| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| China paints naval markings on former aircraft carrier Varyag |
| 2005-08-24 |
| Looks like the PLA is building up its force projection capabilities. For the doubters out there, the Japanese economy was about 1/10 the US economy when WWII broke out. But the Imperial Japanese Navy blasted the combined European and American navies in East Asia out of the water at the outset of WWII. This bears watching. China has taken another step toward seeking to project maritime power far beyond its shores, by painting naval markings on a former Soviet aircraft carrier that it originally purchased as a floating casino. According to a report in a recent issue of Jane's Defence Weekly, shipyard workers in the northeastern city of Dalian have been repairing the badly damaged Varyag in a fresh sign that the Chinese navy is once again pursuing its goal of developing a working aircraft carrier. That is further evidence that China's leaders are miscalculating, by wanting too much too soon and pursuing a muddled maritime strategy that is likely to backfire. China's former paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, must be spinning in his grave. Comprehending that the Soviet Union could not sustain vast military spending on the basis of a command economy, he set China on a different course. Deng intended to build up China's wealth and power by means of engagement with market forces, while ensuring that the Communist Party remained in control. But Deng intended to do so gradually, since he was astute enough to realize that moving too quickly in this direction would only frighten other countries into forming a counterbalancing coalition. As a veteran political commissar in the military, and Long March veteran, Deng was able to insist that military modernization be the last of China's "four modernizations." But his successors, engineer-bureaucrats lacking military experience, do not possess Deng's wisdom or his cachet with the military. And now the rebuilding of the Varyag will set alarm bells ringing that it could become the first in a fleet of Chinese aircraft carriers. The Varyag was one of two full-deck aircraft carriers the Soviet Union was building when the Cold War ended. It was designed to carry the naval variant of the Sukhoi-27 fighter aircraft (which China now produces under license). Sold to China ostensibly for use as a floating casino, the Varyag soon ended up in its present location -- a naval shipyard in Dalian. China has been showing signs of interest in aircraft carriers for some time. In 1985, it bought the old Australian carrier Melbourne, ostensibly for scrap. The Melbourne was eventually broken up, but not until it had been extensively studied, and a replica flight deck built for Chinese pilots to practice carrier take offs and landings. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, China bought two Kiev-class carriers, Minsk and Kiev. Although kept in amusement parks in Chinese ports, these are sure to have been scrutinized by Chinese military experts. Judging from the latest activity in Dalian, China now seems bent on repeating the mistakes of the "risk fleets" of Germany's Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz before World War I, and Soviet Admiral Sergei Gorshkov in the 1970s. Neither Tirpitz nor Gorshkov sought to match ship for ship the fleets of the then-dominant maritime power, respectively Britain and the United States. Rather, as continental powers with huge land armies, Germany and the Soviet Union sought to achieve hegemony over the Eurasian land mass by depriving the dominant maritime power of the ability to play its historic role of global offshore balancer. But Germany and then Russia succeeded only in provoking the formation of a counterbalancing coalition led by the dominant maritime power of the time. Today China is seeking hegemony on a smaller scale, over the southeastern edge of Eurasia. But even that is a threat that the United States, as the dominant maritime power, cannot afford to ignore. Neither can Japan, an archipelago that needs maritime protection and which has been alarmed by more aggressive Chinese nuclear submarine activity, including an intrusion into its territorial waters and activity off Guam last November. China's new assertiveness is already showing signs of provoking the formation of a balancing coalition led by the United States, the current dominant maritime power. Straws in the wind include the rapid improvement in strategic connections among the United States, Japan and India. Australia, another U.S. ally, has a new fleet of capable conventional submarines as well as strike aircraft. Until recently, Chinese naval strategy has focused on the more modest goal of seeking to deter the U.S. navy from intervening in a Taiwan crisis. This sea-denial strategy involved building (and buying from Russia) more conventional submarines, which are better suited than nuclear submarines for operations in the shallow waters of the Taiwan Straits, while developing anti-ship cruise missile platforms and ballistic missiles with maneuverable warheads to deter the U.S. Now by showing fresh signs of also trying to develop a carrier battle fleet capable of projecting Chinese power over great distances, something which not even the Soviet Union managed to do, Beijing is pursuing an expensive and risky goal that only serves to muddle its maritime strategy in a way that will prove counterproductive. The best strategy for the U.S. is to stand back and let China make such a strategic error. For example, there is no need for America to counter China's more aggressive submarine activity by increasing its deployment of surface ships and nuclear submarines in the region. Rather, America should concentrate on remaining forward deployed with the right force structure to respond to the real threat -- a Chinese attempt to seize Taiwan. That includes, for example, the U.S. marines in Okinawa, who are only a 90-minute flight away from Taiwan. The best way for the U.S. to deter a Chinese attack is to show it has the capability to respond by rapidly putting forces on the ground in Taiwan and the Marine Corps., which specializes in combined-arms tactics, are ideal for this purpose. China is also posing a maritime challenge that Japan cannot afford to ignore and which can best be met by further strengthening the U.S.-Japan alliance, with much greater emphasis on interoperability. By once again raising the specter of using aircraft carriers to deploy its power over a greater distance, China's muddled maritime strategy only serves to accelerate the development of a counterbalancing coalition to curb its military ambitions. |
| Posted by:Zhang Fei |
| #29 Looks like they have a ways to go to catch up.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm |
| Posted by: Mr.Bill 2005-08-24 17:54 |
| #28 Ex-russian weapons? Good for putting down an insurrection, but not much more. Good luck with that. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-08-24 17:08 |
| #27 It'll be interesting to see which technology the Indians use in their carrier: jump-ramp or catapult. jump ramp. Both the Gorshkov and the ADS will be STOBAR. |
| Posted by: john 2005-08-24 15:55 |
| #26 This is all well and good for the Chinese, but the real tell-tale sign is in the training of their armed forces. Are they adapting their training techniques in step with their modernization efforts? If they are modelling themselves after the Russians, then they're going to have a serious problem. The Russian soldier couldn't take a piss without first asking for permission. It's great to have 3 mil men ready to advance when the signal's given. But if that signal never comes... I'm willing to bet the Chinese have a tight-ass command structure, with little leeway in decision making. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-08-24 14:58 |
| #25 OP: I mentioned on Rantburg about six months ago that the United States should decommission the "Kitty Hawk" and give it to the Japanese. That's beginning to look like a better strategy every day. Japan with three or four carriers and the ability to build more would give China a heart attack. That would have the benefit of getting the Koreans (North and South) seriously riled up. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-24 14:27 |
| #24 ZF are you talking about dedicated wartime carriers of the traditional sense or closer to CVE type of carriers? China doesn't have the lead time OR the infrastructure yet to build a traditional carrier in the 55k ton range unless they want to base it off a freighter/tanker hull. None of their war hulls are above the destroyer level (actually probably lower tonnage than that). As far as Russian carriers go thats considered a joke. The russians never had true carriers but rather "Heavy Assault Carriers" or a true statement would be that they were battlecruisers given some element of flying planes off them. We on the other hand have a fleet of carriers thats more than twice the number of the rest of the worlds current amount |
| Posted by: Valentine 2005-08-24 13:54 |
| #23 Henry, the panic button, hit the panic button.. The ChiComs have and will continue to be a threat. In fact, we have been at war with China for over a decade. Not in the classic military sense, but in the information and intelligence warfare. Strategic alliance formation in preparation for global warfare has been underway in recent years. Classic military warfare by 2020, a Taiwan invasion or some other equally ChiCom act would accelerate the timeline. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-24 13:52 |
| #22 You gotta start somewhere, and a start is all this is. If nothing else they can gain naval aviation experience while developing the capabilities they don't currently have. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2005-08-24 13:44 |
| #21 I mentioned on Rantburg about six months ago that the United States should decommission the "Kitty Hawk" and give it to the Japanese. That's beginning to look like a better strategy every day. Japan with three or four carriers and the ability to build more would give China a heart attack. As for China, the carrier fleet they're getting or building is based on Russian designs from the late 1970's/early 1980's. The reason the Russian carriers were never sent to sea and exercised is because they had significant defects in their air operations, as well as difficulties in maintenance. Note that neither of these carriers have a catapult launch system. That means that launched aircraft have to use the "jump ramp", and that they are significantly underweight compared to US aircraft. While launching aircraft can be done fairly quickly, the Russians had a hard time getting them back aboard. China may be able to correct all these errors, but it's going to take a decade to fully integrate their air and naval assets to where they can maintain combat air operations from a carrier. The "Moskva" class carriers were helicopter carriers with the front of a heavy cruiser and a huge flat area in the rear that was used as a helicopter landing pad. The "Kiev" class is the one with the jump-ramp. I doubt the Chinese are interested in the Moskva class - it dates from the late 1950's. It'll be interesting to see which technology the Indians use in their carrier: jump-ramp or catapult. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-08-24 13:37 |
| #20 Taking an antiquated Soviet carrier and making it operational is a far cry from a fleet. A fleet of carriers would be a different thing altogether, I agree, but for all we know they'll produce a dozen Charles DeGaul type carriers and take down their government in shame in the process. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-24 13:24 |
| #19 Zhang Fei, No doubt China could design and build an aircraft carrier from scratch if they wanted to make it a national priority. Will it actually make them more secure as a nation? Tatically, marginally yes, strategically, hell no. Strategically They keep blundering with their expansionist policys....Tibet, Butan, Nepal, China seas, Spratley Islands, India, Japan, N. Vietnam, Tiwan, Ozzys, etc. [I'm sure I left some out] China's neighbors are not deaf dumb and blind. In spite of it's facinating culture/history, it's our good fortune that China today is doing a pretty good old fashion job of shooting itself in the foot. No expert on carriers, but it seems to me as guidance and missle "smartness" improves and gets cheaper every year, the stand off distance of a carrier will have to increase, offset of course, to some degree with new more expensive defenses. Like you said "This bears watching." >It's even possible that Iran will develope an even greater talent [foot shooting]. ;) to be continued... |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-08-24 13:03 |
| #18 john: The new Vikrant is being constructed in an Indian shipyard. It won't be launched till 2009. China is the third largest commercial shipbuilder in the world, right next to Korea and Japan. If India is on the verge of completing its first indigenously-made carrier, I expect the Chinese won't be far behind, considering the huge dollars they're putting in their military. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-24 12:26 |
| #17 India decommisioned the INS Vikrant (formerly HMS Hercules) in 1997. It has just one carrier (for now). The Russians are refurbishing the Admiral Gorshkov and India will take posession in a few years of the rechristened INS Vikramiditya and its Mig 29K airwing. The new Vikrant is being constructed in an Indian shipyard. It won't be launched till 2009. |
| Posted by: john 2005-08-24 12:15 |
| #16 Argentina no longer operates an aircraft carrier, having paid off the 25° de Mayo in January of 1999, at which time she was towed away for scrapping in India by March 2000. Source here. This source has a graphic, clickable link to all the world's carrier. Notice the proprotion of American carriers (heavy and amphib assault classes) to the rest of the world. Repeat: Argentina does not have a carrier. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-08-24 11:47 |
| #15 MD: What is of interest is what this says about the internal politics of China. Is this yet another indication that China is seeking to distract the populace from internal problems by directing their atention to external bogeymen and developing the means to do something about it? This point was bogus when Marx and Lenin made it with reference to the capitalist countries trying to suppress revolts by starting imperialist wars, and it is bogus today. Man does not live on bread alone. Individual Chinese have the old-fashioned type of national aspirations that led to WWI and WWII - a desire to recover for China what it views as its rightful place as the center of the world. Relative to the initial decades of communist rule, China is doing very well, economically. It would have been better if it had not endured about 30 years of communist-style economics (1949 - 1978), but it has now repudiated communism in deed, if not in word. The fact is that internal stability really isn't a problem. Why, then, do we hear about periodic unrest in China? Because in a dictatorship, the only way to get your voice heard is to organize a riot. The major differences between the situation now and the situation during the Maoist era are (1) the Chinese government doesn't simply execute people and put them in mass graves like it used to and (2) it allows large numbers of foreigners to wander about the country without government minders. This is why we now hear about a lot of these things - not because they are new, but because they were never reported before. Isn't the Chinese government's suppression of dissent an expression of its insecurity? No - any more than your tendency to show up to work on time everyday is an expression of your insecurity about your job. A dictatorship that wants to stay in power must suppress dissent, just as someone who wants to keep his job must show up on time. A dictatorship that is strong is one that can get its troops to do whatever is necessary to crush the opposition. Ukraine's quasi-dictatorship wasn't strong enough to suppress dissent - that is why it fell. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-24 11:37 |
| #14 MD: Militarily this is comic opera. Sure the Chinese Navy would like to have a carrier, and perhaps it will be able to afford one in 30 years and this is a step in that direction. Argentina can afford a carrier. Its economy is 1/15 of China's. India has two carriers. Its economy is 1/2 of China's. China can afford a fleet of carriers. The Russians will probably sell them all the carriers they need. The only question is whether they want to buy it or build it from scratch. I suspect that China will want to build its own, just like Japan. There are hordes of former unemployed Russians scientists working in China. Some of them might even have worked on the Russian carriers. In the past, the Chinese economy was too small for the nation to afford a carrier, so they never tried it. Now that it's big enough, they're starting to look at it. (Note that military innovations can significantly outpace the state of a nation's civilian economy - the Mongols and the Soviets are just two of the most prominent examples of that). We laughed when the Chinese put an astronaut in space, forty years after Yuri Gagarin. But only three countries have ever put astronauts in space using national resources - Russia, the US and China. Whether it was based on begged, borrowed or stolen technology*, that was an impressive demonstration of China's ability to get very complex technical projects accomplished. My feeling is that if China can put a man in space, which even Japan hasn't gotten done, in spite of huge amounts of funding, it can build a fleet of aircraft carriers, and soon. * Note that both the Soviet and American missile programs were based on ripped-off German technology as were jet engines. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-24 11:18 |
| #13 Militarily this is comic opera. Sure the Chinese Navy would like to have a carrier, and perhaps it will be able to afford one in 30 years and this is a step in that direction. But to think that this is militarily significant in our lifetimes is underestimating the expense and oversestimating the value of such an enterprise to China. What is of interest is what this says about the internal politics of China. Is this yet another indication that China is seeking to distract the populace from internal problems by directing their atention to external bogeymen and developing the means to do something about it? If so, I hope it is having the internal effect they hope it will, because externally it is driving together an allianc e of the US, Japan and India that will be very difficult for the Chinese to deal with. But they have to do something with all those excess males they will not be able to support in their old age. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-24 10:55 |
| #12 Zhang Fei, I don't underestimate them. China has the potential to really do some damage to any military that sets foot on her shores. The problem is force projection. Outside of her borders, China can not bring a powerful force to bear on her enemies. This current buildup is looking to fix this deficit. The problem is whom they are buying from. Decrepit and old technology fixed up with cheap knock offs. While China is trying to modernize with imported and stolen technology, having doesn't mean understanding. While I am very sure they have some talented people reverse engineering stuff, the problem is that they are stuck on an old rev, so to speak. Our version is improving and expanding while the Chinese are busy using all their energy on trying to get the stolen stuff to work, and a lot of times the stuff they stole is 10 years old anyway. No power in the history of the world has dominated by using borrowed/stolen/bought technology. They dominate by creating and dominating a new weapon feature and making creative and innovative use of it. The Chinese are definitely creative, but not real innovative. Not much new and great tech has come out of China recently. China may have advanced planes, ships and missiles, but they are way behind the technology power curve. They will have to rely on quantity vs. quality like all the old communist style government have, and with a wired in and more modernized populace, high body counts don’t play well with domestic security. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-08-24 10:50 |
| #11 "Ready...FIRE!" "Uh...Bingo, sir!" |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-08-24 10:26 |
| #10 rjschwarz: After all, the Argie carrier BienteCynco DeMayo never left port for fear it would be sunk and that would be a blow to national prestige. A single carrier is too much of a national treasure to risk. You need a few before you can get beyond that kind of thinking. I don't think a single carrier is what China is looking at. On a purchasing power parity basis, China's economy is 15 times Argentina's, which is another way of saying that if Argentina can afford 1 carrier, China can afford 15. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-24 10:16 |
| #9 mmurray: Oh, and a little clarification about the Japanese navy. Japan had been building it for almost 30 years. I think the Chinese are easy to underestimate. Based on the work of a single defector who worked on the Manhattan project, they built (1) ballistic missiles and (2) nuclear weapons. If they're being this overt, my feeling is that we are going to see a fleet of aircraft carriers in the next decade or so. They certainly have the cash - the Pentagon estimates that China spent $90B last year on defense. China has 3m men under arms. Assuming average payroll costs of $5,000 per person per year (far above average civilian salaries), that comes to $15B per year. That leaves about $75B for equipment acquisition and maintenance. I read somewhere that the Pentagon's budget for procurement and maintenance is just over $100B. Parts are probably a lot cheaper in China. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-24 10:11 |
| #8 Two thoughts (i) in a conflict over Taiwan a carrier is a huge target (ii) when it comes to defending her oil supply lines against anyone but the US a carrier could be a tremendous asset. I imagine the carrier would be most useful parked in Singapore working with the locals to cut down on Piracy and as a threat in case the Indonesians decide to go attacking their Chinese minority again, and to look good in case of another Tsunami, and to hide in a neutral port in case of war over Taiwan. After all, the Argie carrier BienteCynco DeMayo never left port for fear it would be sunk and that would be a blow to national prestige. A single carrier is too much of a national treasure to risk. You need a few before you can get beyond that kind of thinking. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-24 09:58 |
| #7 There are reports of potential sales of Aegis radar system to Indian Navy. In September, the USS Nimitz will join the Indian carrier INS Viraat (formerly HMS Hermes) for the annual "Malabar" exercises off Goa. The US is demonstrating the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet which it has offered to sell to India. |
| Posted by: john 2005-08-24 09:43 |
| #6 China has almost no ASW skills. I would expect to see them importing Russian/Ukrainian experts in the very near future. The subs are still a hudge problem for any future Chinese power expansion since we hold all the Aces in that department. Oh, and a little clarification about the Japanese navy. Japan had been building it for almost 30 years. They withdrew from the battleship treaty in the 20s and were building non-stop until WWII and the US blasted their ship building facilities to hell. Japan had a large, powerful and professional navy. The problem was, they couldn't replace it if they lost it, while the US could launch an aircraft carrier at will once our production rev'ed up. China has the same problem. No real production and no fall back plan if their Navy is sunk. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-08-24 09:34 |
| #5 I've always thought that a news story about US and Japanese Marines landing someplace would be something. :) |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-08-24 09:26 |
| #4 Every addition to the PLAN helps nudge the US, Japan, and India together. Wouldn't it be cool to see a join CV task force of the Ronald Reagan, Akagi, and Shiva? |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-08-24 09:19 |
| #3 I hope the ChiComs are working on their ASW skills if they plan on ever moving this thing out of port. I'd imagine there would be one or two L.A.s or a Seawolf waiting for it. |
| Posted by: CRS 2005-08-24 09:12 |
| #2 TPT: WonTon Super Dragon..Kung poo in yr face class Chineese Sea Noodle..Chow Mein class SUN TZU Parte...Wot ever Floats Yer Boat class Well - Robyn Lim used to be a China watcher for the Australian government (and presumably has contacts in Australian intelligence and in East Asia) and now lectures at Nagoya University. She knows the significance of naval markings and is credible enough as an authority on China to be quoted in both academic journals and major newspapers across the globe. TPT is an occasional diner at Chinese restaurants. He is presumably an expert on chow mein, noodles and wontons. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-24 08:43 |
| #1 China has taken another step toward seeking to project maritime power far beyond its shores, by painting naval markings on a former Soviet aircraft carrier WonTon Super Dragon..Kung poo in yr face class Chineese Sea Noodle..Chow Mein class SUN TZU Parte...Wot ever Floats Yer Boat class |
| Posted by: 500 tons of pot stickers togo 2005-08-24 03:22 |