Chinadaily BBS - China Today - China is in urgent need of aircraft carriers

Guest: Login | Register | Search | FAQ

Chinadaily BBS » News Talk» China Today» China is in urgent need of aircraft carriers

Last Thread

Next Thread

myfriend
Junior Member
Rank: 3

UID 56025
Digest Posts 0
Credits 1266
Posts 1148
Registered 2005-2-14
Status Offline

China is in urgent need of aircraft carriers

China is in urgent need of aircraft carriers

I believe that China is in urgent need of aircraft carriers to strengthen its navy and to discourage Washington from interfering in the Taiwan Strait in order to split up China.  I refute the foolish arguments that aircraft carriers are no useful for China now.  Below are my rebuttals to the false arguments.

Argument #1:  “Aircraft carriers are too costly for China.”

China’s economy is bigger than many countries that already possess aircraft carriers, such as India, Thailand, Britain, France and others.  China can afford to build and sustain a number of aircraft carriers.  It is forecasted that by 2030 at the latest, China’s economy would surpass the U.S.A. that now has 12 aircraft carriers. China can afford to sustain several aircraft carriers now, and more in the future.

Argument #2:  “China may scare neighboring countries by developing aircraft carriers.”

The possession of aircraft carriers is the norm for major countries in the world, and they include not only the United States but also India, Russia, France, Britain and others. China is a major country and the most populous country; there is no reason why China should become the exception to the norm.  A country of the size of China should be expected to have a navy with several aircraft carriers.

Building and sustaining a number of aircraft carriers does not mean China is entering an arms race with Washington that has 12 aircraft carriers.  Unlike Washington, China is not in the business of global hegemony.  For China the need for aircraft carriers is to defend itself from the marauding hostile aircraft carriers rather than the desire to attack another continent.

Argument #3:  “China does not need aircraft carriers.”

China has a long coastline and thousand of islands.  How does China protect its vast oceanic interests? Aircraft carriers offer China the ability to extend protection of its inland and coastal areas from missile attacks by marauding enemy warships and airplanes.  In the past, the weak Chinese navy was unable to adequately protect China’s coastline from approaching enemy warships.  Aircraft carriers can add several hundred kilometers of protection for China’s coastal areas.  Aircraft carriers also can help China protect its shipping lanes that are crucial to China’s economy.  Aircraft carriers can give China’s navy the additional strength to counter attacking enemy navies, especially those that have aircraft carriers.

Argument #4:  “Aircraft carriers are not effective to defend themselves.”

Aircraft carriers may subject themselves to massive missile attacks when they come too close to land based missile installations.  However, aircraft carriers can deter enemy aircraft carriers from coming too close to China’s coasts.

Many countries suffered from war damages during the previous world wars.  The United States was fortunately shielded from war damages owing to its geographical separation away from Asia and Europe, and also because it had aircraft carriers to protect its continental homeland from attacks.

To rebuild the economy and infrastructures from war damage is extraordinarily costly.  If China is damaged by war again, the damages can cost trillions of dollars and decades to rebuild.  The wisdom for China is to build up its navy with plenty of aircraft carriers that can defend China a thousand or more kilometers away from China’s coasts, and thus shield China’s prosperous coastal areas from war damages.

When and if China has aircraft carriers, China can counter-attack the homeland of any country that dares to attack China first.  This is a very effective deterrent to China’s potential enemies.

Perhaps if China had six or more aircraft carriers in China’s navy, no other country would dare to think of coming close to China’s shores, not to mention interfering in China’s internal affairs.

Perhaps China should develop three aircraft carriers by year 2010, and then build an additional carrier each year, thus by 2030 China would have more than 20 carriers.  A navy admiral in China’s navy in the early 1900’s was said to have envisioned a strong Chinese navy with 20 aircraft carriers.  If China had 20 aircraft carriers, the Japanese invasion of China during World War II would have been difficult or impossible.

With 20 aircraft carriers, who in the world would dare to even think of invading China?

2007-4-15 08:32 AM

tekvicious (Hybrid Theory)
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 26572
Digest Posts 0
Credits 3577
Posts 3146
Registered 2004-4-10
Location East Shangbang
Status Offline

How wide is the strait? Not enough to warrant a carrier.
A carrier is needed to project power, not something that China claims that it would find useful...you know...what with the peace-loving nature of China and all.
Transparent ambition. Just admit that you want to be able to project power into others business as the US does. This is acceptable, but talking about carriers to defend?hahaha...

2007-4-15 10:01 PM

tsheyu
Newcomer
Rank: 1

UID 130400
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7
Posts 7
Registered 2007-3-21
Status Offline

20 is too much, even US don't have that many, how can China still a developing country to construct and maintain them? We need aircraft carriers not using them as an attack weapon, but as deterrent to ensure our country's reunification and keep it away from war.

2007-4-15 10:07 PM

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

QUOTE:

Originally posted by tsheyu at 2007-4-15 22:07
20 is too much, even US don't have that many, how can China still a developing country to construct and maintain them? We need aircraft carriers not using them as an attack weapon, but as deterren ...

With over a billion people I am sure that we can maintain and operate them.

We should be constructing military technology that others should be following. It is not beyond our people who with over 5000 years of civilization was always at the forefront in science and technology (except for the last 200 years).

BTW Aircraft carriers will act as a deterrent to anyone the want to start any of their nonsense. They can also be a first line of defense.

[ Last edited by changabula at 2007-4-16 03:53 AM ]

2007-4-16 03:50 AM

mengzhi (mengzhi)
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 44054
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7807
Posts 7670
Registered 2004-11-6
Status Offline

Sailing with dinosaurs.

China needs aircraft carriers like she needs a hole in the head. These dinosaurs of the wars of yesteryears are lumbering giants which have long outlived its usefulness. It is a musuem piece which serves the function of symbolism and self gratification.

For the same outlay , one can invest on a number of alternatives like missiles and high tech communication systems. China is the biggest aircraft carrier platform herself ; unsinkable and unrivaled as a power projection platform. More missiles to keep the neanderthals away.

2007-4-16 04:59 AM

wowzers (Andrew)
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 29369
Digest Posts 0
Credits 4684
Posts 4363
Registered 2004-5-22
Location Guangzhou
Status Offline

mengzhi, tek and tsheyu

Thanks for adding some much needed sense to this thread.

It started as ridiculous, moved to the ludicrous and finally ended as lunacy.

2007-4-16 05:49 AM

irishinuk
Junior Member
Rank: 3

UID 128959
Digest Posts 0
Credits 622
Posts 535
Registered 2007-3-9
Location United Kingdom
Status Offline

Changabula

Criticism, however sharp, of a political system, nation, or culture is not in itself racism. Racism is defined as the belief that a particular race is superior to another. In order to convincingly accuse others of racism, you must provide evidence that the person accused believes in the biological superiority of their "race" over your own. Currently, the only people who have openly expressed racist statements, i.e. statements openly stating or at least strongly suggesting a biological basis for percieved superiority are you and Mengzhi, who only too often use terms like "neanderthal" and brand all white women as "ugly".

I would be able to respect you if you would refrain from self-righteously accusing others of racism while you revel in your own.

2007-4-16 06:24 AM

wowzers (Andrew)
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 29369
Digest Posts 0
Credits 4684
Posts 4363
Registered 2004-5-22
Location Guangzhou
Status Offline

changabula, what a potty mouth and such hatred.

Obviously you can not prove your claim.
So just why do you make claims you can't support?
It is a pattern with you.

I don't believe you are Chinese.
You are doing a far greater disservice than any of the "China-haters".

And I am certain with you at the helm, China would not only be broke and the laughing stock of the international community but probably far worse.
I am sure we are all glad that cooler heads and far more intelligence is on display in Beijing.

2007-4-16 06:36 AM

matt605
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline

Conventional missile subs too.

Carriers aren't just carriers.  Carriers are carrier groups of dozens of vessels.  Air craft carriers require escort ships to protect them, but they project massive amounts of offensive power through the jets that they can launch.  America's aircraft carriers can sit in the Indian Ocean and destroy steel and concrete structures deep inside Afghanistan.  Of course, the problem isn't the steel and concrete structures.  The problem is the dirt floor shacks.  Still, any country that has stuff made of steel and concrete should fear aircraft carriers.

Conventional submarines that can mimmick the work of jet aircraft with missiles are also very powerful and cost less than aircraft carriers.  Conventional missiles can do the same work as jets with smart bombs, and the subs that carry them can be very stealthy.  So a submarine could surface in the Indian Ocean and deliver dozens of hard-hitting missiles deep into Afghanistan, for example.

Carriers can deliver many thousands of smart bombs, but are very expensive.  Conventional subs are moderately expensive but hit hard too.  Maybe a carrier named the Chaiman Mao for vanity and a lot conventional subs with Silkworm missiles is the right balance.

Political power flows from the barrel of a gun. -- Chairman Mao

[ Last edited by matt605 at 2007-4-16 09:01 AM ]

2007-4-16 06:56 AM

matt605
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline

An aircraft carrier is more than the sum of its jets.

Look at all that hardware. An aircraft carrier group is the ultimate conventional weapon. It can destroy over and over again anything made of steel or concrete. Its jets can also deliver chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

Image Attachment: SHIP_CVN-75_Harry_S_Truman_lg.jpg (2007-4-16 07:11 AM, 137.16 K)

2007-4-16 07:11 AM

#10

matt605
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline

China has an aircraft carrier! Sort of.

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/004302.html

The Chinese military built a life-size, experimental aircraft carrier outside of Shanghai in the 1980s. They built it in a pond. Someday they could build a canal to float the carrier to open sea. Chinese build walls, dams, and canals a lot, historically speaking. Maybe China will build another canal.

Image Attachment: chinese_carrier_inpond.jpg (2007-4-16 09:21 AM, 28.66 K)

2007-4-16 09:21 AM

#11

myfriend
Junior Member
Rank: 3

UID 56025
Digest Posts 0
Credits 1266
Posts 1148
Registered 2005-2-14
Status Offline

"How wide is the strait? Not enough to warrant a carrier."

QUOTE:

Originally posted by tekvicious at 2007-4-15 22:01
How wide is the strait? Not enough to warrant a carrier.
A carrier is needed to project power, not something that China claims that it would find useful...you know...what with the peace-loving nat ...

In 1996 Washington put two carriers 300 miles east of Taiwan, not in the Taiwan Strait. Do you understand why?

2007-4-16 09:38 AM

#12

matt605
Senior Member
Rank: 4

UID 30468
Digest Posts 0
Credits 2226
Posts 2185
Registered 2004-6-5
Status Offline

Here is an interesting article.

The paragraphs below are from this link:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/ar ... /ai_113755343/print

The article is a little bit dated, but not too much.

"China has been interested in the concept of aircraft carriers since the early 1980s, when Admiral Liu Huaqing advocated the acquisition of such vessels as part of his blue-water navy aspirations. With the retirement of Liu in 1997, however, the aircraft carrier lost its champion in the Chinese navy. At the same time, the need to control the South China Sea as a strategic priority was downgraded as reunification with Taiwan hurtled to the top of Beijing's agenda. In that context, given the relative closeness of Taiwan and improvements in the capabilities of the Chinese air force and missile arsenal, aircraft carriers are not now considered vital. Moreover, the costs associated with building and operating aircraft carriers, the technical difficulties involved, and the likely adverse reaction of neighboring countries all argue against a Chinese carrier battle group for the moment.

"However, the PLAN has not abandoned the idea altogether--merely shelved it. The Chinese navy is determined to fulfill its blue-water ambitions, even if it takes a generation or more. Moreover, public support for the acquisition of an aircraft carrier seems high. Following the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by NATO warplanes on 8 May 1999, a campaign was initiated on Chinese Internet sites to raise funds to build a carrier. Provincial newspapers across the country took up the cause; within a month eleven million yuan had been. (46) Aircraft carriers perceived as potent symbols of the national power around the world, and China is no different. The memory of the "Century of Humiliation" (1842-1949), when European countries, Russia, and Japan forced a weakened China to grant territorial concessions and then divided the country into competing spheres of influence, still has a deep resonance among the Chinese people. The Chinese see a powerful navy, capable of projecting power into the world's oceans, as an important tool to prevent China from being "bullied" again by outside powers."

2007-4-16 09:48 AM

#13

greendragon
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 53124
Digest Posts 0
Credits 15661
Posts 15207
Registered 2005-1-13
Status Offline

Reply #12 myfriend's post

China has 3 aircraft carriers "mothballed".....

and they have bought "engines" that can power planes on the carrier.

Green Dragon

2007-4-16 01:46 PM

#14

mengzhi (mengzhi)
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 44054
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7807
Posts 7670
Registered 2004-11-6
Status Offline

Fred.

Paddy my drinking mate,

I have used " neanderthal " on opinions expressed. They are stone age contributions, archaic and antiquated. It has nothing to do with racism, it has all to do with evolution of the brain. I have never described white women ( or any other women ) as " ugly ". Do you have memory lapses or are you just .....Flint Stone-ish ?

2007-4-16 02:55 PM

#15

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

QUOTE:

Originally posted by mengzhi at 2007-4-16 14:55
I have used " neanderthal " on opinions expressed. They are stone age contributions, archaic and antiquated. It has nothing to do with racism, it has all to do with evolution of the brain. I have never described white women ( or any other women ) as " ugly ". Do you have memory lapses or are you just .....Flint Stone-ish ?

I echo those thoughts exactly! That guy mentioned my name as part of his racist slander in an effort to stop us talking about the need for aircraft carriers!

[ Last edited by changabula at 2007-4-16 03:58 PM ]

2007-4-16 03:57 PM

#16

admchengho (Taiko)
Junior Member
Rank: 3

UID 44283
Digest Posts 1
Credits 775
Posts 758
Registered 2004-11-8
Location Xinshan, M'sia
Status Offline

My dear friend,

Even without aircraft carriers, nobody in the world dares to attack China.

Aircraft carriers are mainly meant for 'offensive'. What purpose it serves when China doesn't have such intention at all? Might as well focus on combating rogue elements WITHIN the country.

I may agree with 2 aircraft carriers though. 20 is too much!

IMO, it would be better than the motherland focus on flying into the outer space and never be distracted from this plan. It's pointless to fight the enemies who only dares to 'provoke' than attack.

2007-4-16 03:58 PM

#17

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

QUOTE:

Originally posted by admchengho at 2007-4-16 15:58
Aircraft carriers are mainly meant for 'offensive'. What purpose it serves when China doesn't have such intention at all? Might as well focus on combating rogue elements WITHIN the country.

I don't agree! They will make the best patrol "boats" for our seas. Whilst they are there then there are unlikely to be anyone silly enough to "accidentally" stray into our waters on the pretext of spying.

Remember the American spy plane incident?

2007-4-16 04:03 PM

#18

desperado123
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 126895
Digest Posts 0
Credits 453
Posts 443
Registered 2007-2-13
Status Offline

QUOTE:

Originally posted by irishinuk at 2007-4-16 06:24
Criticism, however sharp, of a political system, nation, or culture is not in itself racism. Racism is defined as the belief that a particular race is superior to another. In order to convin ...

i respect you for the way you take part in the discussion . but i do think we should own our aircrafts carriers to not be blackmailed by U.S.

[ Last edited by desperado123 at 2007-4-16 04:14 PM ]

2007-4-16 04:10 PM

#19

changabula
Super Member
Rank: 6

UID 122842
Digest Posts 0
Credits 7261
Posts 7128
Registered 2007-1-6
Location Milky Way, Universe
Status Offline

OK I am in a good mood today so I will be kind to all the racists and foreigners that want to reduce China's influence and stature.

Draw your own conclusions to the following choices:

Racists and anti-China foreigners = do not produce any more military technology inc. aircraft carriers, ...
Patriots = do arm ourselves to the teeth with everything going
Other well meaning people = think carefully about it.

Guess who fall into the first category?

[ Last edited by changabula at 2007-4-16 06:36 PM ]

2007-4-16 06:35 PM

#20

Printable Version | Email to Friend | Subscription | Favorites


Forum Rules	Feedback	Privacy