Up until now, China just had this busted-a__ used one they got from the Russians.
I suspect they do. Unlike us, they don’t have so many that they can afford to mislay one.
Anyway, for China this is a big step, since they only had one carrier before, and it was second-hand:
BEIJING — China has launched its first aircraft carrier built entirely on its own, in a demonstration of the growing technical sophistication of its defense industries and determination to safeguard its maritime territorial claims and crucial trade routes.
The 50,000-ton carrier was towed from its dockyard just after 9 a.m. Wednesday following a ceremony in the northern port city of Dalian, where its predecessor, the Soviet-built Liaoning, underwent extensive refurbishing before being commissioned in 2012, the Ministry of National Defense said.
Development of the new carrier began in 2013 and construction in late 2015. It’s expected to be formally commissioned sometime before 2020, after sea trials and the arrival of its full air complement.
The carrier program is a key part of China’s naval expansion at a time when it is looking to beef-up its regional military influence to match its economic might. While China says it maintains a defensive military policy, its ambitions are rattling some neighbors who see Beijing as fueling already enflamed tensions in the region….
On the one hand, such a milestone is laughable. I mean, look at Japan: How many carriers did they lose in a single day, back in 1942? Here we are 75 years later, and China’s launching its first one? (Of course, building and deploying a state-of-the-art carrier is vastly more complex and expensive than it was back in the day.)
Also, think how enormous a challenge lies before a country that does not have generations of aviators who have landed on carriers, or a force of support personnel skilled at running the process of underway air operations.
On the other hand — China, with a demonstrated desire to throw its weight around in the region (and a carrier gives you a great deal of weight to throw), is committed to moving dramatically forward in its capacity to project naval power. It stands out in this regard globally. Britain, for instance, currently has zero operating carriers, although they have some new ones in the works. (Yes, that Britain — the one that used to rule the waves. Try to imagine the Brits in Nelson’s day without a single line-of-battle ship.)
So, you know… significant development here…
Related Posts
One carrier is mostly for show, to appear on TV and for pilot training. Two means actual power projection.
I like that this ship will be operated by the People’s Liberation Army Navy, which underlines the extent to which China has not been a naval power.
On the upside for them, they can play an Army-Navy Game against themselves…
That name tells you two key things about China:
1. The Army comes before the Navy, and
2. Ideology comes before everything else…
I think it’s personal power and wealth that come first in China. Communism is for the masses…
Pretty much by definition…
You know, I’m anything but a Marxist, but it’s sad in a way to see these “workers’ paradises” devolve into a form of capitalism so rapacious as to make the old American Robber Barons blush.
I guess ol’ Karl got the inevitable march of history a bit mixed up…
From the country that gives us Harbor Freight. This boat might be slightly better than North Korea’s submarine.
Why don’t we just sell them a couple of ours? We reduce the budget deficit. They get 2 shiny toys to parade around. Everyone wins!
Better yet, lets trade them a few carriers in exchange for the Great Wall.
Actually, we need to get THEM to give up carrier-building in favor of wall-building.
The xenophobic, inwardly obsessed China of the last few centuries before the 20th was less a threat to its neighbors.
I’m being facetious, of course. I don’t think any form of isolationism is good for the world. Chinese oppressors try to prop themselves up by controlling what parts of the Web their people can see. It’s been working for them up to a point, but one wonders how sustainable that approach is.
Not that I think letting unfettered Western materialism wash over the world via the internet is always a good thing. For one thing, it provokes backlashes like what we see among the more violent sort of Islamist fundamentalists.
When you look at how it endangers our kids, making them easier prey for predators, uber-openness poses a difficult challenge to us all.
But when I look at the more oppressive regimes out there, well, they could stand more openness…