Slashdot Mirror
China's Island Factory
An anonymous reader writes: The BBC has a lengthy investigative report about China's efforts to create and expand artificial islands in the South China Sea. They've been going to coral reefs and atolls, dredging the bottom for material, and dumping it on top of the reef to create new land. On at least one of the new islands, China will build an air base large enough for fighter jets to use. This highlights one of China's main reasons for constructing these islands: sovereignty and strategic control of the surrounding area. "The U.S. government does not acknowledge China's claim, and the U.S. Pacific fleet continues to sail regularly through the South China Sea. But the Chinese navy is beginning to grow more assertive. In December 2013 China sailed its brand new aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, into the South China Sea for the first time. Shadowing it, at about 30 nautical miles, came the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Cowpens. A Chinese amphibious assault ship approached and ordered it to leave the area. The commander of the Cowpens refused, saying he was sailing in 'international waters.'"
They're rattling an awful lot.
So apparently there is some poor town named Cowpens where a battle occured. At least it wasn't named after a person. That would be a terrible last name.
They've been going to coral reefs and atolls, dredging the bottom for material, and dumping it on top of the reef to create new land.
Destroying fisheries in the process. But hey! They can just go into international waters and fish there - it's not like the World's fisheries are in trouble or anything.
A Chinese amphibious assault ship approached and ordered it to leave the area. The commander of the Cowpens refused, saying he was sailing in 'international waters.'"
Some day, we bald apes are going stop our petty squabbles.
Nah! Who am I kidding.
Is pretty hilarious. All countries pull their fair share of bullshit but come on.. territorial waters that just wander southward like that, cutting between vietnam and the philippines?
Oh well.. I expect a typhoon or two will swamp those attempts at man-man islands.
Liaoning is not brand new - it's a refurb of an old Soviet carrier.
If it weren't for the U.S. having multiple aircraft carriers, the modern-day world might be divided into two different super-powers...Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
An 11 carrier Navy fleet is not sustainable.
Assumptions to test this hypothesis:
1) Countries other than the US (with carriers) are making rational decisions on how many carriers to buy
2) The total number of carriers a country can support is based on it's GDP
3) Data from Wikipedia about Carriers and GDP is accurate
So, based on that metric it takes $2.28 Trillion of GDP to rationally support one aircraft carrier and the US could support 7 of them.
Problems with this logic:
1) Not all countries have an equal need for aircraft carriers, it depends on the importance of sea lanes and force projection
2) Most countries listed are US allies who are underspending on their military establishment since they know the US will be there to protect them
3) China is an outlier since they have $8.3 trillion in GDP and only one carrier, if they are removed suddenly the data shows it only takes $1.4 Trillion of GDP and the US could support 11 carriers
Conclusion:
Given the US need for open sea lanes in order to maintain trade, a political desire for forward force projection in order to avoid conflict in the continental US and the gigantic size of the US economy it's likely that the current number of US carriers is actually appropriate.
Following those same lines I predict China will build five more carriers amidst rising tensions in the Pacific.
how many carriers in the modern US fleet were made after 1945? Why maintain them during the cold war? Why maintain them now?
Why does one deed excuse the other? It's not like anyone complaining about the chinese annexation of the Spratley's was alive to condone the annexation of Hawai'i by the US.
Both were and are bullshit. Extending national boundaries through force is something we were supposed to leave behind after WW2. Apparently, some people think that the lessons from WW2 don't apply to them.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
To an extent, not exactly the same. When the US annexed/took-over Hawaii the US didn't claim all land between the US coast and Hawaii as US waters. My "I haven't checked Google to be sure" guess is the waters within 100 miles of the US west coast and a 100 mile circle around Hawaii are the only waters declared as US waters.
--JLockard - "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips
"If China gets the base built, it's really hard to sink an Island."
Tell that to the Bikini Atoll!
Against who exactly? We have air bases just about everywhere, ICBM's , long range bombers etc.
They're huge slow(ish) moving, crazy expensive floating cities that could be made irrelevant with a salvo of cheap, dumb missles. (aegis be damned) They're dreadnoughts waiting for their Taranto.
Military/Industrial Complex and show of force in many theatres.
And they're really friggin' hard to build on short notice
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
My "I haven't checked Google to be sure" guess is the waters within 100 miles of the US west coast and a 100 mile circle around Hawaii are the only waters declared as US waters.
The US claims territorial waters only up to 12 nautical miles from the shore, which is the maximum allowed by international law.
Your objective argument, coupled with your competent use of the scientific method to problem solve, suggests you meant to post this somewhere else.~
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
In the event of an extended war, the US is presumed to need to build aircraft carriers. The best way to maintain institutional knowledge of how to build carriers is to build them, and the minimum construction pace that retains this knowledge is about one carrier every five years. Since the non-combat lifespan of a nuclear carrier is about 50 years, this gives the US a fleet of ten to eleven carriers.
The whole region is contested. Every party from Russia down to Vietnam and the Philippines is squabbling over bits of dirt so they can claim the huge oil & gas reserves that are under the sea bed there.
We saw an escalation a couple of months ago when China towed a drilling platform out into contested water and got into a dust up with so local coast guard ships (I can't remember who the other country was - Vietnam I think).
Destabilisation in the middle east is sharpening the focus on finding secondary supplies of energy. ISIS has the potential to take out huge areas of oil producing land with Iraq unstable, Syria in civil war, Lebannon screwed, Libya in civil war, Egypt under military rule and most of the other countries being split on Sunni or Shiite lines there is a real risk of an energy crisis is ISIS cannot be stopped and stopped soon.
Mod anon up!
Also don't forget the fact that these floating cities are *nuclear*. They only need to be refueled once every 20 years. Running full speed ahead for weeks on end does not shorten this span. Its speed is limited by the other diesel ships in the carrier group though.
There have been some recent advances in catalytic fuels research that can take sea water and create jet fuel. With the nuke onboard all spare energy that would normally be unused could go towards creating fuel. Nothing is close to 'prime time' yet, at least not publicly.
I'm interested in this because I am a China "expert". I had Top Secret clearance with a US ally and have negotiated with the Chinese government. I have already modded so am now posting anon.
It is likely that aircraft carriers are outdated technology. They are vulnerable to sinking by many means. A possible deterrent for incoming ballistics is a "star wars" type technology that the US claims it has but won't demonstrate. So, bluff. The argument that the Chinese wouldn't spend money on carriers if they were old tech is also facile. Boys with toys and the military industrial complex (wherever it is) will max out on their weapons budget and still cry for more. They often spend it on crap to line the pockets of their mates; or spend it on a wing and a prayer that it will perform as designed.
What we are seeing now is brinkmanship on both sides. This could end badly.
I suspect aircraft carriers are where the battleships were in the First World War. Great for force projection against lesser navies, but have to stay far from shore to keep from being overwhelmed by small, cheap, missile boats and land based missiles and aircraft. As always, you can't know until you try.
Following those same lines I predict China will build five more carriers amidst rising tensions in the Pacific
I was from China, and have been keeping a very close eye on what's happening in China. Please allow me to chime in
China is not America
Unlike America China does not have any ambition of global control, nor any need to become the world's policeman
China's immediate concern is the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea - open lanes to the Pacific and the Indian oceans
China will do everything it can to ensure that it gets a free passage way in both the abovementioned seas --- and China knows America/Japan are the two entities which will throw the monkey wrench into the clockwork whenever they got the chance
The floating military base concept is a concept started by ambitious countries which want global domination, like Japan, America, Great Britain, and since China does not share such ambition, China actually does not need aircraft carriers
And the fact that China has devoted a lot of research into anti-aircraft carrier weapons, like their scramjet powered missiles tells us that the "Liaoning" is but an experiment
Although China does not need any aircraft carrier it does need to understand how to operate one, and it does need its own military (Navy/Air Force) to be able to fly off/land on aircraft carriers, just in case
And another reason for having the Liaoning is psychological --- like everything else in China, everything is scripted according to the Art of War
China's intention on Aircraft Carriers is to force America into building more, and with more carrier groups, the massive expenditure will only bankrupt America faster
This "aircraft carrier game" is not the first game China plays with USA
When USA came out with its "stealth fighters" in the 1980's China had none, but China somehow gave the impression to the world that they are making their moves in that area (which include having a few photos of "made in China stealth bomber" online) and that essentially forced America to waste even more of its precious resources into obtaining even more advanced versions of stealth bombers/fighters to the tune of hundreds of billions (the hundreds of billions which could, theoretically, be used to improve the falling education system inside America, but I digress)
China knows too well that if WW3 is going to come it will a total wipe out - that is why if you guys pay attention to what China is doing, the aircraft carrier / stealth aircraft things are nothing but a big bluff crafted to lure the enemies into wasting their own resources into things that will turn out to be totally worthless
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Hmmm, the crews of the battleships that bombarded Normandy before and after the landings would be interested to hear that, I suspect. Small, cheap torpedo boats were no match for the destroyers build specifically to 'destroy' them. For every weapon there is a counter weapon, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles are a threat to aircraft carriers, but the problem for small ships has always been target identification. For all the technology, it's still a big ocean, and an aircraft carrier is still effective from a long way away. I'd say the jury is still out.
The Chinese love to call hypocrisy, about "Well, the US does blah blah blah..." However, look at the Gulf of Mexico, a good comparative example to the South China Sea situation. See, in the Gulf of Mexico, the United States may actually have a strong position than the Chinese, with greater amount of shoreline touching the water and greater military superiority over its neighbors. There's oil in those water, rich fisheries, and its a critical body of water for American security interests. Yet unlike the Chinese, the Americans didn't scoop up the entire region like a hollowed out grapefruit and tell its neighbors FU. Instead, they sat down, from a position of power no less, and negotiated equitable maritime boundaries, not just with friendly nations like Mexico, but with hostile states like the Cubans. However, the Chinese are different, proving quite greedy and trying to essentially annex other nations' EEZ from Malaysia and Brunei up to Korea and Japan. It's a sad state of affairs, and it only serves to unite China's neighbors against it. With actions like that, they really shouldn't question why their neighbors fear them.
These were previously open international waters, so any nation coming along and claiming them needs to be challenged.
Just another day in Paradise