Chinese Light Battleship

According to a news article from the Christian Science Monitor, the Chinese Navy (PLAN) has a light battleship. This appeared in it's on-line edition, dated October 18, 2005. The article is about Secretary Rumsfeld's visit to Chinese military facilities. The article also includes material about the difficulty in exchanging military information with the Chinese in general. While the United States will often invite Chinese military officers and diplomats to various military commands, the Chinese have been hesitant to do the same. Now a news article has made an unusual comment; that the Chinese Navy has a light battleship.

China's military is at a transitional moment, according to a July Defense Department report. China has developed the third- or fourth-largest military in the world. Monday, its military-based space program landed two men from earth orbit. China has a strategic nuclear force and its navy is moving into the open seas. In the past two years, China has unveiled a new attack submarine and a new light battleship - a total surprise for US intelligence.

www.csmonitor.com...

Most of us have heard about a new Chinese attack submarine, but a new light battleship?

This is news to me. I would have been surprised to hear of a new light cruiser. I'm skeptical of a new light battleship.

If you search the web, you will only find information on the Chinese battleships of the late 1800's. There is nothing on something like this in the modern fleet.

If it's true, why isn't this in the general news anywhere else?
How did the Chinese hide it so well?
What does this mean to the balance of forces in the area?
What will the Japanese think of this?
Who will build one next?
Will the US Navy bring back the two battleships from mothballs?
Will this increase the US Navy's pace in bringing forth their new naval designs?

I would be interested to hear your comments on whether this is possible, and what it means for the future of the naval forces of the world.

Will the US Navy bring back the two battleships from mothballs?
Will this increase the US Navy's pace in bringing forth their new naval designs?

Why would it? Battleships are old school. With modern weapons they are just floating coffins. The days of head to head naval battles are a thing of the past.

Why would it? Battleships are old school. With modern weapons they are just floating coffins.

With modern weapons and subs they are also floating artificial reefs waiting to be sunk.

Yes and no. Think of the battleships in the context of a Taiwan China fight. Against the USN in open seas its toast, but it would make an ideal shore bombardment platform for an amphip invasion. Just ask the iraqi's and Lebanese what its like to be on the recieving end of a 16" salvo.

But Light Battleship, heavy cruiser its really a question of semantics.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
With modern weapons and subs they are also floating artificial reefs waiting to be sunk.

WestPoint, what's the meaning of your avatar? Besides the obvious "Let Freedom Ring" wish.

BTW, how's your West Point application coming?

It is most likely some journalist who thinks that all warships can be called a battleship. It is a regular occurence in western press when the journalist is not educated about modern naval vessels.

I think battleships will still be useful, but not ship to ship combat but a battleship will make a great shore bombarment unit. Too bad we retire our battleships, they are really cool.

its most likely a heavy cruiser than some battleship. somtimes reporters post pics of Bradleys and call it a tank even though they aint. i guess they just making it more dramatic with the name battleships because of wat we use to know about them from WW2 to the cold war.

Yeah, most journalists can't tell the difference between a Blackhawk and an Apache helicopter. I guess that tank just sounds cooler than infantry fighting vehicle, and battleship sounds cooler than heavy cruiser.

Personally I think that battleships are nearly useless. Now although they can do shore bombardment, a carrier can do the same job from a greater range with more precision. Theres reallly little point in bringing back battleships. And even heavy cruisers are starting to become pretty obselete. These days everything you need can be mounted on a carrier, sub and a few light cruisers.

A Chinese light Battleship??? lol lol lol...your kidding right?????

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
WestPoint, what's the meaning of your avatar? Besides the obvious "Let Freedom Ring" wish.

Symbology
The monster Mao overlooking a threat to his hideous legacy is about to call in the storm troopers and crush the threat that the ersatz Statue of Liberty represents. The symbology is unmistakeable.

Yes, as FredT explained the symbolic meaning of the image is very unmistakable and important.

WE HAVE A BATTLESHIP??????????????

WOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT source is this? I'm on centurychina everyday and I haven't heard of this. Its either that this is BS or I need to read even more everyday.

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
Will the US Navy bring back the two battleships from mothballs?
Will this increase the US Navy's pace in bringing forth their new naval designs?

Why would the Navy consider bringing back "two battleships" from out of mothball status?
Because of this alleged new 'light' battleship"?

Not hardly.
The Navy has all kinds of modern equivalents of battleships.
They are called the Arleigh Burke class.







seekerof

Yes, it seems likely that it's some sort of mistake by a journalist. I used to send e-mails to CNN when they misidentified helicopters (they all look the same).... never did get a reply...

It just doesn't seem normal for CSM to mess up like that. But that's why I asked if anyone else had heard anything.

I keep thinking about "a modern destroyer has the firepower of a WWII battleship" thing. And China seems to be on both an production phase, and a propaganda phase, so who knows.

The not so funny part of being in any particular country around the world, is that information about developments within your own country are often more available from somewhere outside...

Originally posted by Seekerof
Why would the Navy consider bringing back "two battleships" from out of mothball status?
Because of this alleged new 'light' battleship"?

The day of the battleship as Queen of the fleet started to die as soon as the first carrier began operations and total ended after WWII. However, if they are going to use it as strictly a shore bombardment platform as part of thier Gator (Amphibious assult) navy then that is a different story.

One of the reasons that the US considered the arsenal ship was to give shore bombardment some punch. Some of that role will be taken over by the new Ohio SSGN's coming online.

Originally posted by Seekerof

The Navy has all kinds of modern equivalents of battleships.
They are called the Arleigh Burke class.

seekerof

they are destroyers - fleet air defence ships and not the same role or Theatre presence as a battleship.


Think of it - yes an Arleigh Burke does have resonable fire power , but they are really teeny weeny compared to the Iowa or New Jersey or Wisconsin


And in the navy - size matters

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Seekerof
Why would the Navy consider bringing back "two battleships" from out of mothball status?
Because of this alleged new 'light' battleship"?

One of the reasons that the US considered the arsenal ship was to give shore bombardment some punch. Some of that role will be taken over by the new Ohio SSGN's coming online.

That makes a certain sense, but I would argue that there are more effective means at hand for shore bombardment ... especially given the fixed range of such munitions. Cruise Missiles and Carrier deployed strike bomber capability significantly goes beyond any such range and or accuracy limitations posed by the "big gun theory".

Now granted that the is a psychological weight to the notion of a battleship as viewed by third world recipients ... and sheer physics of a projectile of such mass precludes any effective (in flight ) countermeasure ...

... but overall, as far as cost per effectiveness/flexibility scale ... the traditional battleship does not compare favorably for anything but niche roles in our navy.

Originally posted by FredT
Symbology
The monster Mao overlooking a threat to his hideous legacy is about to call in the storm troopers and crush the threat that the ersatz Statue of Liberty represents. The symbology is unmistakeable.

Interesting opinion...

I just wanted clarification. Intriguing avatar.

New LIGHT Battleship?

As if LIGHT was ever a way to describe a Battleship. Battleships were always heavy vessels, the heaviest too. The biggest battleships were called Dreadnoughts, but their days were so long passed in WWI.

Today, the Battleship role has been taken over by Carriers in Sea warfare, and taken over by Advanced Cruise Missile Launchers on cruisers and destroyers for shore bombardment. The only role I can see the Battleship playing now, is if it is completely redesigned, and outfitted with 3 times more missile launchers than the heaviest of cruisers, and given anti-aircraft capability as well as Phase RADAR Array. And the battleship can also act as a command center on the seas for cooridnating sea assaults(carriers coordinate air assaults).

However ship to ship combat, is best left to carriers and subs.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 20-10-2005 by ShatteredSkies]