U.S. responds to Chinese aircraft carrier with pointed question
posted at 9:30 am on August 13, 2011 by J.E. Dyer
ABC features the Obama administration response as if – well, as if it deserves featuring:
As China’s first aircraft carrier takes to the open seas today for its inaugural sea trials, the U.S. government directed a pointed question at the Chinese military: Why would you need a warship like that?
“We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment,” U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters today. “We have had concerns for some time and we’ve been quite open with them with regard to the lack of transparency from China regarding its power projection and its lack of access and denial of capabilities.” …
“We are prepared to be extremely transparent with regard to U.S. military positions and equipment, and we’d like to have a reciprocal relationship with China, and that’s what our presidents have said we ought to aspire to,” Nuland said. “Transparency in itself is a confidence builder between nations.”
That’ll fix their wagon, over there in Beijing. Of course, the hazard of demanding an answer to a question is that you may get one. The Channel News Asia website today quotes a piece from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Daily, the state-run military news outlet, in which the author says the carrier should be used to “handle territorial disputes”:
“Why did we build it if we don’t have the courage and willingness to use the aircraft carrier to handle territorial disputes?” he asked in the article.
“It is reasonable to use the aircraft carrier or other warships to handle disputes if there is any need.
“The reason why we built a carrier is to safeguard China’s maritime rights and interests more efficiently. We will be more confident and have more determination to defend our territorial integrity after we have carriers.”
A pointed question for the US administration would be: What did they think China’s purpose was in launching an aircraft carrier? Does it really require explanation? Why do nations usually put aircraft carriers in service? (China didn’t actually build this one; the Russians did. China finished it and fitted it out with combat systems.)
Another pointed question would be: What obligation could China possibly have to account to the US for why she has put a carrier in her fleet? China’s not an ally and is bound by no treaty requirement to explain the introduction of new aircraft carriers. Why ask a question that can’t put China on the spot and only invites a destabilizing answer?
The PLA Daily piece is being linked fervently all over Asia. In the wake of multiple warnings from Beijing to the rival maritime claimants in the South China Sea (most recent here), the PLA Daily statement about the purpose of the aircraft carrier looks pretty, well, pointed.
The new carrier, which according to some reports will be named Shi Lang, has just begun sea trials. It still needs to conduct operational testing of all kinds, and integrate its airwing, before it is ready for combat deployments. China officially debuted the J-15 strike-fighter that will form the core of the airwing earlier this year; the first photos of the prototype emerged in 2009-10, so it’s a new aircraft for the Chinese military and is still being shaken out itself. The J-15 is based on the Russian Su-33, the follow-on to the Su-27 designed for the Admiral Kuznetsov-class ski-jump aircraft carrier. (Russia has Admiral Kuznetsov in service; China’s new carrier is the ex-Varyag, the other unit of the class.)
A full combat complement for the airwing will probably be three squadrons of J-15s, or about 33 aircraft, plus support helicopters. China is reportedly developing a fixed-wing air control and early warning (AEW) aircraft, to fill the role of the US E-2C Hawkeye, and if the ex-Varyag were to carry such an aircraft, that would mean fewer J-15s, as there is a capacity limit for airwing parking. Integration of a fixed-wing, carrier-based AEW airframe may be delayed to the inauguration of the Chinese-designed, indigenously built aircraft carrier.
What these various details mean is that China will not be deploying a combat-ready aircraft carrier tomorrow. Although the Chinese have sped up their typical timeline for operationalizing new capabilities, I would guess the ex-Varyag won’t be in combat service for at least another 15-18 months, and its capabilities will be limited.
That said, the “problem-set” for operationalizing ex-Varyag is of a different scope from that of the path to combat readiness for a US carrier. The ex-Varyag will never have the capabilities of its US counterparts; its size and other limitations prevent that. But it doesn’t have to have those capabilities to be a game-changer in Southeast Asia. Much of what a US carrier totes with it everywhere – making it the famous “four and a half acres of sovereign US territory” – China can provide separately to the maritime battlespace from shore. Distances are short in the South China Sea, and the Chinese build-up there huge. China doesn’t need this carrier to attack and subjugate Taiwan, and couldn’t use it to project power at great distances – but it’s the ideal platform to “handle territorial disputes” with the Philippines or Vietnam.
It turns out there are stupid questions. The Obama administration just asked one. The good news is that there may be at least a reason, if not an excuse, for the apparent confusion. The Chinese launched two aircraft carriers this week: the other one is a luxury hotel in Tianjin, on the Yellow Sea coast in northern China. The former-Soviet carrier Kiev, which China bought in 1996 to use as a recreational facility, has undergone a multi-million-dollar transformation into a luxury destination for the exotic-travel connoisseur. There are reportedly five presidential suites, along with cheaper accommodations. Room rates haven’t been published yet, but you can tour the Binhai Military Theme Park for a ticket cost of 110 yuan, or about $17 US.
China's other aircraft carrier; photo Xinhuanet
For naval/carrier buffs, excellent pictorial history of ex-Varyag here.
J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Good thing we’ve got a strong leader.
ErinF on August 13, 2011 at 9:31 AM
… Maybe obama can do that little scratch-his-cheek-with-his-middle-finger thing. That’ll REALLY scare the hell out of them. He’s so bad-ass.
ErinF on August 13, 2011 at 9:32 AM
ChiComs don’t have to explain nothing to people they own.
He is the DOTUS. I’m surprised the ChiComs don’t just take over all of the Western Pacific, it’s theirs.
Next stop for the ChiComs?………the Middle East and it’s oil.
PappyD61 on August 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM
What was the question? “Can you build one for us cheap?”
bayview on August 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM
Not-Too-Distant-Future headline: ChiComs Demand UN Designate South China Sea Chinese Territorial Waters
Steve Eggleston on August 13, 2011 at 9:37 AM
Don’t you just hate it when we ask such plaintive questions?
Maybe it’s time for another bow. Or another speech.
Drained Brain on August 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM
He/we, should be glad they don’t demand we give them a couple of ours as collateral!
bluemarlin on August 13, 2011 at 9:42 AM
Good thing the Chinese aren’t communist.
No need for China to built carriers if the Democrats have their way we’ll be selling our carriers to them.
Its only fair.
Nice of us to build their fancy hotel too.
Speakup on August 13, 2011 at 9:45 AM
Ahhh, the “transparent” word. The Obama Administration really seems to love this word, but I think they think the meaning is actually attacked to Void.
upinak on August 13, 2011 at 9:45 AM
God help Taiwan!!!!!
Katfish on August 13, 2011 at 9:45 AM
I thought it was about the dumbest question to come out of this administration. Then the cynic in me took over and wondered if their ultimate goal was to create a new “Washington Naval treaty”.
I think she is a good looking ship.
cozmo on August 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM
Gee I wonder who paid for that? Oh yeah, we did.
vcferlita on August 13, 2011 at 9:47 AM
Oh, and yeah, they are going to take over the world tomorrow with one Forrestal equivalent carrier.
cozmo on August 13, 2011 at 9:48 AM
As I sit here and watch the history of the carrier Enterprise in WWII, I weep for our Nation. How have we lost our way so badly? We used to have a direction and the resolve to carry that out!
bluemarlin on August 13, 2011 at 9:49 AM
Remember the good old days when we were a super power?
ORconservative on August 13, 2011 at 9:51 AM
They could have simply repo’d some of ours for nothing. Stupid Chi-Coms.
faraway on August 13, 2011 at 9:52 AM
Petulant children. The White House, that is.
BacaDog on August 13, 2011 at 9:57 AM
Never ask a question when you know the answer is, “Go pound sand.”
Akzed on August 13, 2011 at 10:12 AM
honsy on August 13, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Those ladies can carry my aircraft any time.
Red Cloud on August 13, 2011 at 10:18 AM
And we have carriers, why? The given reason is “power projection,” but what right have we to project power on the rest of the world if we’ve given up on the idea of American exceptionalism?
If we’re better than everybody else then we ought to be stronger, to keep “the lesser breeds without the law” in line. But if we’re no better, then what’s the point?
Just so there’s no doubt: I’m all in favor of American exceptionalism. But it’s not our current policy.
PersonFromPorlock on August 13, 2011 at 10:19 AM
I am not a fan of the administration, but criticizing that question is silly. It’s the same thing any other administration (including Reagan’s and both Bush’s) would have asked – it’s how they play the diplomatic game.
exhelodrvr on August 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM
Seeing as how this particular carrier was laid down in the mid 80′s, Reagan, Bush (HW), Clinton or Bush (W) could have asked this question. They didn’t. Even though it would have been more pertinent a question for the original owners.
cozmo on August 13, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Oh relax. Without major air cover, this ship is just a giant target. Taiwan recently built a carrier-killing missile for just this sort of occasion.
Where are the Chinese going to train their pilots? Right now, they have a large naval aviation branch but only helicopter pilots can land on ships. The rest of the world (UK, France, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Thailand)sends their fixed-wing pilots to the US and/or uses US carriers.
So, will we see PLA personnel at Pensacola (FL), Whiting (FL), Corpus Christi (TX), Vance (OK), Kingsville (TX), or Meridian (MS)? I hope not.
KillerKane on August 13, 2011 at 10:32 AM
Well, I guess asking “a pointed question” is cheaper than launching your own ship.
The only pointed question should go to the administration: why did you allow this provocation? And, what are you going to do about it?
virgo on August 13, 2011 at 10:34 AM
I’m never one to buy into the threat of the Chinese military.
It just doesn’t exist.
It’s a bit like the myth of the mighty Soviet military (that got it’s arse handed to it over and over again on the battlefield).
reaganaut on August 13, 2011 at 10:41 AM
The Chinese have NO carrier experience. The United States has lots of experience, both in sinking enemy carriers and keeping ours from being sunk.
My estimate is that 1 hour after hostilities begin, there will be a new reef at the bottom of the South China Sea and it won’t be of American manufacture.
evilned on August 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Tell that to Taiwan – our ally!
honsy on August 13, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Equivalent to the Forrestal? I don’t think so. The Forrestal could carry about 85 planes a few more than the 33 this thing can manage, planes like the F-14. The Forrestal actually managed to land and launch a C-130 Hercules. Somehow I don’t think the Chinese bird farm could handle that. The forrestal may be old, outdated and mothballed but it’s still a lot more ship than this floating target will ever be. They may catch up to us someday but it ain’t today.
Oldnuke on August 13, 2011 at 10:45 AM
The Soviet military machine gave the Nazis a serious pounding during WW2. Of course their only real tests came in Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Poland 1981, and the Baltic states in 1990-91. Afghanistan breaks everyone, although the US and NATO have suffered far less than anyone else (as heartless as that seems).
KillerKane on August 13, 2011 at 10:45 AM
To defend ourselves from US Socialism and Economic Cancer!
I am firmly on the side of the Chinese in this one. This capitalism thing is really working for them.
They are just preparing to defend themselves as we attempt to export our job killing EPA, OSHA, card check and green regulations all over the earth.
IlikedAUH2O on August 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM
“I hope you are not offended if I ask, but why are you pointing that gun to my head?”
Hening on August 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM
All true, but the class of carriers this ship belongs to has been compared to the Forrestal class since the Russians laid down this hull. Mostly because of the tonnage. And there wasn’t a smaller super carrier to compare it to.
cozmo on August 13, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Our allies in South East Asia have nothing to fear. Just look how Barry has treated our allies in other parts of the world.
Oh, wait………….
GarandFan on August 13, 2011 at 10:58 AM
To surround Formosa, you twits. How much are we paying these people anyway.
Kissmygrits on August 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM
Never underestimate your enemy.
This is the first step. This is the lab, if you will. This is the tool they’ll use to develop a whole new generation of naval weaponry and tactics.
This is the tool they’ll begin training their forces to take on our Navy.
catmman on August 13, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Yep.
Right now, all they have is a badly obsolete rustbucket they’ll have trouble even finding pilots to land/take off from.
But the Chinese are, for once, taking the initiative instead of just sitting around swiping other people’s R&D. They’ll use this carrier to start training a blue-water capable air force. They may lose pilots and planes doing so – or even perhaps the ship – but this is just the beginning.
Uncle Sams Nephew on August 13, 2011 at 11:07 AM
The real issue with this carrier is not how it would fare in battle against the U.S.; the real issue is how it will be used for the PR aspects of power projection. Both as a threat against the “locals” and as a “stick in the eye” of the U.S. And it will be a significant factor in both those roles.
exhelodrvr on August 13, 2011 at 11:09 AM
Taiwan and japan better be paying attention. Hopefullytehy have some anti-ship missiles in their arsenals… they may need them.
Yakko77 on August 13, 2011 at 11:11 AM
@KillerKane….where are the Chinese training pilots? In the U.S. – snoop around the Hillsboro, Oregon airport and you will see many Chinese pilots being trained.
Read the “why choose us”
http://www.hillsboroaviation.com/en/page/about_us_why_hai
albill on August 13, 2011 at 11:14 AM
Don’t they know el Bongo man is harmless?
It’s to take back Taiwan, what did you think they wanted with it.
Probably never occurred to el Bongo.
tarpon on August 13, 2011 at 11:14 AM
Don’t Taiwan and Japan have Submarines? How good is China’s ASW capabilities? It’s hard to project power if you can’t defend it.
Corsair on August 13, 2011 at 11:18 AM
What I want to know is….is the rug on the floor a genuine American Jersey Cow or a map of the number of Chinese contributors to Obama’s campaign fund?
Rovin on August 13, 2011 at 11:18 AM
I’m thinking that Hillsboro aviation isn’t pumping out a lot of CV NATOPS qualified Aircrew.
BallisticBob on August 13, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Rovin, I think a better question is: What is that woman in the foreground of the picture doing? Making sure the silver vinyl is nice and smooth? Or is she just warming it with her hands so the passenger won’t have to sit on a cold chair?
The mind boggles.
rihar on August 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM
I highly doubt the ChiComs will be dumb enough to pit the SS Deadweight and green navy pilots against Taiwan or Japan. This carrier is going to be for PR purposes training, unless I seriously miss my guess.
Uncle Sams Nephew on August 13, 2011 at 11:32 AM
We, meaning you, me and the rest of the civilian populace don’t know that, and won’t until/if the balloon goes up and the casualty reports start coming in. That’s a good thing. Hopefully our submariners know and are continually updating their files. They’ll never tell you either, that’s another good thing. With any luck they won’t tell The Won either, and I’m only half kidding when I say that. Back when I was in Uncle’s Canoe Club we had no doubts whatsoever about what the outcome would be if our Navy took on the Russians. We knew our capabilities and limitations and theirs ,and trust me, they came up wanting. 5 to 1 their favor would not have been a fair fight. Yet all you ever heard about in the news was how superior the Russians were. Remember, all war is deception and contrary to popular belief our military is very good at it. I suspect that the Chinese are too.
Oldnuke on August 13, 2011 at 11:37 AM
No, it’s not — and that’s the point. Reagan never once asked what the Soviets needed a weapon system for. I doubt even Jimmy Carter did, although I’d have to research that to be sure.
A strong-hand response always sticks to what we will do. The State Dept spokesman was responding to a media question, so the right answer would have been something like this:
“We’re watching this carrier to see what they do with it. We have good allies in East Asia and our goal there is security for them and for US interests in general. We want to see regional disputes resolved peacefully. If you’re asking what we think of the carrier as a military threat, the folks over at Defense can give you a more detailed answer. But I don’t think they’re too worried about it.”
After 2+ years of Obama, sadly, things like this need to be explained. Instead of asking plaintive questions (good word, Drained Brain) — instead of opening cans of worms (e.g., “how big a threat,” or “this is destabilizing”) — instead of getting in the weeds on how a Chinese ski-jump carrier might affect the maritime disputes in the South China Sea — instead of these things, effective diplomatic communication emphasizes our priorities and intentions.
There is a bit of a game, however, as you say. The part about DOD not being worried about the Chinese aircraft carrier is gamed wording. It doesn’t mean the US military doesn’t take the carrier seriously. It means we’re not going to let it be a threat.
J.E. Dyer on August 13, 2011 at 11:40 AM
Like it’s “sister” ship Kuznetsov (or going all the way back to our own USS Langley), I think you’ll find this thing is more of a proof-of-concept/experiment than it is a viable weapon system. As good as the Chinese are at stealing our secrets, there are some things that can only be learned through experience, and carrier operations involve a lot of those.
That said, the administration’s response sounds a bit like something a middle school girl would pass in a note to one of her rivals.
Blacklake on August 13, 2011 at 11:41 AM
J.E.,
You’re missing the point – asking that question is totally appropriate, there is nothing wrong with it, and it is a standard tactic. The real issue is not the question – the real issue is if we will follow it up appropriately. You don’t address that at all in your post.
exhelodrvr on August 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM
It’s a good question for a neophyte I guess
Sonosam on August 13, 2011 at 11:47 AM
Once again, it’s NOT a standard tactic.
J.E. Dyer on August 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Would you like that sunk
With missiles or torpedoes?
Perhaps a nice mine?
Haiku Guy on August 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM
JE Dyer,
They asked a rhetorical question. Everyone knows it’s a rhetorical question. Criticizing the rhetorical question makes you look petty. That then takes away from the strength of what could have been a very strong, pointed argument about what is the Obama administration actually doing about China trying to increase it’s sphere of influence. You don’t address that at all.
exhelodrvr on August 13, 2011 at 11:54 AM
Simple answer:
DUH!!!
Woody
woodcdi on August 13, 2011 at 11:58 AM
There was a time when potential enemies of America weren’t asked silly questions about incidents like this -they were given warnings.
But moderation and humility, toleration and compromise have made this once great nation vulnerable. Thanks liberals on the left and the fiscal/libertarian complex on the right.
Don L on August 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM
US to China : Pretty please, just because our high taxes and regulations are forcing manufacturing to move to China, plus we are going broke and have plans to cut military spending by billions so we can pay for union and entitlement pensions plus benefits, don’t drive us deeper into debt trying to keep up with your military spending.
Just who do you think you are — Ronald Reagan?
drfredc on August 13, 2011 at 12:07 PM
I remember when George “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice and uhhhhh” Bush came out and publicly stated that we “don’t want manufacturing jobs in the U.S.”.
It was at that point, I realized just how stupid the man really is. Our “Representatives” actually WANT the tradesman jobs out of this country.
Why???
Seems like a GREAT way to eliminate the middle class, and create a 2 tier society to me. Hmmmmm….now I wonder WHO would WANT that?????
KMC1 on August 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM
I wasn’t necessarily looking for specifics. I assume they got most of their training and equipment(or plans for equipment) from the
SovietsRussians and from past experience they seem to have trouble improving on things(they are great at copying things but not inventing). So they are probably about the same as or just below the Russians.This is more about perceived power than actual power, but is a small step toward actual power. Something to be seriously monitored but probably not a game changer unless the US guts our own navy.
Corsair on August 13, 2011 at 12:27 PM
I appreciate your persistence, exhelodrvr. It helps me make an important point, which is that there are no insignificant “rhetorical questions” in diplomatic communications.
It always matters what state departments and foreign ministries say, because such communications shape the strategic environment. They do that whether we intend them to or not, so it’s important to always use words for a worthwhile purpose. When we don’t, that doesn’t send no signal, it sends the wrong signal.
I fully understand your point about what we’re going to do about China increasing her sphere of influence. My point is that what we say about the ex-Varyag is an important part of “what we’re going to do about it.”
Americans are the only people on the planet who think the luxury exists of not taking every word our spokesmen say seriously. The answer to your point is that, with its “rhetorical question,” Obama’s State Department did tell China what we’re going to do about her strategic intentions: nothing.
J.E. Dyer on August 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Has anyone noticed, from the angle in the photo, it looks just like a really big Chinese junk.
etaoinshrdlu on August 13, 2011 at 1:04 PM
It’ll make a dandy fishing reef.
trigon on August 13, 2011 at 1:48 PM
How many cruise missiles would it take to render it useless?
tgillian on August 13, 2011 at 1:52 PM
JE Dyer,
They asked a rhetorical question. Everyone knows it’s a rhetorical question. Criticizing the rhetorical question makes you look petty. That then takes away from the strength of what could have been a very strong, pointed argument about what is the Obama administration actually doing about China trying to increase it’s sphere of influence. You don’t address that at all.
exhelodrvr on August 13, 2011 at 11:54 AM
why did the chicken cross the road?
Sonosam on August 13, 2011 at 2:05 PM
I commented on this story on the headlines yesterday, saying that we need to stay out of other nations’ business. Someone called me an isolationist; I don’t see how staying out of other nation’s affairs is isolationism.
Seriously, we need to stay out of other nations’ business. It would do the US a lot of good, save us a lot of money, and save a lot of American lives.
Sleeper on August 13, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Exactly one.
BallisticBob on August 13, 2011 at 2:10 PM
Tech questions: the deck looks to be configured as that required for STOL jets like the British carriers. Does China have any STOLs in service? Can regular jets take off backwards maybe? Have they installed catapults? What do they have with landing gear strong enough to take a carrier landing?
slickwillie2001 on August 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM
ha!! stupid neo-cons now you see the messiah’s smart power diplomacy. teh chicoms are gonna ask themselves that question “why do we need an aircraft carrier” and realize there is no good answer. then they sink it to make the world’s largest artifical reef showing how eco-sensitive they are thanks to the ONE!! suck it bushitler mcchimpy clones!!
chasdal on August 13, 2011 at 2:20 PM
I think they’re using a Chinese copy of the navalized Su-27 or something. The deck is long enough that if you set the brakes, power up the engines and let it go it’ll take off. Not sure how much fuel and ordinace it can take off using this simplistic method but the jets are standard naval fixed wing planes IIRC.
Yakko77 on August 13, 2011 at 3:08 PM
JE Dyer,
Rhetorical questions are not “insignificant”. They are used to make a point, without making the point in black and white. And this question did that appropriately. A technique that all governments use.
exhelodrvr on August 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM
Or another round of golf. Or another vacation. Or time to turn the East Room or the White House lawn into a nightclub again.
Party like it’s 1999.
pdigaudio on August 13, 2011 at 3:56 PM
My response would be if the Chinese knew how quickly our military could destroy it.
Dr. Bob on August 13, 2011 at 4:03 PM
Sorry, the question is stupid.
Why does China want an Aircraft Carrier? 66,000 tones of diplomacy!
The question makes the questioner look stupid.
DSchoen on August 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM
Russian built? Oh, good luck with that.
SukieTawdry on August 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM
Barely.
Having a Carrier and employing it are two completely separate realities.
98ZJUSMC on August 13, 2011 at 6:07 PM
The force projection radious of this thing will be the combat radius of a shore based fighter. Further than that?
It will be a new diving attraction somewhere. Might as well send it to Truk and sink it.
98ZJUSMC on August 13, 2011 at 6:11 PM
They should name their next carrier the Oba Mao.
Maybe that would answer Barack’s moronic question.
profitsbeard on August 13, 2011 at 6:30 PM
The Ski jump works, how well I don’t know. More than likely they would launch with a full load of weapon but minimal load of fuel. After launch they would have to refuel in the air.
Based on the artistic rendering it would appear China doesn’t quite get the concept.
It shows birds going off the ski jump with other birds parked on the fan tail and angle deck, not a good idea if ya need to land quickly.
That’s a good question! The landing gear appears to be the same as land based SU-27.
Also, all their training has been on a land based mock up, trying to land on an airfield that is moving away from you at 35MPH as well as bobbing up and down and rolling side to side, is a little more difficult.
I predict a very long and bloody training curve for their NavAir.
DSchoen on August 13, 2011 at 7:53 PM
I bet. I have a hell of a time landing a prop-driven plane on a carrier that’s standing still, with glassy-smooth seas, and that’s with a simulator!
My hat is truly off to the airmen of WW2.
Uncle Sams Nephew on August 13, 2011 at 8:21 PM
Really? Strange you seem to be the ONLY one that remembers Bush saying that!.
Now I do remember Obama saying he wanted to raise massive job killing taxes in 2013, it was July 11th, 2011 (see how that works? Its called a reference point)
“When you hear folks saying, ‘Well, the president shouldn’t want massive, job-killing tax increases when the economy is this weak’ “We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out-years. …
Apparently Obama is talking about massive job-killing tax increases on top of the Bush tax cuts that end for EVERYONE December 2012.
Then on July 22 Obama demands another $400 billion in immediate massive, job-killing tax increases on top of the Bush tax cuts that end for EVERYONE December 2012 and the massive, job-killing tax increases in 2013.
And that was after Boehner had $800 billion in tax loophole closers on the table!
(see how that works? more references points with numbers!)
Boehner, as he should have walked, no deal.
See how that works? Reality vice Hallucinations.
DSchoen on August 13, 2011 at 9:16 PM
And at night, just like a seen from the movie ‘Airplane’, they turn all the lights off!
DSchoen on August 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM
You say they don’t need this carrier to attack Taiwan. But how much quicker could they force Taiwan to yield with it than without it? If only they had some kind of leverage to keep the U.S. from interfering on Taiwan’s behalf.
Oh wait…
Freelancer on August 14, 2011 at 1:59 AM
Forget cruise missiles, just one torpedo would put this ship on the bottom sea, quickly.
SC.Charlie on August 14, 2011 at 7:06 AM
Much as I believe the Obama administration is in absentio in regards to foreign policy, this doesn’t qualify as a gaffe.
Yeah, yeah, we knew the answer to question but did the rest of the world?
Now they do.
Those Territorial disputes they’re talking about?
Like Taiwan, The Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands.
Why are they important?
Well we have a treaty with Taiwan and the two island groups are disputed territory with other of our allies.
Some of the countries in dispute may not be our allies but they are soverign nations and don’t deserve being intimidated by China over islands that (in the case of Spratly Islands. Which by the way are believed to have gas and oil reserves and rich fishing grounds.) have very tenuous grounds for claim by China.
There’s also another ally to the west (India) and south (Australia) that could potentially become targets of Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.
The area is one of the most heavily traveled by shipping in the world. Control of a few critical straits could effectively bring international trade to a trickle if not a halt. The threat is what’s important here.
That carrier is a weapon and it is a threat to the entire southeast asian area.
So it was necessary to get China to commit to it’s reasons. It has NO tactical need for a carrier. The south chine sea is relatively calm. The only possible areas of contention are of China’s making.
One must have at least one carrier for air superiority operations if one is going to assault an island(s).
BTW: They also plan another larger and self built, this one was just a test.
jcw46 on August 14, 2011 at 10:52 AM
An old AF pilot dared me to try scrambling against a kamikaze attack, with the sky dark as ink.
Got my plane swiss-cheesed stem to stern by friendly flak and had to ditch – bailing out in that firefight was suicide. Good Lord what a nightmare.
Might do a rerun and post the playback video if you’re interested.
Uncle Sams Nephew on August 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM
The thing doesn’t even have catapults. It has a “ski jump” with a deck long enough to handle jets. It’s barely above a WWII carrier in that regard.
Yakko77 on August 14, 2011 at 11:38 AM
slickwillie2001 on August 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM
I think they’re using a Chinese copy of the navalized Su-27 or something. The deck is long enough that if you set the brakes, power up the engines and let it go it’ll take off. Not sure how much fuel and ordinace it can take off using this simplistic method but the jets are standard naval fixed wing planes IIRC.
Yakko77 on August 13, 2011 at 3:08 PM
Love to see the nose fail at the base of the ramp and watch the fireball go off the end
Sonosam on August 14, 2011 at 5:30 PM
If I was from China I would have answered, “For the same reason you build them.”
mixplix on August 15, 2011 at 6:59 AM
Russian built? Oh, good luck with that.SukieTawdry on August 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM
Russian built with Chinese improvements. Just can’t help but think “Harbor Freight”. It should work fine under little stress in shallow water, but will rust and fall apart under “industrial use”.
SKYFOX on August 15, 2011 at 7:40 AM
Sorry, Sukie, I meant to click on “quote”, not “strike”. I’m just not with it this AM.
SKYFOX on August 15, 2011 at 7:41 AM
All your Taiwan now belong us.
bloviator on August 15, 2011 at 10:26 AM
The answers to most of your questions were in the original piece.
J.E. Dyer on August 15, 2011 at 1:54 PM