We want a carrier: GT poll

[aimarraul]

We want a carrier: GT poll

Source Global Times [02:32 May 05 2011] Comments By Zhu Shanshan

More than 70 percent of respondents in a Global Times survey supported the idea of the country developing its own aircraft carrier, despite Beijing downplaying the possibility of launching its first such vessel later this year.

Support was buoyed by the vessel's capability to shore up China's overall military power, according to the poll, conducted by the newspaper's Global Poll Center, in which 81.3 percent of respondents offered their support for that very reason.

Safeguarding territorial integrity and fending off invasions at sea were ranked as the top reasons for China to develop aircraft carriers (77.8 percent), the survey found.

But at the same time, more than half believe the building of a carrier may trigger an arms race in Asia.

The poll is based on telephone interviews of a random sampling of 1,166 people above the age of 18 in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Changsha, Chengdu, Xi'an and Shenyang.

Some 41 percent of those polled said they believed building a carrier is economically viable for China, while 35.5 percent said it is worthwhile to have one despite the huge construction costs.

The survey did not inform respondents of the possible costs of building a carrier.

Media reports of a sea trial in July of China's first carrier are rife after photos of a vessel, Vayag, were widely circulated and discussed on online military forums.

The ship was bought from Ukraine in 1998 by China and was said to be undergoing retrofitting in the northeastern port of Dalian.

Military officials have rejected such speculation, saying that there is no relevant information available on the subject.
Peng Guangqian, an expert on military strategy at the People's Liberation

Army Academy of Military Science, said China's policy of defensive military development is shared by mainstream public opinion, according to the findings.

"China's aircraft carrier, if there is one, is only part of the nation's military equipment advancement under the defense policy principle. It won't serve any strategy of global expansion or contending for supremacy," Peng said.

The reasons most often cited in the survey as to why China should develop an aircraft carrier were as follows: it would give a boost to China's military technology development and army building (75.2 percent), it would be capable of protecting China's overseas interests in missions such as withdrawing Chinese citizens from dangerous situations (59.4 percent), and it would serve as a counterbalance to the US and contain its hegemony (50.9 percent).

Song Xiaojun, a Beijing-based military expert, told the Global Times that an aircraft carrier could also serve to secure economic development in more complicated international security settings.

"China has an increasing demand for resources and energy, some of which have to be imported from abroad. If their transportation and trade are threatened, industrialization and urbanization will be in question," Song said.

China is the world's second largest oil consumer, and its dependence on crude oil imports stood at a record high 53.7 percent in 2010, according to data released by the General Administration of Customs in January.

In addition, 68 percent of respondents supported the idea of China building more than one carrier in the future, while opposition to the idea accounted for a quarter of opinions polled.

In 2009, China's Defense Minister Liang Guanglie, in response to a question put forward by his then Japanese counterpart Yasukazu Hamada on the carrier issue, said that China needs to develop an aircraft carrier as it is the only major power in the world operating without one.

The possibility of China building a carrier has caused anxiety in the region. Last month, US Navy Admiral Robert Willard said the carrier's sea trial this summer would significantly change the perceived balance of power in the region.

The US Pacific Command led by Willard has five aircraft carrier strike groups.

Willard said Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Australia are in the process of building and expanding their submarine fleets.

Huang Jingjing contributed to this story


We want a carrier: GT poll - GlobalTimes

 

[Basanti]

yes. ofcourse you should.

 

[cross1993]

I think that we need 8 carrier.

when a dead poor nation named india can afford to operate such weapons, we of course must have it.

We'd better not discuss loaded planes fishing boats.

 

[S10]

No, we don't.

Because we don't just buy crap from russia and operate it.

First, we did buy "crap" from Russia. Su-27, Ka-28, Kilo submarines, Sovremenny destroyers, Varyag hull, T-80 are just few of the samples. Oh, and countless sub-systems such as engines, missiles, avionics etc.....

Second, Russian hardwares were years ahead of China at the time, and if that make sthem "crap", then I shudder at the thought of what the bulk of our military is. It was only in the last decade that China started surging ahead, and still in some fields Russian is far better.

Third, STFU and go hide in a bush.

 

[Akasa]

First, we did buy "crap" from Russia. Su-27, Ka-28, Kilo submarines, Sovremenny destroyers, Varyag hull, T-80 are just few of the samples. Oh, and countless sub-systems such as engines, missiles, avionics etc.....

Second, Russian hardwares were years ahead of China at the time, and if that make sthem "crap", then I shudder at the thought of what the bulk of our military is. It was only in the last decade that China started surging ahead, and still in some fields Russian is far better.

Third, STFU and go hide in a bush.

Personally, I think the PLA mostly likes Russian equipment for the sake of relations and cheap price. If they had a choice, the PLA would import from Israel or France, just like the US does for their subsystems.

The branch of the PLA that imports most (from Russians) is the PLAAF with the bulk of the purchases involving the Su-30MKK and Su-27SK. PLAN elements also import some Russian subsystems such as electronics for their surface ships.

Missile subsystems, however, are pretty much completely domestically-supplied, with the exception of the guidance system. The PL-12 and Chinese cruise and anti ship missiles outperform their Russian counterparts.

Ground forces import engines from Ukraine or Germany, but all other aspects are pretty much Chinese. Artillery systems, smoothbores, etc, are Chinese. Some exceptions include autoloaders for tanks, etc. The ground force is an area in which the Chinese has clear advantage over the Russians.

There is no evidence or photos that support the claim that PLAGF bought the T-80, and even if they did, they would be long replaced by more advanced tanks like the Type 96G or Type 99 series.

The Sovremenny class destroyers are clearly no longer the main striking force for the PLAN. Kilo submarines, although still a formidable forces, is being effectively phased out by the Type 039G1, Type 041, and the Type 039B Improved Yuan.


In short, the PLA uses Russian subsystems to boost their domestic development. Just like how Russia considered French rifles to replace their own, each country has their own areas in which they are not completely satisfied. That's why the US imports small arms from Germany. When they get the momentum of their own development, it is expected that they will stop importing. Just think of it: what major system does China import from Russia now?

 

[S10]

Personally, I think the PLA mostly likes Russian equipment for the sake of relations and cheap price. If they had a choice, the PLA would import from Israel or France, just like the US does for their subsystems.

China had been using Russian equipments even before PRC's founding in 1949. While they did not have a choice most of the time, Russian arms proved to be superior in most cases.

The branch of the PLA that imports most (from Russians) is the PLAAF with the bulk of the purchases involving the Su-30MKK and Su-27SK. PLAN elements also import some Russian subsystems such as electronics for their surface ships.

Missile subsystems, however, are pretty much completely domestically-supplied, with the exception of the guidance system. The PL-12 and Chinese cruise and anti ship missiles outperform their Russian counterparts.

Source?

Ground forces import engines from Ukraine or Germany, but all other aspects are pretty much Chinese. Artillery systems, smoothbores, etc, are Chinese. Some exceptions include autoloaders for tanks, etc. The ground force is an area in which the Chinese has clear advantage over the Russians.

There is no evidence or photos that support the claim that PLAGF bought the T-80, and even if they did, they would be long replaced by more advanced tanks like the Type 96G or Type 99 series.

Really? Type 59, Type 69 and Type 88 tanks were not based on Russian design? Type 86 IFV weren't based on BMP-1? J-5, J-6 and J-7 are not of Russian roots? H-6 bomber wasn't based on Tu-16? By the way, Ukraine was part of USSR.

China bought T-80 for the development of Type 98, and there were even pics on CJDBY few years back. Just because they weren't pressed into service doesn't mean China did not put elements of its design into its tank development. Ask around any mod in land section, they'll tell you the same thing.

The Sovremenny class destroyers are clearly no longer the main striking force for the PLAN. Kilo submarines, although still a formidable forces, is being effectively phased out by the Type 039G1, Type 041, and the Type 039B Improved Yuan.

Only after year 2003 did China start producing the newer generation ships. The Kilo subs are not being phased out. That is a straight up lie. Unless you like to imply they are less capable than the Romeo and Ming class.

In short, the PLA uses Russian subsystems to boost their domestic development. Just like how Russia considered French rifles to replace their own, each country has their own areas in which they are not completely satisfied. That's why the US imports small arms from Germany. When they get the momentum of their own development, it is expected that they will stop importing. Just think of it: what major system does China import from Russia now?

Except in the case of China, Russian weapon systems were always superior to Chinese made ones. This trend only slowed after the collapse of Soviet Union, and somewhat reversed after 2000's. China is in no position to laugh and look down upon Russia, not for a long time. Give credit where it is due.

China still buys IL-76 transport, AL-31F engines, D-30 engines, RD-93 engines, R-73, R-77 just off the type of my head. I could probably come up with more if I did a little search.

 

[Akasa]

China had been using Russian equipments even before PRC's founding in 1949. While they did not have a choice most of the time, Russian arms proved to be superior in most cases.

If they had a choice, I have no doubt that Israel's exports to China (especially in the field of UAVs) would have significantly increased in the 1980s. If it weren't for Tiananmen Square, China would also likely have purchased the BAe Harrier.

Source?

Do a simple comparison of their effective capabilities and specifications.

Really? Type 59, Type 69 and Type 88 tanks were not based on Russian design? Type 86 IFV weren't based on BMP-1? J-5, J-6 and J-7 are not of Russian roots? H-6 bomber wasn't based on Tu-16? By the way, Ukraine was part of USSR.

Type 59/69/79/80/88 are not modern tanks, buddy. Even though we know that Type 96G and Type 99 series have lineage tracing back to the older models, they are essentially the products of the engineers at Norinco.

H-6 is based of the Tu-16, but the modern H-6 variants barely use the same systems the original Tu-16 uses. Airframe isn't everything when it comes to aircraft. Avionics, LCD displays, etc, are brand new when compared to the original H-6.

What I was referring to are modern PLA equipment. A fool can tell that 1970s PLA equipment was clearly based on their Russian counterparts.

China bought T-80 for the development of Type 98, and there were even pics on CJDBY few years back. Just because they weren't pressed into service doesn't mean China did not put elements of its design into its tank development. Ask around any mod in land section, they'll tell you the same thing.

Just because they might have put elements of the T-80 into other tanks or studied its concepts does not mean its other products are ripped off the T-80 or even based on it. Reverse engineering is very different from copying. Learning is different from plagiarism.

Only after year 2003 did China start producing the newer generation ships. The Kilo subs are not being phased out. That is a straight up lie. Unless you like to imply they are less capable than the Romeo and Ming class.

And this is 2011, not 2003. 8 years have passed since your version of "modern times". Unlike the US, military technology of the PLA changes drastically in even 5 years.

The reason why PLAN inducted Type 039G1, 041, and 039B is to replace its older subs. The Kilos, even though will be in service for quite some while, will be eventually replaced by these.

Except in the case of China, Russian weapon systems were always superior to Chinese made ones. This trend only slowed after the collapse of Soviet Union, and somewhat reversed after 2000's. China is in no position to laugh and look down upon Russia, not for a long time. Give credit where it is due.

I do not get what you mean by "except in the case of China".

We never laughed at Russian equipment. If it weren't for Russia we might not even have nuclear weapons.

But again, sometimes people forget that times have changed.

China still buys IL-76 transport, AL-31F engines, D-30 engines, RD-93 engines, R-73, R-77 just off the type of my head. I could probably come up with more if I did a little search.

And name one weapons system that China does not have its own program for.

For each and every single one of the weapons you listed, China has a superior one either in testing or late development:

IL-76: Y-20
Al-31F, D-30: WS-10G, WS-15
R-73, R-77: PL-12C/D, PL-21

Like I said, times have changed.

 

[desioptimist]

So china says no to democracy but yes to polls to show what they are doing is right.
Do you poll for other military decisions as well?

 

[Mikethedyke]

So china says no to democracy but yes to polls to show what they are doing is right.
Do you poll for other military decisions as well?

China polls a lot of things. People can even vote for their favorite singer on TV, yes we have reality shows in China lol =)

 

[Akasa]

So china says no to democracy but yes to polls to show what they are doing is right.
Do you poll for other military decisions as well?

So protecting China's overseas shipping lanes is not "right"?

And FYI, China does have elections. NEWS FLASH, AMIGO.

 

[Obambam]

when a dead poor nation named india can afford to operate such weapons, we of course must have it.

Common now. Such comment is not needed.

We would want to have carrier of our own to demonstrate our technological and military advancement. That's about it.

China isn't a aggresive country therefore I don't think there is a need for us to have many carriers. Having a carrier means you will have to have a battle group to accompany it. It makes it cost ineffective and a poor choice of investment in defense.
Instead, money should be invested in developement of Cyberspace; Sea, air and space denial capabilities.

 

[muse]

A carrier force, even one limited to the pacific, will be seen as a threat by the US - and for the US, threatening it is not smart -- however if China is serious about maintaining a carrier force as a defensive force, it must match and surpass the force currently possessed by the US - this is a very expensive proposition -- and is it really what is required just yet??

There is a space and submarine capability infrastructure to be created - without these, the carrier force development is just target practice for adversaries.

Indian carrier capability is seen as a threat but perhaps it will not require China to confront it when others may -- China is a force for global stability and for the creation and maintenance of prosperity, one can only wish that calls which would lock Chinese potential in unproductive pursuits which are vulnerable to charges of "aggression" would be avoided - let those who seek large carrier forces to run themselves in to the ground, as these are expensive and unnecessary while peoples seek to build better lives for themselves and their progeny.

 

[Obambam]

A carrier force, even one limited to the pacific, will be seen as a threat by the US - and for the US, threatening it is not smart -- however if China is serious about maintaining a carrier force as a defensive force, it must match and surpass the force currently possessed by the US - this is a very expensive proposition -- and is it really what is required just yet??

There is a space and submarine capability infrastructure to be created - without these, the carrier force development is just target practice for adversaries.

Indian carrier capability is seen as a threat but perhaps it will not require China to confront it when others may -- China is a force for global stability and for the creation and maintenance of prosperity, one can only wish that calls which would lock Chinese potential in unproductive pursuits which are vulnerable to charges of "aggression" would be avoided - let those who seek large carrier forces to run themselves in to the ground, as these are expensive and unnecessary while peoples seek to build better lives for themselves and their progeny.

That is why we will 'smartly undermine' them instead. We will continue to modernise and expose ourselves to the world in a friendly manner as the US continues to run its economy down and create enemies with its aggressive policing duty.

 

[blackops]

Personaly i fell ac are just a waste of money insteed we should get more subs destroyers anti sub ships mine sweepers etc ac are good to fight small countries but not with the big ones the amount of money spent on building up a acbg is huge this money can be used in developing more destroyers

 

[S10]

If they had a choice, I have no doubt that Israel's exports to China (especially in the field of UAVs) would have significantly increased in the 1980s. If it weren't for Tiananmen Square, China would also likely have purchased the BAe Harrier.

China went to the West after relationship with Soviet Union went sour in the 1960's. China was no longer able to get the latest Russian toys or technical assistance from Soviet experts. It was severely lagging behind by the late 1970's. The loss of access to newer Soviet weapon technology meant China only had the West to go. Never in any point in PRC's history did China have both access to both Western and Soviet assistance. It was always one or the other. To claim that China would have done something if they had the choice is pure imagination.

Do a simple comparison of their effective capabilities and specifications.

Great, send me these classified data so I can do a comparison.

Type 59/69/79/80/88 are not modern tanks, buddy. Even though we know that Type 96G and Type 99 series have lineage tracing back to the older models, they are essentially the products of the engineers at Norinco.

Type 59/62/69/79/80/88 still make up the bulk of Chinese tank force, modern or not.

H-6 is based of the Tu-16, but the modern H-6 variants barely use the same systems the original Tu-16 uses. Airframe isn't everything when it comes to aircraft. Avionics, LCD displays, etc, are brand new when compared to the original H-6.

That's assuming Russians were stagnant when it comes to upgrading their own Tu-16 fleet. Unfortunately, they are now completely retired from service and replaced with much more capable Su-34/Tu-160. China has yet to develop something as capable.

What I was referring to are modern PLA equipment. A fool can tell that 1970s PLA equipment was clearly based on their Russian counterparts.

And yet you neglect the fact that that the "modern" equipments are only issued to front line units while the bulk are still using outdated toys.

Just because they might have put elements of the T-80 into other tanks or studied its concepts does not mean its other products are ripped off the T-80 or even based on it. Reverse engineering is very different from copying. Learning is different from plagiarism.

No it does not, but apparently they were impressed with T-80 enough to implement some of its design into Type 99. Also, the original design goal of Type 96 (85IIAP) was to counter Soviet T-72, a design which was more than 15 years into service at the time.

And this is 2011, not 2003. 8 years have passed since your version of "modern times". Unlike the US, military technology of the PLA changes drastically in even 5 years.

Not enough to change the fact that most equipments in PLA are still based on obsolete Soviet design.

The reason why PLAN inducted Type 039G1, 041, and 039B is to replace its older subs. The Kilos, even though will be in service for quite some while, will be eventually replaced by these.

Everything will eventually be replaced. However, it does not take away the fact that Romeo, Ming and Kilos are of Russian origin. It also does not take away the fact that most of the submarine force is made up of these boats.

I do not get what you mean by "except in the case of China".

We never laughed at Russian equipment. If it weren't for Russia we might not even have nuclear weapons.

But again, sometimes people forget that times have changed.

Certainly times have changed, but it only changed for a short while.

And name one weapons system that China does not have its own program for.

For each and every single one of the weapons you listed, China has a superior one either in testing or late development:

IL-76: Y-20
Al-31F, D-30: WS-10G, WS-15
R-73, R-77: PL-12C/D, PL-21

Like I said, times have changed.

Is Y-20 in service? WS-10 has not yet been put into any operational platform except J-11B. WS-15 is several years from ready. PL-12C/D and PL-21 are both in development. If anything, this comment illustrate that China is still dependent on Russians.