Print 80 comment(s) - last by cruisin3style.. on Aug 17 at 2:44 PM

The "new" Chinese aircraft carrier, sitting in port prior to launch  (Source: AP / Kyodo News)

New propoganda in Taiwan  (Source: AP)
China's expected aircraft carrier sea trials begin, while world waits in anticipation

China flexed its growing military might after it began its first aircraft carrier open sea trials, with the retrofitted Varyag.

This is a historic milestone for the country of China, but it is from being an international secret.  China confirmed the aircraft carrier's development in the spring, but the retrofitted and upgraded former Soviet ship's development was long expected by foreign observers.

China previously discussed interest in creating a fleet of aircraft carriers to update its navy, with military experts becoming increasingly concerned by this effort.  However, both Chinese military experts and foreign analysts believe it will be quite some time before the country has a full aircraft fleet able to carry out flight operations.

Ironically, the Varyag was previously purchased from Ukraine so it could be turned into a casino -- but after years of modifications that included new engines, radar equipment, and other military technologies, China believes it has the first step to a revamped national navy. 

Chinese news reports were unable to confirm how long sea trials of the new ship would last.  However, scientific research along with at-sea training is expected to take place, though state-run Chinese media didn't say much else.

The U.S. has been left confused about the realistic need of such an aircraft carrier, with the following statement issued by the U.S. State Department, "We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment.  We have had concerns for some time and we've been quite open with them with regard to the lack of transparency from China regarding its power projection and its lack of access and denial of capabilities." 

Along with showing the U.S. that its military is developing, this taunts Taiwan and Japan -- two close Asian rivals -- as officials from Taiwan said the recent aircraft carrier launch was symbolic, but didn't mention other details related to the closely-watched event.  

In addition, Taiwan also showed off the country's latest generation of anti-ship cruise missiles with a bold promotional poster.  In the new image, the Hsiung Feng III missile impacts an unidentifiable aircraft that is similar to the Chinese carrier.  It seems like a promotional image that the Chinese ship itself will not see as much of a threat.

China will likely try to use its new naval technologies to better keep a watchful eye on the South China Sea, with growing concern from Japanese defense officials that China could look to carry out more activities near Japanese waters.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Brandon Hill on 8/10/2011 8:27:06 PM , Rating: 4
"We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment."

The hell? What business do we have telling China what they can and can't do with its money/military?

By kleinma on 8/10/2011 8:46:40 PM , Rating: 1
Well because China doesn't get into wars like we do, they also don't tend to ever face any foreign threat. They sit back and let shit happen and get rich while everyone else blows stuff up. They do have one thing they want though. Taiwan.

Wonder how much tech in that thing was stolen from the US in the first place.

By 91TTZ on 8/10/2011 9:42:30 PM , Rating: 4
They do have one thing they want though. Taiwan.

An aircraft carrier won't be needed for that though, since Taiwan is only 99 miles off the coast of China.

At a 600 mph cruise speed a jet can get to Taiwan 10 minutes after leaving the coast of China.

By Tuor on 8/10/2011 10:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
They may not need an CVN to take Taiwan, but they might need one to keep it. Of course, it depends on how much the US feels like getting upset over it. Considering how far into debt we are with them, the upset will likely be... minimal. But since China can't count on that, they need to deter our desire to retaliate.

By smitty3268 on 8/10/2011 10:12:56 PM , Rating: 3
A cheap little carrier like this won't do anything like what you're suggesting. That's why China has nukes.

A carrier like this will let China project power in places like Africa, the Middle East, and South America. It doesn't change much of anything in Asia, Europe, or North America.

By nafhan on 8/11/2011 9:40:17 AM , Rating: 3
A cheap little carrier like this will give the Chinese military training, etc. for when it starts building real carriers. Otherwise, agree.

By cevarz on 8/11/11, Rating: -1
By stromgald30 on 8/11/2011 12:15:22 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, the debt is a good reason why China doesn't want war with the U.S.

Everyone talks about China holding U.S. debt like they've got the U.S. by its balls. If there ever is a war/skirmish between the two (highly unlikely), then the U.S. might not have to pay back its debts, at least for a while.

The bonds that China hold are essentially the U.S. borrowing $ and giving back a sheet of paper promising to pay. That sheet of paper is worth nothing if the U.S. decides to nullify debts with China. I don't think that would necessarily hurt the US credit rating either, especially if the move is somewhat justified (I think war would count).

By Super Speed Train on 8/13/2011 11:57:11 AM , Rating: 1
We don't want to go to war with China.

That would be a lose lose situation for everybody.

By Silverel on 8/11/2011 12:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
China is their biggest foreign creditor in the sense that they've bought the most US bonds, around the 1T mark. Private American individuals dwarf that number by holding 10 times that amount in US bonds. You guys sure get worked up trying to hold that debt over our heads. Good thing we're quite a bit taller.

By Spuke on 8/11/2011 12:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
China is their biggest foreign creditor in the sense that they've bought the most US bonds, around the 1T mark. Private American individuals dwarf that number by holding 10 times that amount in US bonds.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner chicken dinner! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! No one and I mean no one (except me) EVER brings this up. We, the people, own by far the largest portion of US debt but that's not a problem? LOL!

By jfelano on 8/11/2011 12:57:28 PM , Rating: 1
What you don't understand is the USA has no intention of paying China back. We'll all be long gone before any payments of debt even begin. Do you really think the USA is that stupid? No it's you.

By FITCamaro on 8/11/2011 3:41:28 PM , Rating: 2

Bonds are not for an infinite amount of time until we decide to pay them back. They are for a fixed amount of time and once that time is up, they mature and are redeemed for the amount of the bond plus interest.

By Calin on 8/12/2011 2:49:35 AM , Rating: 2
If the US of A decide to NOT pay the bonds, that would be the definition of a default. If that would happen, you'd see the credit status downgraded from AAA not to AA+, but to something much closer to junk status.

By biker16us on 8/14/2011 11:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
We would not default we would simply print more dollars.

how foolish would it be to have 1 trillion dollars, that the Federal reserve can simply print more money to make the value of your 1 trillion dollars worthless.

this is what makes the USA different from Greece, we CONTROL our money supply. We determine how much each dollar is worth. in the EU the ECB does, leaving no way for the Greek, to devalue their debt, like has been done many many times before in similar situations.

We own the Chinese they don't own us.

By drycrust3 on 8/11/2011 4:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
Well because China doesn't get into wars like we do, they also don't tend to ever face any foreign threat.

This just shows how little you know about China. I also doubt the date 14th August 1910 means little to you as well, but that was the date that USA and its European allies invaded China, and guess which country hasn't forgotten this? Yes, China!

By Strunf on 8/11/11, Rating: 0
By lelias2k on 8/11/2011 10:40:04 AM , Rating: 3
You clearly never had a conversation with someone from Taiwan about China and/or vice versa...

By Strunf on 8/11/11, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2011 3:43:29 PM , Rating: 1
They don't spend much on their military because the US has a treaty with them to protect them. So they sit back under our umbrella of protection. Israel is the same way but they're more proactive on their defense so they spend more. Mainly because they are under constant attack.

By Strunf on 8/12/2011 7:46:26 AM , Rating: 1
You must be fool if you think the US would step in to defend Taiwan when China is a Nuclear capable country...

I'll leave you Americans with your FUD based on thin air... please do not let the FACTS hinder your ideologies.

By deadrats on 8/13/2011 4:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
do you know how many nukes china has? about 180 operational nukes.

how many does the u.s. have? about 9600.

and who do you think has the superior capability to deliver its nukes?

By Noya on 8/15/2011 1:38:59 PM , Rating: 3
As if 180 nuclear weapons isn't enough to decimate every large city in the USA (eyes roll).

By SpaceJumper on 8/11/11, Rating: -1
By deadrats on 8/13/2011 5:01:41 PM , Rating: 1
you may want to brush up on your chinese history, it seems that "they" have taken "their religions" teachings about "peace and balance of power" with a huge grain of salt and decided that it was more of a non required suggestion than an actual edict.

LOL @ using the terms "chinese" and "peace" and "balance of power" in the same sentence.

if you want a culture that doesn't give a crap about human rights, free speech, freedom, serving food that doesn't give me upset stomach, worker's rights, equal rights, not eating rats/dogs/insects, not using lead in their products, the list goes on, then the chinese are for you.

By tng on 8/15/2011 8:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
They do have one thing they want though. Taiwan.
They also want Japan.

By DougF on 8/16/2011 9:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
October, 1950; China invades Korean Peninsula
November, 1950; China takes over Tibet
1962; border conflict with India
1969; border conflict with Soviet Union
1979; border conflict with Vietnam
2007; shoot down of a satellite

I would suggest two things. One, that China is an aggressive nation; and Two, that the development of an aircraft carrier capability is for two primary reasons: A) Keep Taiwan in line and support/defend any action needed there; and B) Control of the Spratly Islands, which are rumored to have vast reserves of oil and gas, and control shipping lanes. A carrier presence there would project a LOT of Chinese power vs the Philippines and/or Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, who all claim at least part of the Spratlys.

By smitty3268 on 8/10/2011 9:09:52 PM , Rating: 5
LOL. I'm sure China asks the US why we need so many aircraft carriers for as well. I wonder if they ever get a reply.

By Solandri on 8/11/2011 3:57:00 PM , Rating: 5
The major military powers generally inform each other of major construction and exercises ahead of time. It's partly to prevent mishaps due to misinterpretation of intent ("are those 150 military ships off our coast a prelude to invasion, or just an exercise?"). But it's also a part of sabre rattling. The best use of a good offense is intimidation - getting what you want through the mere presence of that offense, without ever having to actually use it. So broadcasting your assets and how you intend to use them is usually in your best interest. You'll notice the U.S. publicly announces whenever it sends a supercarrier task force to a region, and why it's sending it there (e.g. off the coast of Libya to support Libyan rebels, or to patrol the Persian Gulf and protect merchant ships from an Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz).

When a country doesn't announce or even acknowledge the existence of an asset, it makes other countries uneasy, and generally causes greater uncertainty and instability. e.g. When the U.S. started flying the U-2 over the USSR, we knew we were doing it, the Soviets knew we were doing it, but because we denied it, it infuriated Khruschev, possibly contributing to (if not leading to) his decision to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Regardless of political differences, most people can agree that stability is generally desirable.

The region has also had a poor history with superpowers, from European domination in the early 1900s, to Japan in the 1930s-40s, to French/US involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s-70s. Since China is pretty obviously the up and coming superpower in the region, I'm sure all the countries there would rest a lot easier if China publicly acknowledged why they're building it.

By chmilz on 8/10/2011 10:44:42 PM , Rating: 3
LOL @ the country with 11 active and 2 under construction, condemning a country for restoring a soviet relic to "moderately useable" condition.

By Kompass on 8/10/11, Rating: -1
By Spuke on 8/10/2011 11:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
The US economy is based on "paper". In the sense that it doesn't have the physical resources and production means to support its consumption. These are outsourced or taken from other countries. To make that happen, the US need to impose by military force.
LOL! What?

By Kompass on 8/11/11, Rating: 0
By AssBall on 8/11/2011 3:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
Might want to loosen the band on your foil hat, Brah...

By StevoLincolnite on 8/11/2011 5:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
no one needs to explain anything to the US. The US military budget is equivalent or bigger than all other countries combined.

Not entirely accurate.
The worlds Military spending is around 1.6 Trillion dollars, the US is almost $700 Billion, far from equal.

The US with with the European Union accounts for about 1.1 Trillion dollars in total.

However, all great civilizations fall eventually.
The British Empire is probably a good example of this in the modern age.
At one stage they practically "owned" almost a quarter of the Earth's total land area and a quarter of the worlds entire population at it's peak.

China is the new up-and-coming power house, if any country is going to go against the United States it will be China. That is if it's aging population doesn't halt it in it's tracks first or if the people don't have a revolt.

However I highly doubt it will happen for many decades, the US and it's allies still makes any military power seem small and insignificant; and many allies it has.

By 91TTZ on 8/11/2011 9:30:13 AM , Rating: 5
China's main enemy will be its people. It's growing at a fast pace by ignoring the lower classes. It's taking their land for projects and corruption is all over the place.

Eventually the poor Chinese people will want a bigger piece of the prosperity that the rest of their country is enjoying.

By tastyratz on 8/11/2011 2:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
And the government holds the power of internal communication eliminating revolt in it's tracks. Let's be honest - the government will shut off the internet long before the poor can collect together and form any crude militia or protests. The people need to be able to assemble for revolt and they have it down pat how to keep them from doing that.

Should the people revolt? yes. COULD the people successfully revolt? arguable and unlikely if you ask me unfortunately. If anyone needs a civil war it's china.

By DaveSylvia on 8/14/2011 4:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Believe it or not, there was a time when revolts occurred without technology and the internet! It makes it easier for sure but without it, a people squashed hard enough for long enough will rebel with explosive force.

By Solandri on 8/11/2011 4:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
The US military budget is equivalent or bigger than all other countries combined.

U.S. military spending accounts for a bit over 40% of the world's military spending

The U.S. has treaties obligating it to protect Japan and NATO.

The combined GDP of the US + Japan works out to about 32% of the world's GDP.
The combined GDP of the US + Japan + NATO works out to about 60% of the world's GDP.

So 40% is right in the ballpark of the amount of military spending you would expect from a country with the US' economy and treaty obligations. Personally, I am all for rewriting the treaty with Japan so that they would have to pay for the majority of their defense. I think they've shown over the last 50 years that they're responsible world citizens again. And I think NATO should be scaled back (it was originally created to oppose a Soviet invasion).

That should allow the U.S. to drop its military spending to about 25% of the world total, which would be the same percentage as its GDP compared to the world total.

By kangur on 8/11/2011 7:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
Check Your Data.

As of 2010 the US accounts only for the 19% of world GDP and going down. As an example is more or les the GDP combined of China and India and way less than the GDP of the European Union.

This is not Eisenhower Time, so wake up. You're still the biggest game in town. But not by much.

By tng on 8/15/2011 9:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think that he would argue that the US is responsible for a large part of China's GDP via exports to the US. India exports to the US, but not nearly as much.

That may be a straw dog argument, but it does fit.

By Noya on 8/15/2011 2:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you people rating him down?

What he said is the truth. Our economy is "service" or "knowledge" based since the manufacturing decline in the 1970s. Look at any inflation chart and the sharp rise in the 1970s to today. Income inequality also rises sharply sine the 1970s.

All real economic growth since then has been based on paper. Wall Street, shady banks and the Federal reserve manipulating the money supply.

We have had economic "booms" for the last two decades (IT in the 90's and housing in the early-mid 00's) while also incorporating the trade deal with China, but they're largely on paper. Throw in the 50-60 million Mexicans our huge corporations employ and boom, stagnant wages that don't even keep up with inflation. We haven't re-invested into infrastructure in decades.

By chick0n on 8/10/11, Rating: 0
By bigdawg1988 on 8/11/2011 3:38:43 PM , Rating: 2

Quoted from the book of Dolemite, Human Tornado

By idiot77 on 8/11/2011 12:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
Mandarin classes keep filling up. :(

By BSMonitor on 8/11/2011 8:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
Because we have the biggest stick. That's why.

By th3pwn3r on 8/11/2011 11:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
The US always has to be in everyone's business instead of worrying about all the problems we already have here inside of the country. Shame.

By Reclaimer77 on 8/11/2011 10:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
The hell? What business do we have telling China what they can and can't do with its money/military?

You're really that close minded Brandon?

We've had a first class blue water navy since WWII. And despite the "imperialistic" tag you and your lefty buddies like to throw on our military, our carrier battle groups have defended our allies and brought peace and resolution to conflicts around the world more times than I can count.

Don't give me some childish moral relativism argument. You cannot possibly compare us to China. What exactly do they need carriers for? And are you actually supporting the kind of needless arms race that the Soviet Union engaged in during the Cold War?

And we're not "telling" China what to do. It would just be nice to know what a so-called member of the "international community" intends to do with a military and naval buildup with the potential to destabilize the entire region. That's all.

By DaveSylvia on 8/14/2011 4:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
I certainly agree with you that a Chinese military build up could have a major destabilizing effect in that area and that their lack of transparency (or outright lies) with the rest of the world is massively disconcerting.

Still, you have to admit that this:

We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment.

certainly sounds like a hypocritical statement by U.S. State Department.

By inperfectdarkness on 8/12/2011 10:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
china has one goal; hostile reunification of taiwan by force. this is simply one more means to that end.

Chill out
By masteryoda34 on 8/10/2011 9:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
The West needs to take a chill pill. Is China modernizing its military? Yes. But the overall size and budget of China's military is tiny compared to that of the US and its allies, and certainly not out of line for the legitimate self-defense of 1.2 billion people.

RE: Chill out
By Nfarce on 8/10/2011 10:00:38 PM , Rating: 3
Okay fair enough. Print those words and file them. We'll see what happens in about 25 years...or less. Pretty much the same mentality was expressed in the mid-1930s about Nazi Germany and Hirohito's Japan.

RE: Chill out
By Hyperion1400 on 8/10/2011 10:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Japan had been on a modernization kick since Meiji took power, or have we all forgotten about the Ruso-Japanese war?

So your analogy works with Germany...Japan, not so much.

RE: Chill out
By Spuke on 8/10/2011 11:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wake up call! China has been on the US's "threat" radar for AT LEAST 20 years! Just because they're in today's news doesn't make ANY of this is new. News flash! Our military considered China MORE than formidable 20 years ago without an aircraft carrier. Nothing to see here, move along.

PS - We've had debt with China for at least that long, when I was growing up, people bitched about how much of our debt Japan had and how "they" were "buying up everything" in the US and how "the US belonged to Japan". China passes Japan in foreign owned debt (which Japan STILL owns a sizable portion) and now they're the new boogeyman. LOL! Wash, rinse, repeat.

PS - Boring!! Wake me when people actually do something original like vote in a Congress that isn't mostly Republican or Democrat.

RE: Chill out
By eldakka on 8/11/2011 2:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
But I bet China can do much better with the budget they do have. For each $10B spent on the US military industrial complex, the Chinese could get the same result spending $1B.

RE: Chill out
By SPOOFE on 8/11/2011 2:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
But the overall size and budget of China's military is tiny compared to that of the US and its allies,

Actually, China has the largest standing army in the world. Their deliberately undervalued currency, coupled with the fact that their people are simply paid less, is what explains why they "pay less".

Oh, the US is so bad, we pay our soldiers a fair wage, ooh, how awful...

By smitty3268 on 8/10/2011 9:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Of course China wants a carrier, they basically don't have a navy right now. A wannabe-superpower pretty much needs to get one.

But the details:
Ironically, the Varyag was previously purchased from Ukraine so it could be turned into a casino

make it seem like this is a pretty half-assed carrier to begin with. I highly doubt it can even compete with the French carrier, let alone the American ones.

I suppose it's more the idea than the reality people are freaking out about. This will be the first realistic way China will have to express military power around the world, even if it is second class compared to the West.

By Rob94hawk on 8/10/2011 10:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Like I said before, let them do some night landings 1st then get back to us. It'll be out of commision at least once pulling jets out of the carrier deck.

By cmdrdredd on 8/10/2011 10:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yep I agree. It's nothing to fear, if there was a conflict and this came into usage in a real situation it would likely be easily taken out or rendered worthless.

By eldakka on 8/11/2011 2:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
It's not the carrier you have to compete with. It's the aircraft that come with the carrier that are the problem.

While right now Chinese aircraft may be nothing to write home about, what will they have in 10 or 20 years to put on the carrier?

By cmdrdredd on 8/11/2011 4:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
While right now Chinese aircraft may be nothing to write home about, what will they have in 10 or 20 years to put on the carrier?

Nothing that we won't have 10 years advantage on.

By kitonne on 8/15/2011 3:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not so half-assed.... You need to keep your flight deck level in rough seas to recover your planes - the technology to do so is also used in ferry-boats (purchased by Russia for their first carrier) and big casino ships, to keep your dice and rulete table horizontal at all times (purchased by China for their first carrier). Gyroscopes big enough to keep a big ship level are not trivial to make.....

The US doesn't care, militar$@#, about China
By tech329 on 8/10/2011 11:46:33 PM , Rating: 3
We're spending ridiculous sums to develop and deploy autonomous weapons of all sorts. We're doing the same for some form of high power, space based particle beam or laser canon.

In many ways these technologies will make a whole lot of current strategic, tactical and defensive weaponry obsolete.

We spend more than the entire rest of the world on defense every year. I don't see that changing. The cost is stupid but you can't escape the benefit.

RE: The US doesn't care, militar$@#, about China
By Spuke on 8/10/2011 11:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
In many ways these technologies will make a whole lot of current strategic, tactical and defensive weaponry obsolete.
I'll give you a hint, carrier battlegroups, ships and navys were obsolete 30 years ago. Their sole purpose is so idiots can SEE how much power we have. Hence the term "power projection".

RE: The US doesn't care, militar$@#, about China
By KITH on 8/11/2011 5:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
How do you think our military is moved around? You think everything is flown? The bulk is taken by boat.

By Noya on 8/15/2011 1:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and in a real "world war" situation every countries surface ships would be taken out by attack subs within a week.

By Kompass on 8/11/2011 1:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
In many ways these technologies will make a whole lot of current strategic, tactical and defensive weaponry obsolete.

Let's imagine. There are a thousand missiles headed simultaneously toward you. Each of them has multiple warheads. Are you 100% positive that the space based weapons can really fend them all off?

By undummy on 8/11/2011 12:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
The ship is a joke. Nothing to worry about.

We'll be using the HMS Surprise to cover this aircraftless carrier.

RE: joke
By smitty3268 on 8/11/2011 3:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
This thing needs a funny nickname. Something related to both Russia and casinos.

Any ideas?

RE: joke
By Master Kenobi on 8/11/2011 10:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
The Roulette.

RE: joke
By AMDftw on 8/11/2011 8:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
With the cheap @ss steel they use today, I wouldn't doubt it would rust going half way across the ocean. Who knows, it may park itself right next to the Titanic.

RE: joke
By bigdawg1988 on 8/11/2011 3:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
In the new image, the Hsiung Feng III missile impacts an unidentifiable aircraft that is similar to the Chinese carrier.

Apparently it doesn't need planes, it IS an airplane! WTF, the Chinese have a flying aircraft carrier!!!


Let them built it
By Rob94hawk on 8/10/2011 8:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
This will give the US an indication not only how far behind they are in military technology but who they're getting their technology and innovation from.

This is another warning to the US that it needs to guard it's military technology so it does not fall into the wrong hands, again..

Now all we have to do is wait and see if this thing is actually sea worthy and see how long it will take for their Chinese pilots to crash land their planes on the deck. ESPECIALLY night landings!

RE: Let them built it
By 91TTZ on 8/10/2011 9:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Let them build it? It's already built. It was built by the Soviets in the 1980's.

Slow down and reread
By KillerNoodle on 8/11/2011 11:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
"but it is far from being an international secret."

"missile impacts an unidentifiable aircraft carrier that is similar to the Chinese carrier."

Concerned about what? LOL
By jfelano on 8/11/2011 12:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm really concerned about a old refurbished Russian Aircraft carrier that's smaller than the Carnival cruise ship I went on last weel. Really?

Debt to China?
By jfelano on 8/11/2011 12:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
If you think the USA has any intention of paying China back, your clueless.

Our leaders know we'll all be long gone before any repayment even begins.

By Yeah on 8/11/2011 10:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
Does it say... Made in the United States?

By cruisin3style on 8/17/2011 2:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
some of this article is hard to understand at face value, you have to infer what the author is saying because it seems like words are either missing or incomplete, it is hard to know what the author intended.

I think i've noticed this a lot with this author's posts... Pleas no more

By Super Speed Train on 8/13/2011 11:54:06 AM , Rating: 1
And I mean this is in a good and humble way - If China builds Ships and Air-Craft Carriers like they build High Speed Trains, We give it a few days before this new Carrier sinks or runs out of gas.

China is expanding way to fast and is feeling this with many of their key projects in critical failure mode. Now we like China and her people, but we don't like her arrogance. She is quick to take credit for things that go well, but blames everyone else when things go wrong.

We should all put a collar on to keep us humble. "Confucious Circa 2011"

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki