China's first aircraft carrier 'starts sea trials'

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

No way, the US still has the might and technology, it just won't be as influential as in previous times, the US would not sit on its hands if Australia needed assistance. We need the US as an ally like you wouldn't believe, they are the ones that spend the mega amounts of money and Australia gets to sleep soundly at night, if we did not have the USA's backing I don't even want to think about how much more money Australia would have to increase on military spending.

thats it, for all its short comings no other country has even close to the military power or reach of the yanks yet. to be their ally is imho a massive deterrent in itself.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

It was different back then though, troop numbers were probably an armies most important asset.

But now it isn't, you can't send hundreds of thousands of troops to destroy an aircraft carrier, stealth bomber or cruise missile.

Technology is where its at now, but in saying that you still need soldiers to take and hold ground.

Manufacturing and soliders is what wins wars. Japanese admiral once stated that America's industrial might was such an advantage that he thought they had no chance against the US and that was prior to their attack on Pearl Harbour.

China now can be seen as having the same advantage America had back in WWII

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by SB076

Manufacturing and soliders is what wins wars. Japanese admiral once stated that America's industrial might was such an advantage that he thought they had no chance against the US and that was prior to their attack on Pearl Harbour.

China now can be seen as having the same advantage America had back in WWII

Yet the insurgency in Iraq nearly brought the US occupation force to its knees - less numbers of combatants with little to no manufacturer or tech support.

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Yet the insurgency in Iraq nearly brought the US occupation force to its knees - less numbers of combatants with little to no manufacturer or tech support.

Thats the result of failing to have a defined strategy. They didn't (and still don't) know if they going to be occupiers or were just removing a dictatorship.

That also shows the compete lack of cultural understanding the US forces had.

Having said that, history is full of minority forces making things so costly for larger aggressors that continuing the conflict becomes untenable.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Yet the insurgency in Iraq nearly brought the US occupation force to its knees - less numbers of combatants with little to no manufacturer or tech support.

Or Soviets vs Afganistan, US vs Vietnam there is more too it than what I stated as My poor XF said, there needs to be strategies etc and the list goes on. I suppose my comment was to suggest that China is a military powerhouse for those reasons (not as powerful as the states, but they have the potential to be)

If two nations throw every resource they have against each other, typically the nation with more industrial might and manpower will defeat the other nation.

Remember reading an article years ago, about China converting from a brown water navy to a blue water navy. Looks like the article was correct

[thedutchman92]

Originally Posted by SB076

Or Soviets vs Afganistan, US vs Vietnam there is more too it than what I stated as My poor XF stated, there needs to be strategies etc and the list goes on. I suppose my comment was to suggest that China is a military powerhouse (not as powerful as the states, but they have the potential to be)

However if two nations throw every resource they have against each other, typically the nation with more industrial might and manpower will defeat the other nation.

Remember reading an article years ago, about China converting from a brown water navy to a blue water navy. Looks like the article was correct

The advent of nuclear warfare changes all of this, its basically whoever disables the opposition first based on current stockpiles, assuming nukes are to be used

[SB076]

Originally Posted by thedutchman92

The advent of nuclear warfare changes all of this, its basically whoever disables the opposition first based on current stockpiles, assuming nukes are to be used

If nukes go up then forget everything we are all stuffed. I hope the threat of Nuclear warfare is enough to prevent any large scale wars like what we have seen in the past.

[glavas]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Yet the insurgency in Iraq nearly brought the US occupation force to its knees - less numbers of combatants with little to no manufacturer or tech support.

Obviously you know nothing about warfare. These wars are not as clean cut as "my country vs your country". Its who has the most will to stay in the fight. Look at vietnam they were fighting for decades for there freedom and they finaly got it.

how do we win in a war of insurgency? what is winning? the only way to truely win is to wipe out the indigenous populess. And I doubt that will happen.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by SB076

Manufacturing and soliders is what wins wars. Japanese admiral once stated that America's industrial might was such an advantage that he thought they had no chance against the US and that was prior to their attack on Pearl Harbour.

China now can be seen as having the same advantage America had back in WWII

Your a bit off the mark regarding the Japs thinking they had no chance against the US. They knew that the only chance they had was to defeat the US quickly, I think they were thinking inside 6 months, before the US could crank up their manufacturing and out produce them in terms of weaponry.

They knew they could not even come close to matching the US industrial might, especially considering their lack of resources, the reason they started fighting in the first place.

[geckoGT]

This is getting a bit off track, it has been a while since a chinese aircraft carrier has been discussed.

Lets get it back on topic thanks.

[thedutchman92]

As a reboot, does China have the naval power and technology for dedicated carrier battle groups?

[Jim Goose]

Since China has never had a carrier, id say nope!

One interesting thing which appeared in our local paper a few weeks ago was that it was expected that the chinese navy would be visiting us here in Townsville THIS year...

I cant say I know of the Chinese Navy ever visiting any over seas ports as they are more interested in watching their own coast lines.

[GTPete]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Since China has never had a carrier, id say nope!

One interesting thing which appeared in our local paper a few weeks ago was that it was expected that the chinese navy would be visiting us here in Townsville THIS year...

I cant say I know of the Chinese Navy ever visiting any over seas ports as they are more interested in watching their own coast lines.

I just dont feel comfortable about that visit, I wonder if they would recipricate?

[thedutchman92]

Must be for an exercise with the RAN then?

[Jim Goose]

Apparently it will be for their first joint exersize... be interesting to see what shows up?

[NC_Lane]

I would say that this ship is just a training exercise as they say.

China does not have the experience to run a carrier battle group, but you can be sure that there are working on newer/better ships by using a mix of plans and technologies acquired in various forms. I would expect to see them produce new carriers in the next 10-15 years, and by this time, they should have trained enough personnel on this one.

Things would get interesting then as with China being the largest ship builder in the world and with the money they have, they have plenty of capacity to churn out large numbers of these.

Correct me if i am wrong, but I hardly believe that the US now has enough cash,capabilities to manufacture these on a larger scale now.

[hawker]

NC Lane, I think you're right to an extent, however, the US already had a lot of future funding in place for the new ship projects, upgrading older boats, building the newer ones, so unless they grab the funding from that, I don't think the US will be slowing down the might that is the US Navy at any point. Although I am wondering how they plan to keep paying the military. Russia had Vodka, maybe they could offer free Maccas? :P

China having an aircraft carrier doesn't really bother me to be honest, I mean, just because they have a carrier doesn't mean anyone is doomed. It's a bit like Down Periscope. I'm more worried about the wrong people (ie. non military) getting their hands on military equipment. Bit like the time some Asian drug gang tried to buy a second hand Oberon class submarine from us... Suspicious much? Pleasure cruises?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by hawker

Bit like the time some Asian drug gang tried to buy a second hand Oberon class submarine from us... Suspicious much? Pleasure cruises?

Because it is easier to make people swim with the fishes when you have a sub to throw them out of.

[Bossxr8]

Heroin torpedos?

[ford man xf]

New Naval Combat Helicopters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgciq...&feature=share


A4G & HMAS Melbourne Flight Ops Pilot Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dD2r...&feature=share

'Farewell to a Lady' HMAS Melbourne swansong 1985
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy9fs...&feature=share

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Yet the insurgency in Iraq nearly brought the US occupation force to its knees - less numbers of combatants with little to no manufacturer or tech support.

Don't agree. Rem GW1 had half a million fielded US and coalition troops, GW2 a max 140K surge number of US troops and 'peaked' at 160 or so K.

Occupation US force numbers in Germany until the fall of the Berlin wall was what - 350K per year?! As with South Korea and Japan - BIG drop in US force numbers = less to pay, and a sign of changing times, one of those aspects owing the falling empire perhaps.

US and allies are capable of much more militarily in any of the low key hostility events current and past. Problem is funds and need. A balance of probabilities is perhaps that Afghanistan is as best it can get, IF in the future so called terror camps are set up, then they'll be destroyed again.

I agree with Sen Ron Paul, vis; the US should not avail itself to OS combat operations.

If China 'goes bad' or becomes uber ultra nationalist within ten or so years and ramps up its armed production, as some asian nations warn they are doing right now, then the US and its allies here, and right down to Chile will become quite aware of the complex game of military chess the Chinese will play. They are not muppets.

I'd bet the Panama canal will be shut by them. I'll also bet certain pacific nations will be 'disrupted' as well - to counter US response. But this is all future stuff but based on on-ground realities now; growing vested business interest and people arriving on the ground. (Solomons - we depart 2014, but will probably remain till 2020 - it'll fall apart otherwise, PNG, Fiji). Taiwan too is involved - its trying to balance this Chinese game of chess.

Perhaps China will progress smoothly, establish as it is - its internal economic market (to not be so affected when or if the US dollar fails) and all will be at peace. The Taiwan thing, well. Its a strategic mistake for the US to sell some of its elite hardware to its friend. A reason why Taiwan works at self sufficiency in defence equipment, with help.

TIN FOIL TIME: - If all goes well in peace - the worlds 'elite' will be using Chinese forces for world-role enforcement, instead of relying on US forces as much.

Originally Posted by hawker

China having an aircraft carrier doesn't really bother me to be honest, I mean, just because they have a carrier doesn't mean anyone is doomed.

They intend several within a few years. Varayag is a mere training carrier with ultra advanced radar etc.

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

One interesting thing which appeared in our local paper a few weeks ago was that it was expected that the chinese navy would be visiting us here in Townsville THIS year... I cant say I know of the Chinese Navy ever visiting any over seas ports as they are more interested in watching their own coast lines.

Chinese navy visit many places, including Sydney.
http://www.navy.gov.au/Peoples_Repub...%E2%80%99_ties

[FalconForce]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Going by the furniture we get built in China for us at work, don't be too worried, lol.

does that mean they can be defeated by an allen key?

[Keepleft]

Thought I'd drag this back up:-

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/w...ietnam-report/

[Jim Goose]

China has always claimed those waters are hers... despite not being recognised internationally. Its always been a very touchy subject with them.

I think that its claims are to secure not only a large buffer, but also to make sure the vast quantities of oil in the area go in Chinas direction.

We have already seen a lust for oil by other nations.... dont be surprised to see more of it.

[thedutchman92]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

China has always claimed those waters are hers... despite not being recognised internationally. Its always been a very touchy subject with them.

I think that its claims are to secure not only a large buffer, but also to make sure the vast quantities of oil in the area go in Chinas direction.

We have already seen a lust for oil by other nations.... dont be surprised to see more of it.

Every legitimate country gurt by sea has an official 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone so if china's claims are within this boundary then they have total control over them

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by thedutchman92

Every legitimate country gurt by sea has an official 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone so if china's claims are within this boundary then they have total control over them

Umm... technically yes... but in this case no.

Its economic zone overlaps with its neighbours zone... hence the problem.

[ford man xf]

Pentagon cautions on China military might Michael Sainsbury, China correspondent From: The Australian August 26, 2011 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share
Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?CHINA'S military build-up could be "potentially destabilising" in the Asia-Pacific region, the Pentagon said as it released its annual report on the country's military, which estimates the nation's annual spending on its armed forces at $US160 billion ($153bn).
The unprecedented military modernisation project by Asia's most powerful country has already seen the emergence of its first aircraft carrier and stealth fighter jet this year - but cyber warfare is rising as a critical issue.

"China's 2010 defence white paper asserts that China's future and destiny have never been more closely connected with those of the international community," says the report, Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2011.

"Nonetheless, China's modernised military could be put to use in ways that increase China's ability to gain diplomatic advantage or resolve disputes in its favour."

The report notes that China is developing anti-ship missiles that could target aircraft carriers while expanding the naval fleet.

"Over the past decade, China's military has benefited from robust investment in modern hardware and technology. Many modern systems have reached maturity and others will become operational in the next few years," the report says.

Deputy Secretary of Defence of East Asia Michael Shiffer described the build-up as "potentially destabilising".

The report also states that developing capabilities for cyber-warfare is consistent with authoritative PLA military writings.

The report came as Chinese state television broadcast footage of what appeared to be a military institute demonstrating software designed to attack US websites.

Andrew Erickson and Gabe Collins's China SignPost analytical service, which specialises in military issues, said the 10-second segment was part of a longer report on cyber security.

China has asserted that it doesn't use cyber attacks but earlier this year admitted it had a "Blue Army" focused on the internet. Its scope was domestic, not international, Beijing said.

State-run Chinese media criticised the Pentagon report mainly for its discussion of Taiwan, which China considers a rogue province, not a separate country.

"The 94-page report, as usual, interferes with the internal issue of China by making wilful comments on the situation across Taiwan Straits," the Xinhua news agency said.

The US must reach a decision on whether to sell Taiwan new F-16 fighter planes by October 1 but there have been reports that they may retrofit ageing planes instead.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226122390601

[ford man xf]

Canberra warned of risks in China's rise Brendan Nicholson, Defence editor

From: The Australian September 02, 2011 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share
Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?AUSTRALIAN security agencies warned the US in 2006 that, as China built up its military power, there was a danger of misunderstandings that could lead to a crisis.
In a joint review of a US Defence Department report on China's military power, Australian agencies raised concerns about China's antipathy towards transparency, the possibility Beijing could overestimate its military strength, China's rising nationalism, its "predilection for strategic deception" and difficulties with Japan and Taiwan.

A cable written by the US embassy in Canberra and released by WikiLeaks said Australia welcomed increasing US engagement with China, including on defence, and intended to use its defence relationship with China to promote increased transparency in China's military development and to deepen co-operation in peacekeeping, counter-terrorism and junior leadership exchanges.

Canberra officials also outlined substantial concerns.

"Arguably China already poses a credible threat to militaries operating in the region and will present an even more formidable challenge as its modernisation continues," the agencies said.

"Australia estimates that China's military spending for 2006 is approximately $(US)70 billion, twice the budget publicly announced but at the lower end of the range suggested by the Department of Defence report," the cable said.

"It attributes the reason for China's military modernisation to its determination to deter Taiwan from becoming independent, including by developing the capability to deter or delay the US from coming to Taiwan's aid militarily.

"It also concludes that China's longer-term agenda is to develop 'comprehensive national power', including a strong military, that is in keeping with its view of itself as a great power.

"The review underscores the potential for misconceptions that might lead to a crisis, citing such factors as China's antipathy towards transparency, the possibility it could overestimate its military capability, and the confluence of China's rising nationalism, predilection for strategic deception, and difficulties with Japan and Taiwan."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226127660814