smaller budget in Destroyers..

...technology to detect American attack subs:No they cant detect our Subs.. unless they get very.. very lucky.

US won't lose superpower status for a loooooooooooooong time.

Maybe sole superpower, but thats if China becomes a superpower, which they are still not.China is a military Superpower the day we can NO longer detect -and keep track- of all their Ballistic Subs.

could be already the case. ;)

Or, for that matter, under what circumstances would it lose said status? a nuclear war with one of the big 3, it would destroy most US metropolitan areas, which would destroy the US economy.

Really? What makes you say that? Why wouldn't the U.S. lose its superpower status?because a nuclear war is extremely unlikely.

Hello? It's a freaking aircraft carrier. They're huge. How are they going to hide it even if they wanted to?

What next? China hides Beijing. US intelligence services baffled.

Exactly, which is why it doesn't pose a 'pearl harbor' danger or any other sort of danger at all.

so tell me (if you know so much about military capabilities) what are the Countries most capable of destroying US ??

Lets say you must lauch an all out nuclear preemptive attack on one of these

# China,
# India,
# Israel
# UK
# France

which do you pick first/last, based on their pay back capabilities.

France first, though they might tie with the UK on this, I'm not sure specifically how France and the UK line up. France has nuclear powered ballistic missile subs, as well as (last I checked) both a land based ICBM component and an air based nuclear delivery component (though it is now only in the form of the Mirage 2000N, and probably doesn't have the range to hit the US). France has sought and maintained for decades the ability to have a credibly nuclear response without the need of anyone else chipping in, this was one of de Gaulle's goals, and one of the reasons he snuffed the US so much in the post war era. Given this triad, I'd probably rate them first.

UK second. While they do not have a land or air based nuclear delivery system active, they do have their ballistic missile subs, and damn good ones at that. Quiet and capable boomers, the Vanguards are. Taking out capable boomers is incredibly hard to do in, even in a pre-emptive strike, therefore the UK definitely would have a credible pay back capability.

China would be next. The primary threat is from their ICBM force, though it is currently small in number. I would not count on that always being true, they certainly have the technology for more (look at their Long March space boosters for proof of that), but currently they are low in number, and could quite possibly be taken out in an American pre-emptive strike. I'm not sure what Chinese early warning systems are like to allow a response to an American attack before our warheads hit their launchers, so I may not be giving them enough credit. They currently have the one Xia class SSBN, but it is a development of the Han, if I am not mistaken. That would make it loud as all hell. Probably never leaves port without a Los Angeles tailing it. It also probably never sails within strike range of the US, as it has rather short ranges SLBMs (roughly equivalent to early Polaris missiles, if I am not mistaken). China may be building a second, newer type of SSBN, so where they stack may change in the future.

Next would be Israel, though not much of any actual pay back ability. No aircraft that can reach the US, and no missiles that can reach here either. Those are their two primary means for nuclear delivery. They may have had the time for half decent warhead technology (nothing like the big ones the US and Russia have, but decent compared to India and Pakistan), but they have no way to get it here. There are unconfirmed reports that the Dauphin submarines can launch nukes, but we are talking converted Harpoon missiles or something in that class, not SLBMs, and certainly not anything past 150 miles (actually that is well beyond what they would be capable of), let alone a few thousand. Given that the Dauphins are developments of the German Type 212 (or Type 214, I can never keep those two straight), it is realistically a coastal defense sub, not an open ocean vessel capable of approaching the US coast. Sure, they are quiet, but they just aren't designed for the job.

Last would be India. They have a fairly new nuclear weapons program (well, a restarted one), warheads that are not at all advanced, and zero hope of delivering them to the US. None of their aircraft or missiles can do it.


One nation I think should be on this list, at the top, is Russia. They still have aircraft capable of carrying nukes to the US (actually surviving to get them there might be another matter), a very large ICBM force, and still a quite large SSBN force, including Delta IVs, which are rather quiet, and capable of launching missiles that can hit the US even while sitting at their piers in Russia.

a nuclear war with one of the big 3, it would destroy most US metropolitan areas, which would destroy the US economy.


If there's a nuclear war, there won't be any superpowers. In fact, there probably wouldn't be any countries either. We wouldn't see them again for millenia, possibly never...

BAI-tuo, AN-jing-eedyen! Dong le ma?

China will not start any wars. The US has had carriers for years and not used them for total world domination. guided missiles are better than planes anyhow. A plane needs to come back in one piece. A guided missile just needs to get to the target.

dp

BAI-tuo, AN-jing-eedyen! Dong le ma?

China will not start any wars. The US has had carriers for years and not used them for total world domination. guided missiles are better than planes anyhow. A plane needs to come back in one piece. A guided missile just needs to get to the target.

Ah, the old missile/plane debate. It isn't that simple, buddy. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. For example, an aircraft is recallable and retargetable, and for the most part, missiles are neither.

France first, though they might tie with the UK on this, I'm not sure specifically how France and the UK line up. France has nuclear powered ballistic missile subs, as well as (last I checked) both a land based ICBM component and an air based nuclear delivery component (though it is now only in the form of the Mirage 2000N, and probably doesn't have the range to hit the US). France has sought and maintained for decades the ability to have a credibly nuclear response without the need of anyone else chipping in, this was one of de Gaulle's goals, and one of the reasons he snuffed the US so much in the post war era. Given this triad, I'd probably rate them first.

UK second. While they do not have a land or air based nuclear delivery system active, they do have their ballistic missile subs, and damn good ones at that. Quiet and capable boomers, the Vanguards are. Taking out capable boomers is incredibly hard to do in, even in a pre-emptive strike, therefore the UK definitely would have a credible pay back capability.

China would be next. The primary threat is from their ICBM force, though it is currently small in number. I would not count on that always being true, they certainly have the technology for more (look at their Long March space boosters for proof of that), but currently they are low in number, and could quite possibly be taken out in an American pre-emptive strike. I'm not sure what Chinese early warning systems are like to allow a response to an American attack before our warheads hit their launchers, so I may not be giving them enough credit. They currently have the one Xia class SSBN, but it is a development of the Han, if I am not mistaken. That would make it loud as all hell. Probably never leaves port without a Los Angeles tailing it. It also probably never sails within strike range of the US, as it has rather short ranges SLBMs (roughly equivalent to early Polaris missiles, if I am not mistaken). China may be building a second, newer type of SSBN, so where they stack may change in the future.

Next would be Israel, though not much of any actual pay back ability. No aircraft that can reach the US, and no missiles that can reach here either. Those are their two primary means for nuclear delivery. They may have had the time for half decent warhead technology (nothing like the big ones the US and Russia have, but decent compared to India and Pakistan), but they have no way to get it here. There are unconfirmed reports that the Dauphin submarines can launch nukes, but we are talking converted Harpoon missiles or something in that class, not SLBMs, and certainly not anything past 150 miles (actually that is well beyond what they would be capable of), let alone a few thousand. Given that the Dauphins are developments of the German Type 212 (or Type 214, I can never keep those two straight), it is realistically a coastal defense sub, not an open ocean vessel capable of approaching the US coast. Sure, they are quiet, but they just aren't designed for the job.

Last would be India. They have a fairly new nuclear weapons program (well, a restarted one), warheads that are not at all advanced, and zero hope of delivering them to the US. None of their aircraft or missiles can do it.A+


One nation I think should be on this list, at the top, is Russia. They still have aircraft capable of carrying nukes to the US (actually surviving to get them there might be another matter), a very large ICBM force, and still a quite large SSBN force, including Delta IVs, which are rather quiet, and capable of launching missiles that can hit the US even while sitting at their piers in Russia.I did not include Russia.. because it was too easy.
and yes they top France and all the others.

are you studying this at West point or something?

whatever way you got this knowledge.. good job.

Ah, the old missile/plane debate. It isn't that simple, buddy. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. For example, an aircraft is recallable and retargetable, and for the most part, missiles are neither.
Most modern guided missiles come with a kill switch and can be guided to different targets. Large missiles can also be fitted with more missiles and even guns making them drones or missiles busses. There is no real debate anymore, drones are superior to manned craft. Smaller, faster, capable of crazier turns and twists, don't need to return, cheaper, etc.

The best missile/drones have ramjet-fed NERVAs like the Pluto Project SLAM. That was a wicked beast.

.. drones are superior to manned craft. Smaller, faster, capable of crazier turns and twists, don't need to return, cheaper, etc.I agree.

US won't lose superpower status for a loooooooooooooong time.

Maybe sole superpower, but thats if China becomes a superpower, which they are still not.

Lol, it seems this conservative is angry because China is coming up. Remember also that the US owes China a trillion dollars, without cheap imports to keep inflation down- the US economy would collapse.

Most modern guided missiles come with a kill switch and can be guided to different targets. Large missiles can also be fitted with more missiles and even guns making them drones or missiles busses. There is no real debate anymore, drones are superior to manned craft. Smaller, faster, capable of crazier turns and twists, don't need to return, cheaper, etc.

The best missile/drones have ramjet-fed NERVAs like the Pluto Project SLAM. That was a wicked beast.

Oh dear god, bring in the arm chair weaponologist with the claimed solution to 50 some odd years of debate.

Not even the people involved think that the debate is over, most definitely not drones. Dear god. For one thing, remote controlled drones can be jammed, same with those missiles you are trying to re-target or kill. Worse with the drones, since if you jam them they stop functioning. The very small number of autonomous drones, like Global Hawk, aren't suitable for combat roles. They are recon. I'd like to see a Global Hawk get into a dogfight with a MiG-17, let alone an Su-27. You need a manned fighter for that. No one has developed an AI capable of handling the demands of a dogfight, particularly reliable enough IFF and ability to out think an actual fighter pilot.

This is merely one example.

I'm not saying aircraft are better in all cases than missiles. Of course they aren't. I'm saying that they each have their strengths, and their weaknesses, and some of them are better at certain roles than others.

oh, big deal, someone who doesn't play in americas pond has a military:eek:

China is no more a threat to world security that America is.

I disagree theyre just living peacefully... I think

Its not a real aircraft carrier.
No threat.

Lol, it seems this conservative is angry because China is coming up.

How do you draw that conclusion? The "conservative" even allows in his statement for China to become a superpower. If he was "angry" about it, he wouldn't allow it in his assessment.

Its not a real aircraft carrier.
No threat.

How is "real aircraft carrier" defined?

P.S. Your the same Phoenix I know on DeviantART, right?

Lol, it seems this conservative is angry because China is coming up. Remember also that the US owes China a trillion dollars, without cheap imports to keep inflation down- the US economy would collapse.

Which also keeps China from doing something stupid that would get rid of that trillion dollars.

Also, if China looses trade with the US, China dies as well.

How do you draw that conclusion? The "conservative" even allows in his statement for China to become a superpower. If he was "angry" about it, he wouldn't allow it in his assessment.

I'd like it if China were to go democratic and become a superpower.

Would be better for the world if more countries go full democratic.

I'd like it if China were to go democratic and become a superpower.

Would be better for the world if more countries go full democratic.

Yeah, like the US.

The patronage bipartisan system of the US is a mockery of the 'peoples power' real democracy stands for.


Also, if China looses trade with the US, China dies as well.

Not really, they can just send more to European markets, theirs never a lack of demand for deflation in the form of unregulated imports, even if the US is left out, it may hurt China minorly but considering product dependency it would literally kill the US.

Yeah, like the US.

The patronage bipartisan system of the US is a mockery of the 'peoples power' real democracy stands for.

So what? You want a one party system?

No one is forced to be in those two parties. There are multitudes of others, the biggest being the Independent.

Political parties change when viewpoints change, and when people organize based on those viewpoints.

Yeah, like the US.

The patronage bipartisan system of the US is a mockery of the 'peoples power' real democracy stands for.
.

Indeed...we could really use a system closer to Canada's, which is a hell of a lot fairer over all.

Not really, they can just send more to European markets, theirs never a lack of demand for deflation in the form of unregulated imports, even if the US is left out, it may hurt China minorly but considering product dependency it would literally kill the US.

Back that up with sourced numbers showing that China could make up nearly enough by exporting to Europe to make up enough for cutting off the US and only taking a "minor" hit. Hell, show me that there is even a demand high enough in numbers for Chinese products and currency investment in Europe.

So what? You want a one party system?

No one is forced to be in those two parties. There are multitudes of others, the biggest being the Independent.

Political parties change when viewpoints change, and when people organize based on those viewpoints.
Try examining our system...it's set up to work against all of those other parties and Independents and what have you, while only the two parties who have control rule over the country, just exchanging seats occasionally for power and not really doing anything the people really want. We have very few options in this country politically, with two parties that try to say there are only two sides to every issue. I'm sorry, but neither party fits me. The Democrats are far too socially conservative and the Republicans are a wee bit too economically liberal. (I say a wee bit, because I'm definitely not a communist, but nor am I a hard-core capitalist. I'm more a social capitalist.)

Indeed...we could really use a system closer to Canada's, which is a hell of a lot fairer over all.

Why? Because you like the parties more?

Try examining our system...it's set up to work against all of those other parties and Independents and what have you, while only the two parties who have control rule over the country, just exchanging seats occasionally for power and not really doing anything the people really want. We have very few options in this country politically, with two parties that try to say there are only two sides to every issue. I'm sorry, but neither party fits me. The Democrats are far too socially conservative and the Republicans are a wee bit too economically liberal. (I say a wee bit, because I'm definitely not a communist, but nor am I a hard-core capitalist. I'm more a social capitalist.)

Never said you had to fit with either one.

Like I've said, there are multitudes of parties, and no ones stopping you from joining any one of them.

Why? Because you like the parties more?

Because it would be a much fairer representation of the populace. As I said, at the moment everyone is forced into voting for one of two choices if they want their vote to actually count due to the way the system is set up. Two massive super parties cannot possibly represent three hundred million people adequately. I would say we need a minimum of six major parties to even come close.

Of course, no matter what we go with, I probably wouldn't join a political party. My political ideals tend to be extremely specific and I will not bend on any of the social issues, which is where I would probably have to bend no matter what kind of party I joined.

Never said you had to fit with either one.

Like I've said, there are multitudes of parties, and no ones stopping you from joining any one of them.

Of course nothing is stopping me from joining one, but that is not the issue here. Those parties do not stand a chance of being elected due to the way the system in the United States is set up. It's deliberately designed around keeping only two massive superparties in power, with all others be damned.

Hopefully the Chinese will take a good long time and come up with a workable form of government for such a huge country. A constitutional convention, but really well thought out over a period of years.

The last thing they should do is mimic the US. That isn't working in Russia (particularly the power of the President,) probably can't work in any country with the population of any of the biggest countries nowdays.

They probably won't though. Huge tradition of imperial rule, power emanating from the capital. Do federations ever happen in reverse? Like, devolving power to States that weren't there first?

Would i give for britain to have a carrier like that.
Good for the Chinese. They've taken a near worthless piece of junk and turned it into a mean, lean, air striking machine.

I didn't know that it's nearly operational though.
But for those panicking Yanks out there, I give you this to calm you down:
-Even with the Varyag operational, the PLAN lacks an effective surface escort force to stop a well coordinated air attack from an enemy like the US.

-The charles de Gaul was built by a country with years of experience with carrier building, but the reactor was faulty, the flight deck partially inadequate and the propellors fell off.

-The Chinese pilots have been practicing carrier take offs and landings, but they lack experience

-The Chinese have to develop a fire/damage control system for a completely new ship that is of foreign design and probably a little unsettled with.

The odds appear to be against the Chinese at the moment.
(Correct me if I'm wrong on any of those points)

In other news: China's trade surplus dramatically decreased this year, backed by large purchases of canvas and green/olive paint.

Jungle camo on water!?!?

Given that the Dauphins are developments of the German Type 212 (or Type 214, I can never keep those two straight), it is realistically a coastal defense sub, not an open ocean vessel capable of approaching the US coast. Sure, they are quiet, but they just aren't designed for the job.
The 212 are the ones used in the German Navy right now, while the 214 is the export version, which has gone to Greece, South Korea and Pakistan. The Israeli version is a heavily modified 209 though, but I think they're scheduled to be upgraded to the fuel cell technology as well.

The 212 has hydrogen fuel cells for propulsion and a non-magnetic hull, the 214 uses normal diesel-electric propulsion and a normal hull.

But otherwise you're right. They're not big enough to carry decent-range missiles and they wouldn't have the capability of crossing the Atlantic (though I think a 212 recently got some sort of record for a non-nuclear sub by going the entire distance from Gibraltar to Kiel submerged).

One nation I think should be on this list, at the top, is Russia. They still have aircraft capable of carrying nukes to the US (actually surviving to get them there might be another matter), a very large ICBM force, and still a quite large SSBN force, including Delta IVs, which are rather quiet, and capable of launching missiles that can hit the US even while sitting at their piers in Russia.

Pretty much. Post Soviet Russia more or less dumped every spare ruble into their strategic missile forces and are only now shifting funding into other branches of the military.

Jungle camo on water!?!?

Beijing, not the Varyag.

The 212 are the ones used in the German Navy right now, while the 214 is the export version, which has gone to Greece, South Korea and Pakistan. The Israeli version is a heavily modified 209 though, but I think they're scheduled to be upgraded to the fuel cell technology as well.

The 212 has hydrogen fuel cells for propulsion and a non-magnetic hull, the 214 uses normal diesel-electric propulsion and a normal hull.

But otherwise you're right. They're not big enough to carry decent-range missiles and they wouldn't have the capability of crossing the Atlantic (though I think a 212 recently got some sort of record for a non-nuclear sub by going the entire distance from Gibraltar to Kiel submerged).

I knew one of them had that fancy new fuel cell AIP. I always get the German U-boat types confused. Why can't they give them actual names instead of numbers.

Then again, I never have trouble remembering aircraft designations or armored vehicle designations by number alone. Post nuclear diesel subs have just never held as much interest to me, I guess, at least not in the same "I must memorize everything I can about each specific type" that I do with lots of other hardware out there.

Thanks for setting me straight.

I took a quick look at Wikipedia, and it says that the Type 209 (and presumedly the Israeli Dolphin (not Dauphin, like I typed before, like I said, diesel boats are not my expertise)) can make 10,000 nm surfaced (only 400 submerged). Do you know if that is a realistic capability for straight runs? The hull form wouldn't seem to be of a design meant for long range travel on the surface with any great stability, unlike the WW2 U-boats (or even the Skate SSNs).

When it comes to any hardware specs for military or civilian stuff alike, I tend to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. I find many of the numbers or even supposed capabilities listed in their articles filled with rumor information, unsourced info, or downright falsehoods placed by people who don't know what they are talking about but decide they have a boner for some aircraft. Sad really, since I find in many other areas Wikipedia to be quite good.

How is "real aircraft carrier" defined?

P.S. Your the same Phoenix I know on DeviantART, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_type
CATOBAR = real

yes

Not really, they can just send more to European markets, theirs never a lack of demand for deflation in the form of unregulated imports, even if the US is left out, it may hurt China minorly but considering product dependency it would literally kill the US.

Prove it. Prove that the Chinese economy is robust enough to survive without the demand for their products that originates in the US.

It's gonna be a toughie, dearie.

Not really, they can just send more to European markets, theirs never a lack of demand for deflation in the form of unregulated imports, even if the US is left out, it may hurt China minorly but considering product dependency it would literally kill the US.

I see your gross ignorance of military affairs extends to economics as well.

The US can simply cancel the debt with the PRC anytime it wants. Granted this will have extreme negative consequences, the US would survive, the PRC however would not. The PRC economy is completely dependent on US purchases of consumer goods for hard curreny reserves, the same reserves they need to buy fancy new Russian weapons for their military. If you think Europe will just magically absorb all that slack with its protectionist trade policies and existing market structures you are a fooling yourself. Given that a couple hundred million Chinese are employed manufacturing consumer goods for the US, the PRC economy would implode if that many people were suddenly out of work. In the US the economy would certainly suffer as their was mass shortages of consumers goods but eventually you would see an expansion of US the manufacturing base (with higher costs though) and greater investment in new plants in places like India and Indonesia.

In the long run the US survives a rather nasty recession while the PRC self destructs.

Did you know that China has a fully functional aircraft carrier to project itself anywhere in the world?

And America has like thirty. So what?

And America has like thirty. So what?

Not quite, if I'm not mistaken, which I could well be. We have nine Nimitz-class carriers at sea and one nearly completed, and a few older, but still capable oil-fueled carriers, such as USS Kitty Hawk.

In addition, a new class, yet to be named, is already being planned to replace the Nimitz ships. There are twelve in the projected building plans for that class. That class, and the Nimitz class they are to replace, have an average lifespan of fifty years on each ship, and all ships of both classes will likely serve more due to good maintenance.


~ Romandeos.

Everybody forgets that China is the political inverse of USA. USA grants world benchmark rights to it's own citizen, and fucks on everybody else. China offers world benchmark business to the world, and fucks on it's own citizens.

The only people that have to worry about that aircraft carrier are chinese citizens (or contested ones: see taiwan).

And America has like thirty. So what?

The US has twelve.

China has one, and it has no aircraft and doesn't even work anyway.

So you're absolutely correct, this is a complete nonissue.

Not quite, if I'm not mistaken, which I could well be. We have nine Nimitz-class carriers at sea and one nearly completed, and a few older, but still capable oil-fueled carriers, such as USS Kitty Hawk.
Speaking of which, the USS Kitty Hawk is currently parked out the front of my apartment.

Did you know that China has a fully functional aircraft carrier to project itself anywhere in the world?

Actually, they don't. Your source for claiming that even says they don't.

It is expected that the ship would be operational by 2007/08.

Furthermore, your source also points out the PLAN doesan't have carrier capable aircraft yet either.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/aircraft_carrier.asp

Left in for ease in veryfing the above.

No, they don't. Sinodefence is an uber nationalist type and even that says

Indeed, indeed.

Isn't the Varyag nothing more than a rusting hulk stuck in the middle of a bizarre military amuesment park?

Nope. The military is doing something with it that isn't exactly clear. However, it appears they're either using it as a testbed for a future carrier or planning to use it for the olympics.

The US has twelve.

Wait. We have twelve and we still named one after Reagan? I thought they must have been running our of names or something.

I took a quick look at Wikipedia, and it says that the Type 209 (and presumedly the Israeli Dolphin (not Dauphin, like I typed before, like I said, diesel boats are not my expertise)) can make 10,000 nm surfaced (only 400 submerged). Do you know if that is a realistic capability for straight runs? The hull form wouldn't seem to be of a design meant for long range travel on the surface with any great stability, unlike the WW2 U-boats (or even the Skate SSNs).
Well, they were originally designed for the Baltic, though since they've found lots of customers all over the world I suppose they've got to be good for something beyond stopping the odd Soviet landing in northern Germany or Denmark.

The 11,000 miles was given by GlobalDefence.net (http://www.globaldefence.net/waffensysteme/seesysteme/u_209/1400_mod___neue_u_boote_fuer_die_suedafrikanische_marine_43_29_2.html) (which in turn got it from a German Navy Magazine (http://www.marineforum.info/)) as the maximum range of the latest 209 version which went to South Africa. It also says there that it can stay at sea for 50 days.

I'm hardly an expert on these things, but it seems possible.

Wait. We have twelve and we still named one after Reagan? I thought they must have been running our of names or something.

Well, the new class the navy is building, EVERY single carrier should be called George W. Bush.... now thats living.

The US has twelve.

China has one, and it has no aircraft and doesn't even work anyway.

So you're absolutely correct, this is a complete nonissue.true, the entire OP is a non issue

exept for the title: China is rising. Nothing to do with Carriers.
If the Chinese Gov invested in Carriers.. they would prove they are stupid.. but they are not.

*hint*I am going to be impressed if the type 94s are as stealthy as projected.

I know.. I know.. they are not Ohio class or Triumphant class.. but still.

Chinese Carriers? they are nothing to worry about, we own the Air and the Seas.

Beijing, not the Varyag.

Ah.

The US has twelve.

China has one, and it has no aircraft and doesn't even work anyway.

So you're absolutely correct, this is a complete nonissue.

I thought the U.S had another dozen in reserve/mothballed...

Also China has enough control to survive losing their biggest export market, as do many nations.

Did you know that China has a fully functional aircraft carrier to project itself anywhere in the world?

They're only a 100 years behind our naval technology! FLEEEE!!!

They're only a 100 years behind our naval technology! FLEEEE!!!

It used to be two 100s years! [/Making fun of your grammar]

It used to be two 100s years! [/Making fun of your grammar]

I originally put 'a century' and then forgot to take the 'a' out. >.<

China's navy is a joke, and I think they like it that way. It's their army we have to be worried about. 2.4 million professionals, and in an emergency, it can get much, much bigger.

China's navy is a joke, and I think they like it that way. It's their army we have to be worried about. 2.4 million professionals, and in an emergency, it can get much, much bigger.

A land war with China = suicide.

The US + Allies would mostly just do air strikes.

A land war with China = suicide.

The US + Allies would mostly just do air strikes.
Yeah, but I doubt that will happen. China's our friend, whether we want her to be or not.

Yeah, but I doubt that will happen. China's our friend, whether we want her to be or not.

There was another thread about possible conditions for the Sino-American War to break out, but all in all... More likely Russian Empire (2020?) vs US

There was another thread about possible conditions for the Sino-American War to break out, but all in all... More likely Russian Empire (2020?) vs US

They're more likely. The country is fraying as it is, and my bet is that, one day, Russia (or what's left of it then) will become a fascist or neo-Stalinist state. The rest will turn into a terrorist's playground. We'll never hear the end of that country.

Hopefully China attacks us than we would have a reason to forfeit on the trillions of dollars in loans we owe them.

China's navy is a joke, and I think they like it that way. It's their army we have to be worried about. 2.4 million professionals, and in an emergency, it can get much, much bigger.

Yet the army, in general, has low quality weapons. That is whythey are planning to slightly decrease the standing army (I think it was to 2 million) and give much better equipment.

Hopefully China attacks us than we would have a reason to forfeit on the trillions of dollars in loans we owe them.

We won't pay them back anyway. That's why we started the revolution, to stop from paying taxes, and loans to people back in Britain.

Do they use paper lanterns for their runways?

They're more likely. The country is fraying as it is, and my bet is that, one day, Russia (or what's left of it then) will become a fascist or neo-Stalinist state. The rest will turn into a terrorist's playground. We'll never hear the end of that country.

*Idea*

Hmm... If that happened, a lot of Siberia might become independent of Russian control. And then we'd have China coming in, so the US would have to have a front there too.

(Why? Well, for the oil and other resources, of course)

The US can simply cancel the debt with the PRC anytime it wants. Granted this will have extreme negative consequences, the US would survive, the PRC however would not.

And who, exactly, would ever trade with the US again, knowing that anytime they wrack up a big debt, they wouldn't pay? I hope they like living without oil and rubber.

Technically, if China marched one soldier into the sea every few seconds they could march across a human bridge to Taiwan. Most likely they'd have some discipline issues carrying it out, but that's the only way they have of retaking Taiwan at the moment.

They also have some hella big hovercraft troop carriers. They're too big to launch from assault ships like the ones the US have, but they have just enough range to go across the channel and land in Taiwan.

Taiwan buy lots and lots of jets and ships from the West, to augment their own ships, but China is also making huge increases in its military spending. It makes the potential for hostilities between India and Pakistan look like a push you shove me fight. Currently the crisis between Taiwan and China has been a boon to the US, for offloading last generation navy ships, to make room for newer vessels.

And who, exactly, would ever trade with the US again, knowing that anytime they wrack up a big debt, they wouldn't pay? I hope they like living without oil and rubber.

They have enough oil and extractable oil to run for a good couple of decades (even if it would be expensive). It is the high tech european commodities, semi-processed materials and millitary information/bases (such as spy/communication systems) that they would lose out on.

They would also not be able to subsidise a fair amount of defence and economy (due to no one buying their systems/products) as well as pushing neutral countries to other power blocs.