http://www.janes.com/article/58528/analysts-examine-role-of-china-s-future-carrier-force
>Analysts with insight into the planning of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) state that the series of aircraft carriers the service intends to build will be used in different, but potentially provocative, operational roles. Rather than being used for power projection missions in the manner of US Navy carrier battle groups, the carriers will instead be inserted into regions where Beijing feels compelled to buttress its territorial and economic interests.
>Most obviously these include the disputed territorial waters of the East and South China Seas. In these scenarios the carriers would be used as floating aerodromes and used to fill in gaps between China's artificially constructed islands to create a contiguous air defence network.
>A secondary role would be to protect Chinese overseas interests, particularly some of Beijing's new far-flung military commitments. In November 2015 China announced that it would build it first overseas naval installation in the East African nation of Djibouti.
>PLAN Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo, a former national security adviser to the Chinese political leadership who also sits on the naval forces' cyber security advisory board, told the state-run Xinhua News Agency on 3 March that a force of several carriers is a logical step, given the growing number of China's overseas interests and investments, along with the need to protect the rights of overseas ethnic Chinese.
When is it too late?
>>29156938
Djibouti Shooties just got bigger.
Freedom of navigation motherfucker, if we're allowed to sail anywhere, they are too.
Communists aren't somehow exempt from international law
How long until China pushes the USA out of Asia?
>>29157132
never, ever.
>>29157150
based on the American doctrine it's inevitable.
>>29157132
Will never happen.
>>29157208
I bet you believe America will be the strongest forever too. Nothing is forever.
>>29157231
In my lifetime it will be.
>>29157264
That's what literally everyone thought in Victorian/Edwardian Britain right before they lived to see WWI.
>>29157132
In 2030 they'll reach parity with American military spending so sometime around then probably
The problem with the having more than anyone else together doctrine is that you will outspend yourself pretty fast.
And China is now the first nation since the end of WWII with a fleet building program worth a shit.
>>29157288
We'll see I guess. I'm more interested about what will happen in Europe over the next 20 years or so.
>protect the rights of overseas ethnic Chinese
they're learning from the russians
>>29157132
50 years.
>>29157176
That they go to war yes.
>>29157345
Look who's talking, mr. white minority in 20 years.
>>29157591
Not American retard.
>>29157643
you don't think whites will be a minority in australia too? the chinks are coming for you m8
>>29157295
They won't even have a real carrier force by then. 15 years isnt enough time to learn their lessons/get their experience from their baby carriers and build their real carriers
>>29157727
Is good that we will replace whites. Inbred uneducated fucks.
>>29157749
you aren't chinese
>chinks take over canada, aus, nz
>they also take over africa
>tfw we'll be living on a chinese planet
say goodbye to your pets
>>29157643
>Naval Piercing
Already a nonwhite.
>>29157736
Sure...
>>29156938
>Rather than being used for power projection missions in the manner of US Navy carrier battle groups, the carriers will instead be inserted into regions where Beijing feels compelled to buttress its territorial and economic interests.
Guise if we call a power projection mission by another name we will totally foolz everyone.
>>29157798
Is it though.
>>29157591
Hello BBC lover, still clinging to population projections that are based on made up statistic?
>>29157810
>non-whites have higher birthrates
>whites aren't replacing themselves
not hard
>Chinese carriers
I hope they've built enough missile cruisers to defend the tugs that transport their carriers.
>>29157775
>naval piercing
but she isn't a sailor anon
>>29157288
>That's what literally everyone thought in Victorian/Edwardian Britain right before they lived to see WWI.
So America has another 40-50 years by your measure.
>>29157839
There is a difference between lol busted and losing its status as only hegemony power in the world.
>>29157818
So like I said, you use statistics that make up population growth and trends.
>>29157847
In that case America has a good 80 years to go, since it has only had that status after the Soviet Union fell.
>>29157938
Nixon's greatest archivement was to exclude the group of Spanish speaking Europeans from the white club.
>>29157798
Yeah I thought I was having a stroke reading this. It's just a sentence saying they're not used for power projection and then a paragraph describing how they're going to be used to project power. Wtf?? Who is this retarded?
>>29157983
Power Projection is operating outside of the own sphere.
It's not really that complicated.
>>29157989
Power projection is operating away from your borders, which "inserted into regions where Beijing feels compelled to buttress its territorial and economic interests." implies.
>>29158014
>Power projection is operating away from your borders
Yeah, you are too dumb.
>>29157989
Oh I didn't realize China's sphere encompasses fucking AFRICA.
Further, the South China Sea disputed territories are outside of China's internationally recognized territory, yet they want to have a strong military presence there. They want to somehow telescope force to these islands. No that's too confusing. They want to extend dominance. Erm let me try again. They want to extend control. They want to reach out with strength. But definitely not project power.
>>29156938
Is China's economy still tanking aka "undergoing extreme change from that of a manufacturing economy to a service economy" ?
RIP China
>>29158019
>mfw any definition of power projection you will find agrees with me
>>29156938
>Rather than being used for power projection missions in the manner of US Navy carrier battle groups, the carriers will instead be inserted into regions where Beijing feels compelled to buttress its territorial and economic interests.
So...they'll be used to... project power?
>>29156938
>Rather than being used for power projection missions in the manner of US Navy carrier battle groups, the carriers will instead be inserted into regions where Beijing feels compelled to buttress its territorial and economic interests.
So, power projection?
>>29158020
>Oh I didn't realize China's sphere encompasses fucking AFRICA.
No one claimed that in the article.
But various trade routes are indeed part of China's sphere.
>>29158216
>>29158152
If I samefag hard enough.
>>29156938
>Rather than being used for power projection missions in the manner of US Navy carrier battle groups, the carriers will instead be inserted into regions where Beijing feels compelled to buttress its territorial and economic interests.
Is there a difference here other than "they are the bad guys and we're the good guys"?
>>29157356
>Granada 83', Panama 89'
>>29157808
>places carrier in persian gulf near American forces in Iraq/Afghanistan
>places carrier in Red sea near Chinese forces in Djibouti
Yes evil Chinks are doing something aggressive and offensive
>>29158028
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-01-22/boj-s-kuroda-china-slowdown-is-very-gradual
Should I trust the Governor of the BoJ or should I trust anon on /k/?
>>29159569
>Military analysts
>read "Washington DC based organizations"
>>29157132
The chinks will never push the US out of asia
The problem is this helicopter assault fetish always results in disaster when they try to do some sort of raid or attack
And they think they'll be able to do an amphibious assault, all with helicopters
>>29157839
More like 28 years. Britain ascended to unquestioned premiership after Napoleon, while the US did after 1945.
The thing is the Edwardians weren't even wrong about Britain being the most powerful war machine in 1914 so take that into consideration too. Margins count, even if you still are the top banana.
>>29162741
>More like 28 years. Britain ascended to unquestioned premiership after Napoleon, while the US did after 1945.
The Soviet Union existed until 1991.
>>29157307
>fleet building program worth a shit.
Remains to be seen. Ability to pump out ships like they're welfare babies isn't a good metric.
You need to look at things like uniformity within class and type, endurance and survivability, lifespan, workload and manning requirements, and mission suitability.
At the decade mark you need to assess maintenance requirements and project future requirements up to and past the FRAM and SLEP threshold. Then you need to account for the handoff cycle as newer platforms enter service, and slotting older platforms into reserve roles.
Putting hulls in the water is only the beginning. China has at least a half century of doctrine development facing them if they want to get into the blue water navy business.
>>29163053
Russia and France didn't wither into non existence after Napoleon but beyond any doubt Britain was still on top. Nor did an ascendant Germany suddenly becoming the second most industrialized power change that.
