ReutersBy Chris Buckley | Reuters – 2 hrs 6 mins ago

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's first aircraft carrier held its first sea trial on Wednesday morning, in a step likely to stoke patriotic pride at home and jitters abroad about Beijing's naval ambitions.

The long-awaited debut of the carrier, refitted from a former Soviet craft, marked an initial step toward China's plans to build a carrier force that can project power into the Asian region, where seas are spanned by busy shipping lanes and thorny territorial disputes.

The carrier "left its shipyard in Dalian Port in northeast Liaoning province on Wednesday morning to start its first sea trial," said Xinhua, describing the trip as only a tentative trial run for the unfinished ship.

"Military sources said that the first sea trial was in line with the schedule of the carrier refitting project and would not take a long time," said the report.

The aircraft carrier, which is about 300 metres long, plowed through fog and sounded its horn three times as it left the dock, Xinhua said on its military news microblog.

In an interview published this week, Chinese navy rear admiral Yin Zhuo said his country intended to build an air carrier group, but that task would be long and difficult.

"The aircraft carriers will form a very strong battle group," Yin told the China Economic Weekly. "But the construction and functional demands of an aircraft carrier are extremely complex," he told the magazine.

Training crew and, eventually, pilots for carriers was a big challenge, said Yin.

"An aircraft carrier requires the concerted action of a team of thousands. That's far from easy," he said.

Last month, China's defense ministry China confirmed the government was refitting the old, unfinished Soviet vessel bought from the Ukraine government, and sources told Reuters it was also building two of its own carriers.

Earlier, a Pentagon spokesman downplayed the likelihood of any immediate leaps from China's nascent carrier program.

But the carrier plan is just one part of China's naval modernization program, which has forged ahead while other powers tighten their military budgets to cope with debt The growing Chinese naval reach is triggering regional jitters that have fed into longstanding territorial disputes, and could speed up military expansion across Asia.

In the past year, China has had run-ins at sea with Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. The incidents -- boat crashes and charges of territorial incursions -- have been minor, but the diplomatic reaction often heated.

Last week, Japan warned that China's naval forces were likely to increase activities around its waters, prompting Beijing to accuse Tokyo of deliberately exaggerating the Chinese military threat.

China's defense budget has shot up nearly 70 percent over five years, while Japan -- tied by a public debt twice the size of its $5 trillion economy -- has cut military outlays by 3 percent over the same period, a Japanese government report said.

A senior U.S. Navy intelligence officer earlier this year said he believed China wanted to start fielding multiple aircraft carriers over the next decade, with the goal of becoming a global naval power capable of projecting power around the world by mid-century.

The U.S. navy official said it would take years for China's navy to learn how to integrate flight deck operations and attain the sophistication needed to use them effectively.

.....and all on board died due to lead based paint. LOL

quote Originally posted by Boondawg:

Seems kind of late in the game to just now be bringing an aircraft carrier to bear, and a refurb at that. Expensive showpiece.

Don's pic reminds me of a saying in the Navy.
There are two types of naval vessels, submarines and targets.

quote Originally posted by maryjane:

LOL

I wonder how many satellites are watching that thing.

A used Russian aircraft carrier refurbished by the Chinese.

Who's got the pool going on what day it will sink? I'll give it two weeks.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Don's pic reminds me of a saying in the Navy. There are two types of naval vessels, submarines and targets.

If they were alone that would be true. But all they need to do is get the payload withing striking distance. Then its just a matter of the support ships keeping it safe.

Navy intel chief: Chinese missile is effective

By Ben Iannotta - C4ISR Journal
Posted : Wednesday Jan 5, 2011 20:31:25 EST

Officials were surprised by China’s rapid development of a ballistic missile thought capable of striking ships at sea, but the jury is still out as to whether Internet images of a purported Chinese stealth fighter are evidence of a similar breakthrough in the air, the Navy’s intelligence director told reporters Wednesday.

“Their anti-ship missile — we underestimated when they would be competent and capable in delivering a technological weapon of that type,” said Vice Adm. Jack Dorsett, the deputy chief of naval operations for information dominance and the service’s intelligence director.

Dorsett was referring to development and testing of the Dong Feng 21D, a land-based anti-ship ballistic missile that officials now say has reached its initial operating capability. Analysts said the missile leaves U.S. aircraft carriers vulnerable to attack, and Dorsett seemed to agree, although he did not discuss carriers specifically.

“The technology that the Chinese have developed and are employing in their DF 21D missile system has increased their probability of being able to employ a salvo of missiles to be able to hit a maneuvering target,” he said.
Related reading

At the same time, Dorsett said it is unclear how proficient China would be at targeting ships with the missiles in an actual fight. “They’ve certainly test fired it over land” but “to our knowledge they have not test fired this over water against maneuvering targets,” he said.

Dorsett declined to discuss whether Aegis-guided rockets on destroyers and cruisers would be able to knock down the DF 21Ds, or whether U.S. carriers would have to be kept out of range of the missiles.

As for China's stealth fighter, Dorsett said it remains unclear whether Defense Secretary Robert Gates was wrong when he suggested that the aircraft would not be a threat to the U.S. until 2020.

“It’s not clear to me when it’s going to become operational,” Dorsett said of the J-20. “I think time will tell whether we’ve underestimated it.”

Gates has routinely suggested that the U.S. has plenty of combat aircraft in its long-term spending plan and that U.S. must be sure it builds a “balanced portfolio” of weapons. In a May 2010 speech, he said: “Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?”

Even with the recent advancements in hardware, Dorsett said he is more concerned about China’s work in the “non-kinetic” realms of information warfare and cyberspace. He said China is trying to dominate “in the electro-magnetic spectrum, to conduct counterspace capabilities, and clearly to conduct cyber activities.”

What is most clear, Dorsett said, is that China is no longer shy about providing public glimpses of its weapons development.

“Over the years, the Chinese military doctrine was one of hide and bide. Hide your military resources and bide your time,” he said. Chinese leaders “appear to have shifted into an area where they’re willing to show their resources and capabilities, whether it’s a naval expedition in China, whether it’s deploying forces forward, whether it’s conveying some more insights into what their capabilities are going to be in an indigenously produced [aircraft] carrier,” Dorsett added.

I wonder how good these chinamen are at naval carrier ops? We've been doing for for 50+ years , and well, we developed it. They are jumping in head first i think. As for thier missles well we have system designed to defeat incoming anti-ship missles. Things like the seawiz/phalanx cannon and the rolling airframe rocket system (i believe thats what its called) will defend against any incoming missle threats. Whe really need to worry about the submarine threat.

------------------

ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2

CAPTAIN! WE'VE RUN AGROUND!

If it is built anything like the Cherry brand cars... When it runs aground, it will do the following:

seawhiz=CIWS

Phalynx is fairly old tech now--it was around back when I was on an ASW tin can in the 70s. It's been upgraded several times, but I'm not sure if it is up to the task of protecting against more recent missle technology. Rolling airfram RIM 116 is/was used in conjuntion with Phalanx last I heard and uses the Phalanx's guidance system. SeaRam, I don't know much about, but most of the stuff coming out of General Dynamics/Raytheon is cutting edge.

This is good news for the Post-American World crowd like our President.


.

Arms race time?

quote Originally posted by Fformula88: Arms race time?

DING DING DING ! ! What do we have for him Johnyyyyyyyyy!

------------------

ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: rolling airframe rocket system (i believe thats what its called)

Very close. RAM = Rolling Airframe Missile. Usually two launchers per ship with 21 missiles per and a 6 mile range.

quote Originally posted by ThatFieroKid: .....and all on board died due to lead based paint. LOL

and contaminated baby milk and sheetrock.

What I find most disturbing is we all helped them buy that aircraft carrier. I'm not particularly a fan of seeing China become the worlds superpower economically and militarily, they might be just starting and it may be amusing to some but it's a noticable shift in their foreign policy.

This is just PR for the Chinese civilians, the real question is how many subs, can they launch rockets and how quiet are they. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks, they require a whole fleet to protect them. Have the Chinese even developed a fighter capable of carrier ops yet? If so how good is it ?

quote Originally posted by Grandaddy84SE: This is just PR for the Chinese civilians, the real question is how many subs, can they launch rockets and how quiet are they. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks, they require a whole fleet to protect them. Have the Chinese even developed a fighter capable of carrier ops yet? If so how good is it ?

I agree its more PR than effective. But, its still a 'first shot' at them wanting to play with the big boys...

I'm surprised we didn't sell China one of ours. Half the world has our old ships in their fleets nowadays. One I used to serve on now belongs to Turkey. We got it reconditioned and it sat in port for 2 years from 1998-2000, and sold it at a big loss to Turkey in 2002.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I'm surprised we didn't sell China one of ours. Half the world has our old ships in their fleets nowadays. One I used to serve on now belongs to Turkey. We got it reconditioned and it sat in port for 2 years from 1998-2000, and sold it at a big loss to Turkey in 2002.

Pakistan got three of our ships that way back in 89.

[This message has been edited by Jake_Dragon (edited 08-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: DING DING DING ! ! What do we have for him Johnyyyyyyyyy!

I'm having de-ja-vu (sp?) all over again.

It looks like one of the STOL carriers with the ramped deck, that means SU-33's not really a big threat yet, maybe in 30 years or so. I believe India has a rebuilt flat top that can handle Mig-29's, the Chinese as still behind them.

quote Originally posted by Fformula88: Arms race time?

Considering we have 12 Nimitz class carriers and a host of submarines far more advanced than anything the Chinese have, this carrier is a token at best. Looks like the race ended before it began.

Edit to clarify, 10 Nimitz and 2 Ford class carriers (yet to be launched). And we still have some Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Class Carriers in service not to mention a few Essex Class and Forrestal Carriers in mothballs.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I'm surprised we didn't sell China one of ours. Half the world has our old ships in their fleets nowadays. One I used to serve on now belongs to Turkey. We got it reconditioned and it sat in port for 2 years from 1998-2000, and sold it at a big loss to Turkey in 2002.

Some capitol ships such as aircraft carriers are not sold. Export technology laws prevent this.

People who ridicule Chinese efforts in this area were also the ones who ridiculed Japanese cars in the early days. I suspect the current ridicule will be as much a mistake as that other ridicule was.

quote Originally posted by newf: What I find most disturbing is we all helped them buy that aircraft carrier. I'm not particularly a fan of seeing China become the worlds superpower economically and militarily, they might be just starting and it may be amusing to some but it's a noticable shift in their foreign policy.

You found it disturbing enough to post on the internet about it, but do you find it disturbing enough to do something about it?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: People who ridicule Chinese efforts in this area were also the ones who ridiculed Japanese cars in the early days. I suspect the current ridicule will be as much a mistake as that other ridicule was.

I don't think the effort is being ridiculed. And I hope no body is under-estimating the Chinese. They have massive manpower and engineering capabilities. But it is not unreasonable to be less than concerned. Having built naval submarines I can tell you that the key to having a world presence is having nuclear power. It is more than just having an unlimited fuel supply (something the oil powered Varyag doesn't have) but it is also a matter of space utilization. More oil for travel range means less room for ordinance, food, aircraft, etc. Not to mention the technology advantage the US has. Let's face it, the Chinese have 4 carriers, 1 they bought from Australia and 3 former Soviet ships, none of them are operational and the technology is woaful by US standards. This does not mean they can not be dangerous and the 2 new carriers China is building are nuclear, but they still have a disadvantage in technology, experience, and I do not consider them a serious threat to us dominance of the seas. We have 11 active carrier battle groups around the world and although they are not as heavily armed at the varyag, they do not need to be, the Aegis escort destroyers of the US battle groups are more than a match for anything the Chinese can throw at us....should it come to that. I think this is more about 'joining the club' than anything else.

When and/or if, they perfect pilotless fighters and attack aircraft, the aircraft carrier picture will become much changed.
They're (US and Europe) getting closer, but not there yet.

"In the nearly 60 years since the start of WW2 the United States started and perfected the art of turning ships into sinking masses of slag by air, surface, and sub-surface sea war-fare. The Chinese are far behind in this endevor but thats not to say they won't be a threat. They are just not as big of a threat right now as this leads us to believe." This came a from a briefing we got today.

Shelby

[This message has been edited by ARFiero (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: When and/or if, they perfect pilotless fighters and attack aircraft, the aircraft carrier picture will become much changed. They're (US and Europe) getting closer, but not there yet.

In the near future, the Navy develops a fighter jet piloted by an artificial intelligence computer. The jet is placed on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific to learn combat manuevers from the human pilots aboard. But when the computer develops a mind of its own, it's the humans who are charged with stopping it before it incites a war...

Why is it people are assuming that the reason for the Chinese military build up is to "take on" the U.S.? I see it as more of a move to begin to project their power worldwide, that doesn't mean it will directly conflict with the West.

quote Originally posted by newf: Why is it people are assuming that the reason for the Chinese military build up is to "take on" the U.S.? I see it as more of a move to begin to project their power worldwide, that doesn't mean it will directly conflict with the West.

We are always in need of a boogieman.

"We like 'fraid. 'Fraid make us destroy stuff!" *

* A quote from an imaginary cartoon character I made up in my head.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: We are always in need of a boogieman. "We like 'fraid. 'Fraid make us destroy stuff!" * * A quote from an imaginary cartoon character I made up in my head.

Yup having someone to fear/hate seems to focus lots of people on the "important" stuff for sure.

quote Originally posted by newf: Yup having someone to fear/hate seems to focus lots of people on the "important" stuff for sure.

Breathe deep the gathering gloom,
Watch lights fade from every room.

Bedsitter people look back and lament,
Another day's useless energy spent.

Impassioned lovers wrestle as one,
Lonely man cries for love and has none.

New mother picks up and suckles her son,
Senior citizens wish they were young.

Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colours from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white.
But we decide which is right, and which IS an illusion? ~ Moody Blues

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Why is it people are assuming that the reason for the Chinese military build up is to "take on" the U.S.? I see it as more of a move to begin to project their power worldwide, that doesn't mean it will directly conflict with the West.

I agree--they're probably building up their naval technology to sail over to some landlocked nation that doesn't currently project THEIR power worldwide.

China used to be the laughing stock of the world, I am not laughing now, this is the soviet union 2.0 with a bankrupt usa as a rival.