Support NeoGAF

[jerry113]

(CNN)Taiwan on Wednesday deployed fighter jets, a surveillance aircraft and Navy frigates in response to the movement of China's lone aircraft carrier into the Taiwan Straits, according to Taiwan's state-run Central New Agency.

The Liaoning carrier and its flotilla of escorting frigates and destroyers were apparently on their way back to base in northeastern China from the South China Sea following training exercises, the agency reported.

The Chinese vessels moved through waters off Shantou in the southeastern Chinese province of Guangdong early Wednesday morning and continued north, CNA reported, citing the defense ministry.

The agency said the ships remained "west of the median line of the Taiwan Strait," or closer to mainland China.

Amid rising tensions between the two, the Liaoning carrier and its escorts were expected to take about 10 hours to traverse the strait, the news agency reported.

More at the link: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/asia/taiwan-deploys-fighter-jets/index.html

Some more clarification:

China's only aircraft carrier has led several warships across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan's defence ministry said.

The Liaoning was returning from drills in the South China Sea.

It did not enter Taiwanese waters but did cross its air defence identification zone (ADIZ), the ministry said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38579559

Consensus: Kind of business as usual? Sabre rattling has happened before in the past few years.

 

[kmax]

China is showing that they mean business and that they aren't "afraid" now that Taiwan can cozy up with Trump.

 

[RoKKeR]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

 

[Balphon]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

They're expensive.

 

[SRG01]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

China has zero power projection, which is why the carrier and the islands in the South China Sea were pretty big things on their list.

They're expensive.

Not prohibitively expensive, given China's GDP. This -- plus other signs in the past while -- have shown that China is showing an increasing interest in power projection and foreign affairs.

 

[mnz]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

They're incredibly expensive. Only a handful exist outside of the US.

 

[chillybright]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

Yeah most countries have only one to show they can build it. They are costly to maintain.

 

[Mumei]

They're expensive.

Yes, though the Liaoning is a Soviet refurb, so not quite as expensive.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Wait China's only aircraft carrier is a soviet refurb? I didn't know other countries were so far behind.

 

[mnz]

Yes, though the Liaoning is a Soviet refurb, so not quite as expensive.

Pretty sure it's not. They bought several older ones but they build a new one.

edit: I'm wrong, new one is still coming!

 

[JaggedSac]

Wait China's only aircraft carrier is a soviet refurb? I didn't know other countries were so far behind.

Americans pay a tooooooon of money for our military.

 

[WolfeTone]

Wait China's only aircraft carrier is a soviet refurb? I didn't know other countries were so far behind.

Behind in military assets and technology perhaps. Different countries prioritize different things.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

They purchased several non-functional or end-of-life carriers, one from Australia even, for training and for their engineers to look at for ideas and functional examples. Their current one carrier was an almost-complete Soviet era carrier that they spent a decade towing from Ukraine to China, delayed many times because they had to negotiate passage and stays in other counties on the way. When it finally got to China, they finished it off and have finally got it operational.

China was a technologically backwards semi-industrial but mostly agrarian state into the 20th century. After emerging from decades of civil war and invasion, the Chinese Communist Party was victorious in 1949. At this point they began their own internal programs of industrialization and modernization, but they had a long way to go. Russia didn't have a particularly modern economy in 1921, but they were much much closer than China was in 1950. Lacking large modern shipbuilding capabilities and having no experience with aircraft carriers, it took them a long time to a) decide they wanted to build them, and b) actually gather the expertise required. For a long time, the PRC neglected its navy, choosing to focus military resources on the army and air force instead. It had one, but it was small.

Their second carrier should be only a few years away now that the ball is rolling.

 

[Rorschach]

Pretty sure it's not. They bought several older ones but they build a new one.

edit: I'm wrong, new one is still coming!

They have one period and it's relatively recent. They are trying to reverse engineer the soviet one and make a new one of their own, but it's not gonna be here for a while. The US Navy is far superior to any other Navy in the world in terms of global presence and ability.

 

[Einhander]

These types of 'escalations' are always hot air. It's political posturing. I'll start worrying when country A calls country B's bluff and fires on their military, and even then, while it ends up being a very tense period, neither country will want to go down a path of modern warfare in this day and age. Not between countries that have powerful military.

 

[Breads]

Got these toys lying around collecting dust for so long. Might as well use them in hissy fit.

I've lived around military bases for so long and yet I never realized how few aircraft carriers there are. I must have seen about 25% of ours from the early 90s to now.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

They're expensive.

Wait, how many carriers does America have and who is the second closest? Brain fart.

 

[Mumei]

Pretty sure it's not. They bought several older ones but they build a new one.

Well, the article references the Liaoning, so I think that it is the one I was talking about. They did do more work on it than the previous two they had, though:

Originally laid down as the Admiral Kuznetsov class multirole aircraft carrier Riga for the Soviet Navy, she was launched on December 4, 1988, and renamed Varyag in 1990.[5] The stripped hulk was purchased in 1998 by the People's Republic of China and towed to Dalian shipyard in northeast China. After being completely rebuilt and undergoing sea trials, the ship was commissioned into the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) as Liaoning with the class name Type 001 on September 25, 2012. In November 2016, the political commissar of Liaoning, Senior Captain Li Dongyou, stated that Liaoning was combat ready.

So, they get some credit, I suppose. Anyway, they are now in the process of building their first indigenous aircraft carrier now, too, though they are still years out at a minimum.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

They're expensive.

China has zero power projection, which is why the carrier and the islands in the South China Sea were pretty big things on their list.



Not prohibitively expensive, given China's GDP. This -- plus other signs in the past while -- have shown that China is showing an increasing interest in power projection and foreign affairs.

Another factor is that China's political and military interests since the end of the second World War have largely not necessitated an Aircraft Carrier. Previously - and still primarily - they were fine with mostly being interested in their near neighbours, while the idea of checking the USA around the globe was something more for the USSR. Even then, the USA has always been more proactive as the 'world police', and so being able to have air superiority anywhere was much more of interest to them. Now that China has emerged as a rival to the USA as a global power, and has designs on South East Asia, it's becoming more interested in being able to truly project abroad.

Wait, how many carriers does America have and who is the second closest? Brain fart.

The US has 19 - 10 Nimitz-class, 8 Wasp-class, and 1 America-class.

 

[JordanN]

They're expensive.

Damn, even Thailand has an Aircraft Carrier.

Come on, Trudeau. It's time Canada builds our own HMS Tim Hortons.

 

[Balphon]

Wait China's only aircraft carrier is a soviet refurb? I didn't know other countries were so far behind.

There's a bunch of reasons, e.g.:

1) Aircraft carriers are almost comically expensive both in terms of actual monetary cost and the level of institutional expertise required to build, maintain, and use them.

2) The US carrier fleet is a cornerstone of the entire military and is funded and maintained accordingly. The newest US supercarrier is set to enter service this year, as I recall.

3) Even if a country could afford to launch one or more carriers, it may not be in their strategic interest to do so.

 

[WaterAstro]

Wait China's only aircraft carrier is a soviet refurb? I didn't know other countries were so far behind.

Maybe because there is no war to bother deploying a bunch of naval ships and wasting a shit ton of money and fuel.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Wait China's only aircraft carrier is a soviet refurb? I didn't know other countries were so far behind.

At the end of WWII the three largest navies in the world were the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The UK was broke as fuck (rationing didn't fully end until 1954, 9 years after the end of WWII) and let go of it's empire over a 20 year period, Canada's war economy wound down (and they mostly only had small escort ships anyway despite building a lot of them) and most countries had more pressing defense needs.

The Soviet Union only ever had a couple at a time, even in a period where America maintained a peacetime navy with over a dozen. The USSR was not naval focused, it had enemies on it's continent(s). Aircraft carriers became larger and more elaborate, while budgets did not climb proportionally. Many European states to this day have one carrier, but they are individually smaller than the American ones. After the end of the Cold War, budgets were slashed, and so the prospect of building and maintaining carrier fleets became non-tenable for most military planners.

Having aircraft carriers is as much a matter of strategic priority as it is budget. America is an island with no threats anywhere near it. If it fights, it will fight far away, and potentially out of the range of friendly air bases. Other countries have more insular foreign policies, and when they do fight overseas, they will fight alongside America and piggyback off their logistical preparations. Japan's only strategic enemies are China, North Korea, and potentially Russia, all of whom are within airbase range of their country. Europe's only military rival is Russia, which borders European states. Canada has no military threats. Australia has no significant military threats, and the only notable regional rival, Indonesia, has minimal naval forces. Russia's potential enemies are on her borders or not too far from them. South Korea borders North Korea.

China is the only other modern country particularly interested in ramping up it's carrier forces beyond perhaps one or two small carriers. It seeks more international influence, and wants to be able to defend its commitments beyond the range of it's own airbases.

 

[steadfast]

How come the UK isn't on that chart?

They have at least two.

 

[Jotaka]

You only need so many aircraft carrier if you want keep an empire...

 

[Balphon]

How come the UK isn't on that chart?

They have at least two.

Chart's from 2014, right after they decommissioned their old ones. New ones haven't entered service yet:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

 

[JonnyDBrit]

How come the UK isn't on that chart?

They have at least two.

We have two in production, but HMS Queen Elizabeth is only getting commissioned this year, and HMS Prince of Wales won't be ready till around the end of the decade. HMS Ocean is technically capable, but is currently used as a Helicopter carrier.

 

[RoKKeR]

They purchased several non-functional or end-of-life carriers, one from Australia even, for training and for their engineers to look at for ideas and functional examples. Their current one carrier was an almost-complete Soviet era carrier that they spent a decade towing from Ukraine to China, delayed many times because they had to negotiate passage and stays in other counties on the way. When it finally got to China, they finished it off and have finally got it operational.

China was a technologically backwards semi-industrial but mostly agrarian state into the 20th century. After emerging from decades of civil war and invasion, the Chinese Communist Party was victorious in 1949. At this point they began their own internal programs of industrialization and modernization, but they had a long way to go. Russia didn't have a particularly modern economy in 1921, but they were much much closer than China was in 1950. Lacking large modern shipbuilding capabilities and having no experience with aircraft carriers, it took them a long time to a) decide they wanted to build them, and b) actually gather the expertise required. For a long time, the PRC neglected its navy, choosing to focus military resources on the army and air force instead. It had one, but it was small.

Their second carrier should be only a few years away now that the ball is rolling.

Very interesting, thanks for the explanation.

 

[Breads]

You only need so many aircraft carrier if you want keep an empire...

Or maintain worldwide stability at an incredible cost.

Either or.

Helps that, unlike most countries, the US is protected from opposition by two entire oceans, which is why we hedged our bets on a naval fleet of this size.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Wait China's only aircraft carrier is a soviet refurb? I didn't know other countries were so far behind.

People don't realize just how big the US military budget really is or how much of it is spent on new weapons development.

 

[Mimosa97]

As a reminder, it cost 400M$ a year on average to operate a maintain a Super carrier.

 

[4Tran]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

It shouldn't be very surprising. Running an aircraft carrier is a task that requires a lot of naval expertise and experience, neither of which China has much of. It's also important to note that China was extremely backwards militarily even as recent as 20 years ago, so they've been playing a lot of catchup in that time. The two areas were it's the weakest are with the Navy, which had been neglected since the '60s, and strategic bombers - China only has the H-6, a copy of a Soviet plane from the '50s.

Right now, China's sole aircraft carrier is primarily meant to give the the experience to build and operate aircraft carriers of their own. Once the next one is finished (expected around 2020), China should be able to produce them relatively easily and there should be anywhere between 4-8 carriers in service.

China is the only other modern country particularly interested in ramping up it's carrier forces beyond perhaps one or two small carriers. It seeks more international influence, and wants to be able to defend its commitments beyond the range of it's own airbases.

India as well. They should be operating 3-5 aircraft carriers by 2030.

 

[spiritfox]

We have two in production, but HMS Queen Elizabeth is only getting commissioned this year, and HMS Prince of Wales won't be ready till around the end of the decade. HMS Ocean is technically capable, but is currently used as a Helicopter carrier.

Not to mention that the Royal Navy has no fixed wing aircraft to fly. The F35s are not ready yet, and they have decommissioned their Harriers years ago.

Also the Thai carrier is a glorified royal yacht cause they have no aircraft for it too.

 

[ReAxion]

I think aircraft carriers are cool.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

I think aircraft carriers are cool.

You know what's cooler? Drone motherships! (*_*)

 

[Laekon]

Need to read the whole thread before posting.

 

[E92 M3]

They're expensive.

That image is the definition of: 'Murica fuck yeah!

 

[More Fun To Compute]

How come the UK isn't on that chart?

They have at least two.

We agreed with France to use theirs if we needed one. No joke.

 

[jstripes]

Damn, even Thailand has an Aircraft Carrier.

Come on, Trudeau. It's time Canada builds our own HMS Tim Hortons.

Just don't ask Bombardier to build it if you want it anytime soon.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

U.S. has 19 big ass carriers? Russia only got one?

Yeah I don't get why we are worried about the machinations of Russia. If it came down to war the U.S. has got this.

Plua those drone swarms would.be great at anti nuclear right?

 

[Chirotera]

They have one period and it's relatively recent. They are trying to reverse engineer the soviet one and make a new one of their own, but it's not gonna be here for a while. The US Navy is far superior to any other Navy in the world in terms of global presence and ability.

I had a professor once that put this in to good perspective; the World's third largest air force belong to the U.S. Navy

That was a number of years ago so I don't know that that ranking still holds water, but I'm willing to bet it's still up there.

 

[spiritfox]

U.S. has 19 big ass carriers? Russia only got one?

Yeah I don't get why we are worried about the machinations of Russia. If it came down to war the U.S. has got this.

Plua those drone swarms would.be great at anti nuclear right?

Cause Russia doesn't need carriers to destroy much of Europe? And kill millions of people? That's not even taking into account nukes.

 

[Chirotera]

U.S. has 19 big ass carriers? Russia only got one?

Yeah I don't get why we are worried about the machinations of Russia. If it came down to war the U.S. has got this.

Russia is a largely landlocked country anyways, with few warm-water ports (which was part of the reason they annexed Crimea). The fear of wars with that country mostly center on the fact they can take Europe. And also nukes. Because nukes.

If it came to it I'd be willing to bet that a part of Russia's first strike strategy would center on nuking our carrier groups, effectively removing them from the equation, anyways.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

U.S. has 19 big ass carriers? Russia only got one?

The Russian carrier is a floating wreck. If it leaves port it has to be followed by tug boats for when it breaks down.

 

[Bishop89]

They're expensive.

Damn.. That US dominance!

 

[rrvv]

US need Aircraft carrier as platform to project their power consider how isolated US is. compare to China and Russia where they can just steamroll their neighborhood with tank easily

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

The Russian carrier is a floating wreck. If it leaves port it has to be followed by tug boats for when it breaks down.

It's fighters can even be fully loaded to launch. It's a massive POS.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Cause Russia doesn't need carriers to destroy much of Europe? And kill millions of people? That's not even taking into account nukes.

Well I'd assume the United States would have Europes back if the Russians went in.

I know nukes kind of ultimately nullify conventional weaponry war.

But if no nukes allowed, America got this. Looking forward to seeing demo's of those new drone swarms. Bet you can get a tonne of drone swarms onto a carrier.

 

[Lo-Volt]

I just can't wait for President Trump to lose his shit and "hit 'em ten times as hard" when this happens on his watch. This is the kind of incident that he'll be tempted to respond disproportionately to and fuck up because he's in a bad mood or gets bad advice from his clownish cabinet.

 

[Gallbaro]

People forget that when it comes to carriers there are only really 12 (I think) carriers with catapults. Big difference between 70 aircraft and 30, especially in actual operations. With two massive ocean shores you can't blame America needing carriers. How we use them is something else...

Also the Russians were way more into cruise missiles, way more.

Cause Russia doesn't need carriers to destroy much of Europe? And kill millions of people? That's not even taking into account nukes.

Russia is so huge they have air bases within range of most of their sphere. So to deal with our carrier groups, they had supersonic cruise missiles.