China's New Aircraft Carrier Bolsters Its Regional Reach

Military benchmark illustrates the status of China's armed forces

August 15, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (9)

China's first ever—and still unfinished—aircraft carrier completed its maiden trial voyage over the weekend, docking Sunday morning in the Chinese port city of Dalian. The shakedown cruise marks a genuine milestone for China. But for the United States, which remains the world's strongest naval power, it's little more than a reminder that the People's Liberation Army, China's military arm, could pose greater challenges down the road.

Naval experts say that there's really no comparison between the overall military capabilities of the United States and that of China. And for now at least, there's not much similarity between the overall near-term naval goals of each country either. China, for instance, mostly remains a localized power in the Asia Pacific region, while the United States has a significant presence worldwide. One aircraft carrier won't change that, experts say, but it could be an indication of where China's heading. [Read more about national security and the military.]

The carrier itself—a former Soviet vessel which a Chinese tourism company reportedly bought for use as a casino from Ukraine in 1998—is at least a year or two away from entering into active service. Then becoming a fully operational mobile hub for aircraft could take several more years, as the Chinese learn how to use the carrier and build up a support group to protect it.

By contrast, now at any given moment, says American naval consultant Norman Polmar, the United States has 10 active aircraft carriers (11 total in commission), each of which can get 60 or more planes in the air immediately. "It's going to be a year or two before they even risk a night landing," Polmar says, referring to China. "That's something we do all the time."

Basic comparisons aside, that doesn't mean China's developing navy is insignificant for the United States, especially when considering both countries' interests in the Asia Pacific region, says David Finkelstein, director of China studies at CNA's Center for Naval Analysis, a non-profit based in Alexandria, Va. "The concern of the United States is not the capabilities that the Chinese are accruing, but the intentions that the Chinese party-state has in how it's going to employ these assets," he says. "So, while the capabilities are there on display, it's the intentions that people are concerned about."

Indeed, last week the U.S. State Department made a statement regarding the lack of transparency about the testing of China's aircraft carrier. "We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment," Victoria Nuland, a State Department spokeswoman, told reporters last week. "This is part of our larger concern that China is not as transparent as other countries. It's not as transparent as the United States about its military acquisitions, about its military budget."

This lack of openness has left many onlookers guessing just what the People's Liberation Army is up to. Unlike the Soviets during the Cold War, says Bernard Cole, a naval expert and professor at the National War College, the Chinese likely don't see it is an "our navy versus their navy" type situation. Instead, he says, they're focused on specific scenarios. [Read about China's views on the debt ceiling debate.]

In the region, the United States has partnered with China's neighbors, like the Philippines and Vietnam, to promote peace with the Chinese in a dispute over territory in the South China Sea. Taiwan, which the United States helps to protect, also remains one of China's top regional interests. So, according to Cole, China's most likely looking for strategic opportunities to get around the United States in these conflicts, rather than whether they could take on the U.S. Navy directly.

According to Owen Cote, associate director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Chinese even have a hard time reaching that relatively modest regional goal of preventing the U.S. Navy from interfering with its relationships with immediate neighbors. "They basically want to prevent us from influencing their ability to coerce their neighbors," he says. "If you do a whole net assessment, they still have a long way to go just to achieve that objective."

Tags:
Navy,
Asia,
China

Reader Comments Read all comments (9)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Dear moderator,

I wish to express thankful for action taken to filter, censored and removed whosoever irresponsible remarks posted. An accountable as well as a good website indeed should have been respected. Thank you.

Best regard,

Willizyoyo

Willizyoyo 4:58AM August 15, 2012

@CONNOR WHELAN

Offensive, vulgar, insulting remarks and irresponsible comments should have been banned. Liberty has its limit, this has already beyond that and too much.

You are irrational and naive speaker, the way you said is a bunch of baloney (utterly nonsense). In fact, you are a plain typical American or, perhaps, a bipolar disorder person.

Willizyoyo 4:25AM August 15, 2012

LETTERS OF CENSURE

By Brigadier Chitranjan Sawant,VSM

Generals make mistakes in planning an operation of war but it is the poor GI or the foot soldier who pays for the mistake with his life. The planner of an operation of war or its executor at a lower level of command, say a brigade, a battalion or a squadron also suffers and at times pays with his life. In case he survives, he gets a letter of censure or may be ordered to face an enquiry leading to a court martial that will entail a more severe punishment. Fine. But nothing like these actions taken at a higher level of command can bring the dead soldier back or restore the prestige of the field outfit.

LOSE NOT IN MIND

A commander loses a battle first in his mind and later on the ground. In Afghanistan, the outpost of Kamdesh was given up by commanders at various levels as a lost post. They thought that there was no way to defend the outpost against the onslaught of the Taliban hordes who were always hovering in the vicinity and bringing down harassing fire on the NATO troops. The artillery fire was sometimes available and sometimes not. There was a perennial shortage of water and construction material, so the defences could not be made. Many a time the higher echelon indicated that the Kamdesh outpost may be abandoned but the executive order was delayed for one reason or the other. Thus both the post commander and the troops paid little attention to its defence on a long term basis, knowing well that the enemy may be lurking round the corner looking for a favourable opportunity to launch a massive attack and overrun the post.

The inevitable happened. The NATO(read American) soldiers fought well to the last round and the last man but were outnumbered and outgunned. They perished.

An enquiry ordered by higher formations found fault with the dilly-dally approach in closing the post for good and it cost the US army lives and prestige both. Censured officers lost an opportunity to go higher but were mere prisoners of circumstances, thank God, not of the Taliban terrorists.

ROOM FOR REFORM

It may be suggested to the planners at higher formations that different commanders should inspect the units and locations or posts, even the small ones, to ensure that correct decisions are taken at correct time. This will save lives and prestige.

The political personalities come out with half baked plans that cannot be implemented. Half baked plans lead to faulty executions that entail loss of precious lives. Obviously, losing buddies, lowers the morale of surviving soldiers. He may be alive but his will to win is dead. How can senior commanders win a war when many battles are lost at lower levels.

Finally, for God's sake, do not talk of final withdrawal from the concerned theatre of war. Even the President of the United States of America, who is also the Commander-in-Chief should never talk of withdrawal for good. This is a sign of the senior most commander losing the war in his mind.

Brig Chitranjan Sawant,VSM 2:40PM September 21, 2011

Photo Galleries

Women on Death Row

Only 12 women have been executed on death row in the U.S. since 1976.

advertisement

Latest Videos