

China Builds Its First Aircraft Carrier - brudgers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13693495

======
latch
There's some stuff that this article ought to have covered:

-The ship was bought, relatively cheaply ($20million USD), from Ukraine, 60% completed.

-At the time of purchase, the ship had no engines. To the best of my knowledge, we don't know what types of engines China put into it, but it was never designed to be driven by nuclear reactors. This is a huge gap in comparing capabilities (since US carriers use nuclear reactors(and they may be the only ones, though don't quote me on that)).

-Construction began in 1985.

-In 2015, the USS Gerald R. Ford is expected to enter service. This is a new class of carrier (the Gerald R. Ford class) which will slowly take over the Nimitz class. One way to look at this is that the US is a generation ahead. If you are going to compare a yet-operational ship, it wouldn't be a horrible idea to compare it to another yet-optional ship,

Finally, as others have mentioned, carriers are only good at projecting power
against inferior forces. They represent a target of opportunity otherwise.
They can be destroyed for a fraction of the cost it takes to build them.
Russia's approach during the cold war was to build supersonic cruise missiles.
Now countries are developing hypersonic cruise missiles.

They certainly serve a purpose, but only to a point. If ever the US has to
leverage all of its 11 carriers at once, than we should all run for the hill
(and the least safe place to be probably is on those carriers).

~~~
brudgers
While I agree with your points, I believe that the reference framework is
incorrectly rooted in the past rather than the future. China does not need to
match the USN carrier for carrier to effectively modify US naval policy in
East Asia.

A relevant analog might be the effectiveness of diesel submarines in local
waters. In anything short of a shooting war with the US, China's carrier will
allow it to project massive influence over critical shipping lanes. If nothing
else, the carrier's presence will create significant planning and tactical
considerations for US forces in the region.

In addition, a Chinese carrier will allow it to project influence in distant
parts of the world where they have moderate national interests. One needs only
look at the impact a single less capable carrier, _HMS Invincible_ with an
undergunned air wing was capable of achieving in the Falklands/Malvinas
conflict.

------
jtchang
There are 2 types of naval vessels: submarines and targets.

~~~
brudgers
China has been working on the former, as well.

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_class_submarine#Possible_i...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_class_submarine#Possible_incidents)]

------
chrismetcalf
Nowhere in the article does it seem to be mentioned where they actually got
the carrier that's pictured in the article.

The Varyag is an abandoned Russian carrier that was transferred to the
Ukrainians after the breakup of the USSR, and finally bought at auction by the
Chinese after almost becoming a floating casino.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag>

She's hardly a homebuilt Chinese carrier.

------
palish
How would you defend a carrier from missiles?

For example, this _one_ carrier took years to build. Could it not be sunk
simply by swarming it with ICBMs?

How many of those missiles do we have? How quickly could we produce them?

How would _you_ defend a carrier from missiles? Any new ideas?

(I realize the carrier is likely a political statement, not a practical asset.
I'm just wondering about the answers to my silly questions. Bored and
daydreaming.)

~~~
Jd
I'm pretty sure you are basically right. An aircraft carrier is more a
floating base that allows you to project power in a part of the globe that you
would not otherwise have access to. Presumably you are projecting power
against a power that does not have the military capability to sink your
aircraft carrier at a distance (e.g. Libya, Iraq, Iran). China could, for
instance, use the aircraft carrier to help its interests in Africa, just as
the US has been doing (in the eyes of some skeptics) in the Middle East.

Another related fact is that military build-ups are very fuzzy these days
given the amorphous nature of modern warfare. Sponsorship of private corporate
armies in contested countries (a la cold war) is more likely than open
conflict, because no one wants to risk destablizing everything (and if one
were to go that way, nuclear weapons would suddenly be on the table). If a
country and associated military can provide some logistical support without
overt action, they can maintain plausible deniability (the sort of thing we
are doing in Libya, for example, or our highly successful Bay of Pigs
operation).

~~~
palish
Ah, yes, you're correct.

Also, "(and if one were to go that way, nuclear weapons would suddenly be on
the table)." --- Do we have any practical defense against nukes?

I guess the answer is no. I was just reading The War Nerd (link posted further
down by Bokonist). In the article, the US Naval Institute says "Ships
currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack." Since ships are
essentially floating cities, that implies that cities have no defense against
a ballistic missile attack. Therefore, neither side would use nuclear weapons.

~~~
icarus_drowning
Ballistic missiles v. Aircraft Carriers seems like overkill, especially when
it is fairly trivial to outfit submarines with nuclear torpedos (I can't find
any that are listed as active in the U.S. arsenal, but we've had them before:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_45_torpedo> ).

EDIT: What was I thinking? A nuclear-tipped cruise missile is even better.

~~~
Jd
I believe there are two basic parameters here: (1) range (2) expense. The
basic principles (as est. in Taiwan related war games, as in other places) is
that if you send enough missiles (e.g. spamming) no matter how good your
missile defense system is, some will get through. Which is to say, when it
comes to missiles defense has not kept up with offense and "mutually assured
destruction" remains a policy even with relatively incapable nuclear powers.

There are a variety of missiles which could potentially sink an aircraft
carrier. ICBM has the longest range with the largest expense. Torpedoes (not
really a missile) have a much shorter range so presumably the old principle
applies -- if you can keep subs at a distance your carrier will be safe.

In other words, what you want to hit a carrier is the cheapest missiles where
the launching platform (which could be a sub) are outside the range of the
enemy, to present the largest quantity of missiles in order to overwhelm the
defenses of the carrier.

ICBMs are most likely not the best way to do this, given their expense, but
are worth bringing up since the basic principle is the same as in the cold war
(shoot lots of ICBMS at a city/country to assure that some will get through).

Also, I believe whether or not any of the armaments are nuclear is fairly
irrelevant since a non-nuclear missile (or two or three) can sink a carrier
easily enough. That said, sooner or later someone (e.g. N. Korea) will use a
nuke, and then all bets are off.

------
pepsi_can
Is it possible that US doesn't have as great of a manufacturing indusrty as
China, thus in a war between the US and China, the US would be at a
disadvantage in the long term in terms of the sheer number of aircraft, tanks
and war ships produced? Similar to the Japaneese during WWII.

~~~
bilbo0s
Don't worry about the disadvantage in manpower and industrial capacity,
military technology has advanced a great deal since WWII.

I'm sure the majority of military planners are bright enough to have a nagging
suspicion, somewhere in the back of their heads, that an open war between
China and the US would be over in a matter of hours.

~~~
imack
An open war between China and the US would not happen. Killing your customers
is exceedingly bad for business.

~~~
neworbit
Given the prospect of it going nuclear, I vote "killing half the planet is
exceedingly bad for business as well"

------
zoowar
Brazil has an aircraft carrier?

~~~
martey
They bought it from the French:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_aircraft_carrier_S%C3...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_aircraft_carrier_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_\(A12\))

------
protomyth
What really bugs me about this article is that we get no sense of what ships
and technologies China has built to protect this ship. A aircraft carrier
without protection and a fleet train is a status symbol.

