This has been circulating via email... no source specified. The "latest" Chinese Carrier that has recently been launched is one that they bought from the Ukraine in I believe 1998 and refurbished. At this time it's role is training and the Chinese have no dedicated aircraft for carrier operations. What you are seeing may be a "dream mock up"... but if it is in any way real is MANY years from launching. The first carriers of Chinese manufacture aren't due to launch at least till 2015.

Quite right JAB, I was following this news while it was being refitted. The site that was the source of this post, bbs.voc.com.cn, is a trendy fashion type web magazine. The pictures are likely a hoax. There are a few more on this site : http://rxq1980.blog.163.com/blog/static/30478119201102591539106/
Computer generated graphics and not very sophisticated.

An aircraft carrier cannot compete with a carrier battle group, something the Yanks wrote the book on and are very well practiced at for the last 60 years. And they have 11 carrier battle groups.
Try this link for a real pic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19710040

There will come a day when China challenges the US for the #1 superpower slot but not just yet.

"WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY CONCERNED!!!!!!!! THE U.S.A ARE VERY FAR BEHIND" <<<<< any time you see statements like this the mail is usually a fraud and there is probably a "send back" link embedded in the pic so they now have your e-mail. Especially if it's a flashy Power Point presentation, easy to hide viruses in there. Expect more garbage.

Thanks Perfesser,

I will be wiser in the future.

Mountainman.

Yes Perfesser, that's the one launched the other day - it was constructed on an ex-soviet hull.

Their first constructed chinese one is expected to roll out in 2014. I would expect more soon after.

(Another quick fix carrier trick - this works well with Harriers or other vertical take of aircraft and helicopter squadrons are best for this, - is to mount a deck on a cargo ship -

- result 1 X ready carrier at about a fifth of the cost to build one from scratch).

The US will deploy 60% of its battle/Carrier group to that region by 2020.
They have (Obama and Gillard) signed a pact in 2011 to increased deployment and manpower to bases in Australia.

There fleet will likely use Australia as a staging or Forward ops base, (as in WW11), as it will be far from home and come under the communications umbrella based in Australia - I also expect drones will play a major roll in this region then as recon and with offense/defence capabilities), this will be controlled via australian bases relayed to the US in 'now' time.

The bit that bothers me is - I remember the Falklands - those British aluminium state-of-the-art-ships burned well, sending the British designers back to the drawing board rather quickly I imagine.

A little known fact is that the Argentinean Air Force did perform very well - they had huge casualties (and were rotated to different bases constantly so I was told to help hide the losses) as a result of pressing home attacks on the British fleet, but had little reward as very few bombs that hit actually went off, the armourers let that part down, luckily for the Brits.

This is Just my analysis from an Australian, who is watching over the back fence.

Am I the only one that gets the sense that China isn't planning on going too high tech, in that part of it's national defense strategy involves hackers screwing with their targets networks and possibly any infrastructure intensely controlled by computerization?

I think it's part of some secret plan on the shelf in whatever strategy book China has to roll out some emp type nukes and light them off in the upper sky...taking out most of a regions electrical grid and communications capability. Would be really easy for them to do really, as any cargo plane would just be suspected of engaging in commercial activity. Also, it's not like sneaking strategy isn't a respected thing over there.
If they did knock out electronics, wouldn't all those really old tanks, artillery and other equipment they likely got stockpiled somewhere be a massive advantage when they are the only such things that are working?

I'll take the tinfoil toque off now.

Runs With Scissors.

EMPS from nukes are basically line of site. Aircraft do not fligh high enough to make the effective blast radius of the EMP large enough to cover much area. Aircraft fly at 10KM an effective EMP would need to be detonated at 400KM.

Many, I think will disagree on my statements below - my answer to that is take a good hard look at history - wonder how many will agree with this.

In the western world our, 'people that know,' suffer from one fatal flaw that they continue to repeat time and time again. They try to westernize warfare and the people they are trying to help (whether those people want help or not doesn't matter - that is overlooked in their holier than thou out look and stance).

We have a; self preservation as an under lying factor (except you encounter extreme case of heroic acts by individuals) where as these others always have a; for the greater good of the people.

In these conflicts we look at it through western eyes on tactics, approach and implementation.
We fail to look at the grass roots psyche of these other cultures and as a result - pay a heavy price. An example was the French in South East Asia - they continually used westernized logic and methods. They failed and left. They were followed by the US and its allies - we failed to change our way of thinking - we left.

We run the risk of the same this time - we do not factor in the psyche of those we face, they look at life from a whole different perspective - the best way to describe the differences would be - we look at the individual and am I prepared to sacrifice myself for the greater good?

They, on the other hand look at the 'collective' side of things - my sacrifice is for my people. (ants will throw themselves at an enemy to overcome any threat to the nest, bees swarm on mass to destruction to overwhelm the huge japanese hornet that preys on them (they cover the wasp with masses of bodies which causes the wasp to 'cook it' regardles of their own peril).

These concepts also closely resemble those of middle eastern beliefs - but they also have a version far removed from us in the west.

Compare the rankings of the top three global powerhouses and their rating and ability to sustain that position;
We have the US on a very shaky poll position and directly following them, we have Russia and almost tied for second position is China - under analysis there is little difference in these top three. However the dynamics are fluid. Russia and China's thinking definitely do favour manpower as a strength, over the USA's technology as it's strength. (I recall a lecture given to me long ago by a ranking military person who said to me - 'It doesn't matter how much we blow the hell out of that hill - it isn't ours till we put men on the ground.' I remember thinking, 'Well that's great, unless your one of those men who will be on the ground!')

Russia also thinks very closely along these lines of victory through numbers, with the battle of Kursk as a good example -

"Soviet material losses for Citadel (5–16 July) amounted to 2,586 tanks and self-propelled guns out of 3,925 committed to combat (well over 50 percent). Roughly, this was seven times the number of German losses. Total material losses for Kutuzov totalled 2,586 tanks and self-propelled guns out of an initial strength of 2,409, well over 100 percent. The material losses in the Polkovodets Rumyantsev operation were also heavy. Glantz quotes Krivosheyev's numbers of 1,864 tanks and self-propelled guns out of 2,439 engaged, well over 50 percent. The loss ratio was roughly 5:1 in favour of the Germans.[143]

Frieser also supports Krivosheyev's casualty figures for men and armour.[144] "

It should be noted that some analysts put the loss ratio as high as 7:1, we really will never know.

These are just a few facts that are used to support my ideas - I do stress that these are MY ideas and not official in any capacity. We are in an ever evolving world - in more ways than one.

Message for 'runswithscissors' - try looking for some articles on 'Cyber Warefare' I think you may find some of intrest. There are some very good ones out there on America,China, Russia and the race for Cyber domination. (If you can't locate any PM me).

There was good report on cyber warfare created by Dartmouth College in 2004. Although it is old it gives a good insight into the problem. The PDF which is a little long (142 pages) can be downloaded at:

http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/docs/cyberwarfare.pdf

There was good report on cyber warfare created by Dartmouth College in 2004. Although it is old it gives a good insight into the problem. The PDF which is a little long (142 pages) can be downloaded at:

http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/docs/cyberwarfare.pdf

Thanks ICRCC will look at that for a comparisson with latest info available. Could prove interesting.