via Herald Sun
Chinese website qianzhan.com cites "top People's Liberation Army" sources as saying the 110,000-ton aircraft carrier should be launched by 2020.I don't know who's in charge of Chinese propaganda but they're good. Just a few days ago a story came out about how they were railing against the Japanese defense buildup and now we hear about this.
"By that time, China will be able to confront the most advanced US carrier-based fighter jets in high sea," the Chinese-language article reads.
The news follows rising tensions in the South and East China Seas where the most recent incident involved a near-collision with a US cruiser shadowing China's first aircraft carrier, the refurbished Liaoning which was purchased from Ukraine.
But this isn't the first time we've heard that the Chinese are interested in building a super carrier to rival US ships. Its a recurring theme...at least since I've started paying attention to them. The arms race in the Pacific is now starting to catch the attention of the mainstream media, even as we continue to gut our own forces. If the Chinese are bold, they can wait another two years and strike the last year of this Presidents term and reacquire Taiwan and steal the disputed islands.
The US military will be too weak to stop them (especially if we continue to bleed ourselves in Africa and the Middle East), our allies won't be strong enough by that time to stop them and the world will be ready to just let it be.
I'll never bet against the US and our allies but the Chinese...especially if they can maintain this momentum, are assembling a winning hand.
The US and China are on a collision course and all the mil-to-mil happenings can't affect it. The US wants to control 'the global commons' i.e. all the world's oceans and seas while China wants to control its 'near abroad.'
ReplyDeleteThe US primarily comes from the Navy, inspired by Alfred Thayer Mahan
wiki--Mahan used history as a stock of lessons to be learned—or more exactly, as a pool of examples that exemplified his theories. Mahan believed that national greatness was inextricably associated with the sea, with its commercial usage in peace and its control in war. His goal was to discover the laws of history that determined who controlled the seas. His theoretical framework came from Jomini, with an emphasis on strategic locations (such as chokepoints, canals, and coaling stations), as well as quantifiable levels of fighting power in a fleet. The primary mission of a navy was to secure the command of the sea. . . . His ideas still permeate the U.S. Navy Doctrine.
The PLA really does have an nationalist media behind them. There are loads of statements just like that in their media. They are not a free country and it makes them dangerous. What they lack is the actual ability to do what they claim to their people. If they are bold...it will be their end.
ReplyDeleteI've had a look at our allies and us put together and we have them outnumbered in the region, let alone all the retaliatory capabilities we can pool from other places. And that doesn't take into account the a few other very real numbers.
We might be having a budget cut or whatever but its really not as deep as we moan on about. When they talk about 50 billion dollar shortfalls it actually equates to a 10% shortfall on the current way of doing things. We could have a military drastically more powerful than the one we have on the same amount of money by building hardened military infrastructure, more resilient electronic networks, nuclear weapons, and focusing conventional forces training for high threat environment conflict.
The question isn't whether we can defeat them or not. The question is if we can get the civilian side of the government to support our forces strongly enough in military strength and foreign policy so we don't have to.
Foreign policy? Hate to say it guys but politics puts the world in these situations. America is several thousand miles from Asia and as long as everything is peachy here we shouldn't care about what happens over there.
Think about it, why should we care? Because we trade with them? Well if it will cause a massive war why the heck would we want to do that. Latin america would make a much better trading partner that wouldn't present that threat.
Yep. All the Chinese have to do is wait for another hard hitting budget cut and or government shutdown. If half of what's left of our future fleet is laid up at the pier or whatever, it won't be good.
ReplyDeleteI would rather us just leave Asia. South Korea and Japan are not poor, they can take care of themselves. If not, they need to start sending us checks. Same thing for Europe.
Taiwan is lost cause, and the current status quo won't hold forever.
Europe is geographically and politically different, PRC and Russia share a border in the pacific, they don't in the atlantic. Our allies are more powerful in the atlantic and they get along better with Russia.
DeleteSouth Korea doesn't have too many problems with PRC, but Taiwan and Japan kind of do, Japan did invade them.
The PRC can not simultaneously project power in the pacific and in Europe even with Russia's help.
I dont think its as much about leaving as it is changing the terminally ill status quo over there. without a armed conflict.
Our trade interests are too deep next to this thing. We have a large semiconductor stake in Asia.
Taiwan is the absolute worst country to jump in with in relation to the PRC. The've had a war. And if they reunify at some point I'd rather not trade with them since the PRC is nationalist and all that. If they cant deal with our foreign policy then we need to cut off the money.
We need to have allies but some of this is a bit scandalous. The problem is the way some of the politicians buy in to the groups that want to make a buck anywhere regardless of the cost.
China does have a couple of obvious acute centers of gravity though, if they want to enjoy life as they know it won't fight with us. If they ever enter a major war they can forget about their "peaceful rise" and economic prosperity in general.
and you're hitting my main point. why do we accept the status quo with china? if we demand fair trade they'll be in a hurt locker. globalization is a lie that is hurting all developed countries and isn't doing much for the developing ones. the only people profiting from globalization are the corporations.
Deletewe can kill it, suffer higher prices for locally built products and watch our national gdp rise once again.
Taiwan is not a country, it is a renegade China government that considers itself the true government of China.
DeleteNobody wants to suffer higher prices. Like hundreds of thousands of other American, I shop at WalMart for the low prices.
Deletethose lower prices at Walmart are a fiction wrapped in a conundrum. those artificially low prices have suppressed wages in the US. additionally its stolen manufacturing which has lowered the gdp and standard of living in this country. additionally its also filling the coffers of hostile nation.
Deletepaying higher prices at whatever store you choose would be a small price to pay to tear down this abomination known as globalization.
On the subject of countries, ChiComms are a homocidal, bought and paid for gang that likes to kill off tens of millions of its own people. Rhodesia was a country undermined by Chicomm special forces training out of Mozambique. South Sudan is a country and is a shit hole. Go tell the cartographers to go **** themselves and take their lawyers with them.
DeleteJust consider sanctions being applied by the ChiComms as they turn their economy over to 100% war footing like USSR circa 1935. Bye bye WalMart, which is nothing but a financiers nation wrecking instrument anyway. Do you seriously think that the disciples of high finance like USofA? Bye bye USofA.
China has a long way before they become on par with America. They basically don't have the capability yet, and the US Navy doesn't have to worry about China having a carrier battle group anytime soon. We have enough carrier battle groups to send any nation to it's knees.
ReplyDeleteY'know what hurts even more?
ReplyDeleteThis 110K ton vessel will be funded by the US population.
too true....
DeleteThis is actually a good news because the PLA Navy would be wasting all its money toward a couple of super carrier groups, instead of a dozen smaller carriers, which would be far more threatening than a pair of super carriers.
ReplyDeleteThey're going to build more than a pair, just not at first here. The old Russian one they have upgraded for training is basically their R&D and backengineering training carrier. They may be behind us - but they are certainly not the china of thirty years ago either. and they're catching up quickly.
DeleteKaitland Helton
DeleteContrary to a popular belief, the PLA Navy doesn't have an unlimited budget to print our a dozen super carriers. The more super carriers that the PLAN buys and operates, the fewer it can afford them. And this is actually better for the US's AirSea battle.
They're taking the same approach with their navy that they're taking with their space program. Slow but steady wins the race. But they have switched from a quantity to quality approach. They won't catch up soon but they are definitely heading that way, and they will be in better financial shape than the US will be for long haul projects. Add to that the fact that they don't have a congress that cancels projects once they have decided to undertake them. Would they win a war against us today? NO.
DeleteI should add that as we are China's biggest customer, we hold the trump card to their economy - stop buying from them. But it's difficult to convince people to pay more than they currently are for the same or similar product. We used to be the manufacturing capitol of the world, We could be again, but we Americans need to lose the chicken in every pot mentality.
DeleteI agree that the US is "funding" the development of China's future military budget. However, I disagree that China is the only source for cheap goods. South America is a good candidate but US Congress and US Senate are reluctant to give a nod to US corporation to set up shop in South America because they are afraid these countries will go "rogue" again.
DeleteThe idea of China having an ancient carrier right now, maybe 2 by 2020, is not what worries me, that's nothing for us--now. They may have money and momentum, but we are far richer than they are, in so many ways. What worries me is our future competitiveness and attrition with the Chinese i.e. (J-20 vs F-35.) They're moving fast, and we're still stuck in 2nd gear.
ReplyDeleteA Chinese EMP either on US soil or a major Asian ally, is a scary notion as well. They were also bold and smart enough to get hacked blueprints from our "supposed secure" computers on our latest weapons, and yes, they own a little over $500 billion of our national debt. How many battle groups is that?