Not only does the US have the most advanced defense complex on earth, she also has the resources and collaboration of dozens of country's industries that are on the leading of edge of several future technologies. What does China have... a big fat embargo and stolen industry secrets that are 20 years old and will take them another 20 years to field. Their entire industry is geared towards reverse engineering and relying on a stagnant Russian R&D sector. They lack the innovation to really go for something new and unheard of. Until they can quit playing copycat they will never match up. They can start by respecting copyright laws.
About the aircraft carrier plan of China
- Thread starter bjskyhorse
- Start date
- Status
You can forget Shanghai, as last time I looked it could take a max draft of 7m and that was only when the tide was in your favor. You need more then 7m if you are going to make a carrier of any worth.
i.e. It would require a very large (and obvious) expansion of port infrastructure to support a carrier build in Shanghai. Lets not forget that the Yangztee river disgorges a huge amount of silt each year and as such would require a very long channel (30 to 40NM) to bring a carrier in and out and that channel would require continuous dredging.
So with regard to this thread, infrastructure would be the first place to look, as well as industrial capacity.
-------------
With regard to "catching up". I think China has one of the most able commercial espionage rackets going. As good as, if not better than the Israelis. But there is also a fundamental difference between Chinese Philosophy and Western Philosophy which basically amounts to curiosity and lack of curiosity.
China used to be the bastion of the civilized world, but as western influence grew (and namely the catholic church) China's tech advantage faded to what you see today.
In other words the underlying ethos of a scientist who is brought up in a christian world is to question God. Why this? Why that? and that is how Isaac Newton explained it.
You don't see the same forces acting in China. So I am not sure as to whether they will be able to maintain a technological edge (if they achieve it), unless another motivational force is found e.g. money... and if it is money, then why build a boat? Building a boat is the quickest way to lose money.
cheers
w
Do you know or Have heard the story several months ago that China used laser to blind US recon SAT?
Do you know when that happened? That's 2003-2005. And that's a message China was trying to send, and due to the slow response from US, they had to try several times to make sure US got the message.
Generally speaking, the China vs US gaps in these NEW areas are actually smaller than in those matured or old areas. That shouldn't be surprising.
That technology has been around for 40 years and they are just getting around to it. We are shooting down artillery shells soon to be ICBMs... big difference in the level of technology.
So, US used laser weapon in early 1960s.
But if China did not use it, do you know China already got it? If I did not tell you, do you know when China did the test? Now do you know when China started Laser weapon research?
My point is, yes US is the leader, but don't assume others won't catch up, otherwise we are all still Egyptians.
Every past leader thought he's un-beatable, especially un-beatable in regard to the guy who did beat him later. That's a small thing I learned from china's history.
Last edited:
Schumacher
New Member
Hmm, nice ramble there. U do have some proof to back it up don't u ?
I also remember the demise of the Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne. Interesting story of how China threw away her chance to become a superpower all do to the fears of corrupting her society. It will be interesting to see if these Confucion ideals still exist.
Do you deny the US has the most advanced defense sector?
Do you deny China has an embargo from the EU?
Do you deny that China stole 20 year old B-2 technology?
Do you think China will be able to field one anytime soon?
Do you deny China conducts reverse engineering?
Do you think Russian R&D is better than that of the West?
Do you deny China breaks copyright laws?
I simply point out the reality China is facing... it's a huge mountain to climb and IMO I don't think will reach the summit anytime soon.
Heres a story(maybe the story WP 2000 was referring to):
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america
China Attempted To Blind U.S. Satellites With Laser
By VAGO MURADIAN
China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources.
It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.
But the combination of China’s efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network are at the core of U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources.
According to experts, lasers — depending on their power level — could blind electro-optical satellites like the giant Keyhole spacecraft or even interfere with radar satellites like the Lacrosse. Blinding, one source said, is different than disabling given the enormous power required to shoot a laser through the dense lower atmosphere and reach a fast-moving satellite in space. The hardware on the spacecraft can’t be changed given they’re in orbit, but software changes can help them weather disruptive attacks.
Russian jamming systems are publicly known — the Air Force destroyed such a system deployed to Iraq to keep American GPS guided bombs from finding their targets during the 2003. The site was destroyed by GPS guided bombs.
Pentagon officials, however, have kept quiet regarding China’s efforts as part of a Bush administration policy to keep from angering Beijing, which is a leading U.S. trading partner and seen as key to dealing with onerous states like North Korea and Iran.
Even the Pentagon’s recent China report failed to mention Beijing’s efforts to blind U.S. reconnaissance satellites. Rather, after a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line. In that one line, the report merely acknowledges China has the ability to blind U.S. satellites, thanks to a powerful ground-based laser capable of firing a beam of light at an optical reconnaissance satellite to keep it from taking pictures as it passes overhead.
According to top officials, however, China not only has the capability, but has exercised it. It is not clear when China first used lasers to attack American satellites. Sources would only say that there have been several tests over the past several years.
“The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena,” said one senior former Pentagon official. “They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier and are looking at symmetrical and asymmetrical means to offset American dominance in space.”
China’s burgeoning anti-satellite capabilities are further evidence of Beijing’s focused military strategy that aims not to engage the United States in direct confrontation, but through asymmetric means, according to Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
Krepinevich points out that China has outlined a set of capabilities it refers to as “Assassins Mace” to keep U.S. forces in the region at risk and away from China’s borders, and tailored to undermine each U.S. advantage from submarine to satellite capabilities.
For their part, service officials are not expressing alarm at efforts to counter the U.S. space advantage, explaining that such moves are predictable and understandable. But they are taking it seriously enough to test ground-based lasers against their own spacecraft to determine their efficacy and map space architectures that are resilient enough to resist such attacks.
The problem, according to sources, is that current satellites are large, on predictable orbits that are easy to track and have scant defenses against lasers.
The United States operates three large optical reconnaissance satellites of the Keyhole-series by Lockheed Martin that were introduced some three decades ago. The loss of any of the three would prove a blow to U.S. space capabilities, sources said, which is why they will be replaced by a large constellation of spacecraft under the Future Imagery Architecture program by Boeing and Lockheed.
Top officials, among them Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, flatly declined to comment on whether China has attempted to blind its satellites. Chinese officials could not be reached for comment at press time.
Wynne did, however, acknowledge that the Air Force’s space plans are shaped recognizing that potential foes will seek asymmetric means to harm a U.S. space network that gives the American military an enormous edge.
The goal, Wynne said, is to minimize the impact that real-life attacks would have on U.S. space capabilities through a networked architecture that can lose nodes but keep functioning.
Wynne stressed that what’s at stake isn’t merely U.S. military superiority, but the fate of global commerce because signals from Air Force GPS satellites are critical to everything from airline and maritime commerce to car navigation systems.
And unlike the 1980’s threat from Soviet anti-satellite plans, future space attacks will be limited in scope, Wynne said.
“At the time, the Soviets were always talking about a bald-faced assault,” he said. Future “asymmetric attacks are going to be local to try to mask out our capabilities in one region. The trick to winning asymmetrical warfare is to make it irrelevant.”
He said a new generation of GPS 3 satellite “will make further assaults and jamming efforts irrelevant.”
Doing “space and ISR through very different means … means asking good questions,” he said. “Do 22,200-mile-high orbits make sense? Does an orbital periodicity that is well known to any adversary have any relevance today? What you really want is assured situational awareness, position location and communications capabilities.”
But analysts, executives and even officials within the Pentagon have criticized the Air Force, arguing that the service is talking a good game but falling short on execution — largely for lack of budget.
One veteran space industry executive expressed shock at how limited the debate has been to better secure U.S. spacecraft, given the evidence that nations are investing in systems to blind American leaders in a future crisis.
The reason, executives and analysts said, is that such safeguards are complicated and expensive, and become targets when programs go over budget or fall behind schedule.
Case in point? One source said the Pentagon is so thirsty for more bandwidth to handle burgeoning communications demands that it has been short-changing security, which consumes bandwidth.
“It’s a tradeoff,” said one industry source. “And so far, the pressure has been for capacity over security.”
According to analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, the Air Force is making poor investment choices not only in space, but ISR programs.
“The U.S. Air Force’s ambitious plan for fielding orbital and airborne reconnaissance systems has begun to come unhinged in the budget process from Space Radar, to missile warning to future radar planes, the whole mission area seems to be melting down,” Thompson said.
Wynne contends that space programs are merely in the process of being restructured to rein in cost increases and schedule slips. Wynne also argues that the F-22 fighter’s powerful radar and electronic capabilities allow it to perform the roles of larger existing aircraft like the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, the Airborne Warning and Control System and the Rivet Joint, allowing the service to forgo investment in aircraft that are vulnerable to a new generation of powerful surface-to-air missiles.
“I’m probably the biggest supporter of the F-22 outside the Air Force, and while it’s the best fighter ever and can do these jobs, but not as well as dedicated assets that have the ability to stay on station far longer,” Thompson said. “Osama bin Laden is still at large and there are known vulnerabilities to our space systems. In this environment, it’s odd that the Air Force is cutting its orbital, manned and unmanned reconnaissance assets while presenting the F-22 as a reconnaissance platform. The point is, where are we deficient, firepower or finding the enemy?”
As for China specifically, Thompson said the country has a right to defend itself.
“If you keep looking over the fence at you neighbor’s back yard, you’re going to get poked in the eye, so it’s not surprising that China might be worried about U.S. forces stationed on their doorstep,” Thompson said. “They don’t like it and are figuring out how to poke us in the eye. Now I’m no great admirer of the Chinese leadership, but how would we feel if the Chinese had their aircraft carriers off Long Island. That’s why we have to do a better job of protecting ourselves and I’m afraid that’s not what we’re doing.”
The former Pentagon official put it more bluntly.
“The Air Force is trying to put a happy face on this,” he said. “It’s not that they don’t know what do. It’s that they don’t have the money in their space budget. It’s that simple.”
Another factor is the sheer complexity of building satellites that has fueled cost overruns and schedule delays. For example, the Air Force originally envisioned the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Observation Satellite as a powerful new climate spacecraft. But departments across the government added their unique payloads to the spacecraft, causing integration challenges and cost growth.
The same happens on classified spacecraft as intelligence agencies pile on payloads. Then there is the challenge of ensuring that the technology that is on the spacecraft is the best possible given it will be in orbit for a decade or more.
“Unlike an airplane, once you launch something into space you can’t upgrade it again, so when it comes to technology, you are often reworking your system to get the best available in there because you know that it’s going to be around for a long time once it’s in orbit,” the former official said. “So when people talk about cost, that’s a piece of it. It’s even harder when you’re trying to protect yourself against threats over the next 50 years.”
document.write('
');
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america
China Attempted To Blind U.S. Satellites With Laser
By VAGO MURADIAN
China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources.
It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.
But the combination of China’s efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network are at the core of U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources.
According to experts, lasers — depending on their power level — could blind electro-optical satellites like the giant Keyhole spacecraft or even interfere with radar satellites like the Lacrosse. Blinding, one source said, is different than disabling given the enormous power required to shoot a laser through the dense lower atmosphere and reach a fast-moving satellite in space. The hardware on the spacecraft can’t be changed given they’re in orbit, but software changes can help them weather disruptive attacks.
Russian jamming systems are publicly known — the Air Force destroyed such a system deployed to Iraq to keep American GPS guided bombs from finding their targets during the 2003. The site was destroyed by GPS guided bombs.
Pentagon officials, however, have kept quiet regarding China’s efforts as part of a Bush administration policy to keep from angering Beijing, which is a leading U.S. trading partner and seen as key to dealing with onerous states like North Korea and Iran.
Even the Pentagon’s recent China report failed to mention Beijing’s efforts to blind U.S. reconnaissance satellites. Rather, after a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line. In that one line, the report merely acknowledges China has the ability to blind U.S. satellites, thanks to a powerful ground-based laser capable of firing a beam of light at an optical reconnaissance satellite to keep it from taking pictures as it passes overhead.
According to top officials, however, China not only has the capability, but has exercised it. It is not clear when China first used lasers to attack American satellites. Sources would only say that there have been several tests over the past several years.
“The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena,” said one senior former Pentagon official. “They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier and are looking at symmetrical and asymmetrical means to offset American dominance in space.”
China’s burgeoning anti-satellite capabilities are further evidence of Beijing’s focused military strategy that aims not to engage the United States in direct confrontation, but through asymmetric means, according to Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
Krepinevich points out that China has outlined a set of capabilities it refers to as “Assassins Mace” to keep U.S. forces in the region at risk and away from China’s borders, and tailored to undermine each U.S. advantage from submarine to satellite capabilities.
For their part, service officials are not expressing alarm at efforts to counter the U.S. space advantage, explaining that such moves are predictable and understandable. But they are taking it seriously enough to test ground-based lasers against their own spacecraft to determine their efficacy and map space architectures that are resilient enough to resist such attacks.
The problem, according to sources, is that current satellites are large, on predictable orbits that are easy to track and have scant defenses against lasers.
The United States operates three large optical reconnaissance satellites of the Keyhole-series by Lockheed Martin that were introduced some three decades ago. The loss of any of the three would prove a blow to U.S. space capabilities, sources said, which is why they will be replaced by a large constellation of spacecraft under the Future Imagery Architecture program by Boeing and Lockheed.
Top officials, among them Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, flatly declined to comment on whether China has attempted to blind its satellites. Chinese officials could not be reached for comment at press time.
Wynne did, however, acknowledge that the Air Force’s space plans are shaped recognizing that potential foes will seek asymmetric means to harm a U.S. space network that gives the American military an enormous edge.
The goal, Wynne said, is to minimize the impact that real-life attacks would have on U.S. space capabilities through a networked architecture that can lose nodes but keep functioning.
Wynne stressed that what’s at stake isn’t merely U.S. military superiority, but the fate of global commerce because signals from Air Force GPS satellites are critical to everything from airline and maritime commerce to car navigation systems.
And unlike the 1980’s threat from Soviet anti-satellite plans, future space attacks will be limited in scope, Wynne said.
“At the time, the Soviets were always talking about a bald-faced assault,” he said. Future “asymmetric attacks are going to be local to try to mask out our capabilities in one region. The trick to winning asymmetrical warfare is to make it irrelevant.”
He said a new generation of GPS 3 satellite “will make further assaults and jamming efforts irrelevant.”
Doing “space and ISR through very different means … means asking good questions,” he said. “Do 22,200-mile-high orbits make sense? Does an orbital periodicity that is well known to any adversary have any relevance today? What you really want is assured situational awareness, position location and communications capabilities.”
But analysts, executives and even officials within the Pentagon have criticized the Air Force, arguing that the service is talking a good game but falling short on execution — largely for lack of budget.
One veteran space industry executive expressed shock at how limited the debate has been to better secure U.S. spacecraft, given the evidence that nations are investing in systems to blind American leaders in a future crisis.
The reason, executives and analysts said, is that such safeguards are complicated and expensive, and become targets when programs go over budget or fall behind schedule.
Case in point? One source said the Pentagon is so thirsty for more bandwidth to handle burgeoning communications demands that it has been short-changing security, which consumes bandwidth.
“It’s a tradeoff,” said one industry source. “And so far, the pressure has been for capacity over security.”
According to analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, the Air Force is making poor investment choices not only in space, but ISR programs.
“The U.S. Air Force’s ambitious plan for fielding orbital and airborne reconnaissance systems has begun to come unhinged in the budget process from Space Radar, to missile warning to future radar planes, the whole mission area seems to be melting down,” Thompson said.
Wynne contends that space programs are merely in the process of being restructured to rein in cost increases and schedule slips. Wynne also argues that the F-22 fighter’s powerful radar and electronic capabilities allow it to perform the roles of larger existing aircraft like the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, the Airborne Warning and Control System and the Rivet Joint, allowing the service to forgo investment in aircraft that are vulnerable to a new generation of powerful surface-to-air missiles.
“I’m probably the biggest supporter of the F-22 outside the Air Force, and while it’s the best fighter ever and can do these jobs, but not as well as dedicated assets that have the ability to stay on station far longer,” Thompson said. “Osama bin Laden is still at large and there are known vulnerabilities to our space systems. In this environment, it’s odd that the Air Force is cutting its orbital, manned and unmanned reconnaissance assets while presenting the F-22 as a reconnaissance platform. The point is, where are we deficient, firepower or finding the enemy?”
As for China specifically, Thompson said the country has a right to defend itself.
“If you keep looking over the fence at you neighbor’s back yard, you’re going to get poked in the eye, so it’s not surprising that China might be worried about U.S. forces stationed on their doorstep,” Thompson said. “They don’t like it and are figuring out how to poke us in the eye. Now I’m no great admirer of the Chinese leadership, but how would we feel if the Chinese had their aircraft carriers off Long Island. That’s why we have to do a better job of protecting ourselves and I’m afraid that’s not what we’re doing.”
The former Pentagon official put it more bluntly.
“The Air Force is trying to put a happy face on this,” he said. “It’s not that they don’t know what do. It’s that they don’t have the money in their space budget. It’s that simple.”
Another factor is the sheer complexity of building satellites that has fueled cost overruns and schedule delays. For example, the Air Force originally envisioned the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Observation Satellite as a powerful new climate spacecraft. But departments across the government added their unique payloads to the spacecraft, causing integration challenges and cost growth.
The same happens on classified spacecraft as intelligence agencies pile on payloads. Then there is the challenge of ensuring that the technology that is on the spacecraft is the best possible given it will be in orbit for a decade or more.
“Unlike an airplane, once you launch something into space you can’t upgrade it again, so when it comes to technology, you are often reworking your system to get the best available in there because you know that it’s going to be around for a long time once it’s in orbit,” the former official said. “So when people talk about cost, that’s a piece of it. It’s even harder when you’re trying to protect yourself against threats over the next 50 years.”
document.write('
Schumacher
New Member
No.
No.
No idea. Do U ? That's why I ask for some semblance of proof if U have any.
Not sure, depends how much they want to spend on it.
No. Do U deny US does as well ?
No.
Which countries' copyright laws ? Do U deny US break 'copyright laws' in its defence/intelligence related activities ?
Not so sure why U asked me those questions.
Do thefts occur in the US ? If yes, am I right to say Americans are thieves ? Get the point ? If not, re-read your post to which I originally replied.
In regards to the B-2... I can find dozens of similar cases.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061123-122450-1979r.htm
I do deny it. The world follows us, not the other way around.
Yes, we respect international copyright law. The fact every DVD and CD in China is pirated is only a symptom of the culture that transcends into the defense sector.
Chinese culture appears to accept the theft of intellectual property rights. This impairs the ability of free thinking and free market research as everyone with a good idea knows they won't make a cent for it. If you want to be on the cutting edge you have to run your R&D as a capitalist venture. China and Russia have both failed to privatize there defence industries therefore imparing their ability to compete with their Western counterparts.
Schumacher
New Member
It's reported in the Washington Times, therefore it must be true.
Sorry, many don't share the same level of confidence as U.Good for U. But ultimately that's merely your opinion.
Don't U mean US copyright law. Anyway, I do agree China's practices & views with regard to this is much different from those in US. But again, it's much better to show more proof that China actually pirated defence tech rather than say 'they pirate DVD, therefore they pirate defence tech as well.' or 'US don't pirate DVD, therefore they don't pirate or copy defence tech.'
It's almost as funny as saying 'the robbery rate in US is high, therefore they steal defence tech as well, & it's a symptom of that culture' don't u think ?
Agree here, don't think I tried to argue this with u.
Well, from what I've learnt following the Chinese military industry. It does a combination of self development, cooperations with Russians and copying other's stuff. In general, you tend to see them "copy" other country's stuff, because it's simply a smarter engineering practice to use an existing product as a guide or inspiration to produce something new.
If we step away from these prejudice toward copyright infringement and just look at the increments in the navy alone in the last 3-4 years, you will get an idea of how much PLAN can improve. I don't think I'm overstating when I say that the PLAN's overall capability has probably increased 3 or 4 folds in just the last 3-4 years if we consider all of the new battleships, littoral combatants, submarines, supply ships, amphibious assets and missiles that they've managed to induct. Consider this, when the second two sov and the 2 S-300 systems were bought in 2002, we thought they would be the crown jewel of PLAN when they get inducted. As we speak at the end of 2006, they are basically afterthoughts even though 139 and 116 are just joining forces as we speak. With 171 becoming the poster child of PLAN's modernization and 054A/071 launching causing all the headlines on Chinese forums, you wouldn't even notice that the North and East sea fleet are finally getting a pair of modern surface combatants.
Has PLAN improved, absolutely.
Could they have done it without Russian assistance, no way.
Is Russian R&D making many advances since the Cold War,not really.
Once China reaches Soviet levels of technology how will they keep up without Russia to lead them?
The way I see it the skies the limit for America... China has quite a few hurldes to overcome before they can even compete on a level playing field.
Could they have done it without Russian assistance, no way.
Is Russian R&D making many advances since the Cold War,not really.
Once China reaches Soviet levels of technology how will they keep up without Russia to lead them?
The way I see it the skies the limit for America... China has quite a few hurldes to overcome before they can even compete on a level playing field.
This post needs to get back on topic or it will be closed.
Any off topic discussions can be the basis of a new thread topic. Any further off topic responses will be deleted.
Any off topic discussions can be the basis of a new thread topic. Any further off topic responses will be deleted.
article
Hello everyone!
Although it is dated 3/27/07, I hope that this article from The Hankyoreh, S.Korean independent newspaper, is new to this tread, and IMO it clears up some puzzles, if it is to be accepted at a face value:
Hello everyone!
Although it is dated 3/27/07, I hope that this article from The Hankyoreh, S.Korean independent newspaper, is new to this tread, and IMO it clears up some puzzles, if it is to be accepted at a face value:
Are there any statements in it that absolutely should not be believed, and if so, why?
Interesting. The so called helicopter project that first appeared in an Indian newspaper is called 081. These newspapers are suggesting that the carriers are 085 and 089. So, is 08X the reserved designation for any helo or aircraft carriers? Just like 09x is reserved for nuclear subs, 07x for LPDs, 05x for destroyers and frigates.
IMO, if there are no Chinese origin reports on these issues, and there is none by the way, these "08x" ships should not be regarded seriously.
IMO, if there are no Chinese origin reports on these issues, and there is none by the way, these "08x" ships should not be regarded seriously.
According to a KANWA article, the Russians said that they were never approached by the Chinese to ask for their expert opinion. I think this was in reference to Rubin with regards to work on submarines. The Russian assistance is overstated across all fields.
Actually they do. One thing they finally managed to get access of is digital computer technologies, something that has eluded them in the Cold War. While funds are still short, they are also able to avail of these and other technologies that now enable them to finally complete things they are not able to during the Cold War. Just this alone can help revolutionize their sensor and communication technologies.
Well, we may never see a comprehensive report from the PRC, since their censors know their job and people in the know don't want to be tried for passing state secrets. So, we are left with bits and pieces coming from several anonymous sources. And besides, those numbered designations may have been changing all the time, adding to the confusion.
IMHO the article I posted makes sense from all the other open info. I've read so far. Except one point: the Varyag, or whatever it will be called, may still act as an active CV well into the future, not only as a training ship.
I don't think Crobato means official chinese reports. Don't expect Chinese gov to release any official reports on military projects before they are truely operational for several years.
The aritical you posted is an old news from Korea. It basically summed some internet rummors and added quite some wild and sensational stories (like that 93000 ton nuke carrier). That's why it hasn't attracted much attension across internet.
old news
That may be true, and I also think that the Chinese themselves haven't made up their mind on what kind of carriers to built-given that they never had built & operated one. Even in the US, the #1 CVN power, there are different opinions about the size and composition of future carrier force, and France decided not to have a 2nd CVN, building instead a CVF jointly with the UK. So, when the PLAN finaly puts their carriers to sea, I bet they will not look the same as some currently envision them.
That may be true, and I also think that the Chinese themselves haven't made up their mind on what kind of carriers to built-given that they never had built & operated one. Even in the US, the #1 CVN power, there are different opinions about the size and composition of future carrier force, and France decided not to have a 2nd CVN, building instead a CVF jointly with the UK. So, when the PLAN finaly puts their carriers to sea, I bet they will not look the same as some currently envision them.
Last edited:
- Status