PDA

View Full Version : Proposed Chinese Aircraft Carrier



J. Dillon
11-10-2011, 03:55 PM
Got this in an E mail the other day


China's new aircraft carrier!
These aircraft carriers look formidable and of ultra modern design. There are reports the 1st Chinese aircraft carrier is under construction and could enter service around 2015 or earlier. It won't be long before we see the real thing. Defense analysts are waiting; watching anxiously.

http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1_30377_AE99v9EAATP6To7wOA83dkdkei0&pid=4&fid=Inbox&inline=1
http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1_30377_AE99v9EAATP6To7wOA83dkdkei0&pid=5&fid=Inbox&inline=1



THIS IS QUANTUM LEAP ABOVE ANYTHING WE HAVE ON THE DRAWING BOARD. THEY HAVE THOUGHT " OUTSIDE THE BOX " ON THIS ONE. BETTER SPEED, LARGER CAPACITY, MUCH MORE STABLE, ETC. DEFINITELY A " BLUE-WATER " LONG REACH VESSEL.


PLUS THEY CAN SERVICE THEIR NUKE SUB FLEET IN-BETWEEN THE TWIN HULLS ( SIGHT UNSEEN ) OR EVEN LAUNCH AMPHIBIOUS OPERATIONS FROM SAME. IT WILL BE LAUNCHED IN HALF THE TIME IT TAKES THE USA AT JUST ONE-THIRD THE COST. ADD THE NEW CHINESE STEALTH FIGHTER BOMBER ( NAVAL VERSION ALREADY FLIGHT TESTING ) IN THE MIX AND YOU HAVE THE MAKINGS OF A FORMIDABLE WEAPONS SYSTEM INDEED..
ALSO LOOK AT THAT EXTRA ''PARKING AND READINESS'' STATION BETWEEN BOTH HULL STRUCTURES.. AND OF COURSE THE LAUNCHING AND LANDING CAPABILITIES FROM THE UTILISATION OF TWIN FLIGHT DECKS AT ONCE.

SOME THOUGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ADVISING YOUR GRANDCHILDREN TO LEARN TO SPEAK MANDARIN (FORGET SPANISH ).

SIX OF THESE VESSELS ( TWO PACIFIC, TWO ATLANTIC, ONE INDIAN OCEAN AND ONE MED SEA ) WOULD BE A PRETTY GOOD DIPLOMATIC " BIG STICK ".

NOTE : THE CHINESE ARE ALREADY DRILLING FOR OIL OFF CUBA. BRAZIL AND VENEZUELA.
CAN THEY BUILD A FLEET OF THESE THINGS ???

A FEW FACTS: THE CHINESE HAVE COMPLETED THE WORLD'S BIGGEST DAM

NOTE : THE CHINESE ARE ALREADY DRILLING FOR OIL OFF CUBA. BRAZIL AND VENEZUELA.
CAN THEY BUILD A FLEET OF THESE THINGS ???

A FEW FACTS: THE CHINESE HAVE COMPLETED THE WORLD'S BIGGEST DAM ( THREE GORGES ),
THE WORLD'S LONGEST OVER-WATER BRIDGE ( 65 TIMES AS MUCH STEEL AS IN THE EIFFEL TOWER ). CONSTRUCTED A 15,000' HIGH RAILROAD INTO TIBET (ALL CONSIDERED MAJOR ENGINEERING FEATS).

THEY ARE THE ONLY NATION OTHER THAN RUSSIA THAT CAN LAUNCH MEN INTO OUTER SPACE ( OUR CAPABILITY ENDED THIS MONTH ). THEY HAVE ALSO SHOT DOWN A SURVEILLANCE SATELLITE ( ONE OF THEIR OWN ) FROM THE GROUND. PLUS THEY "OWN OUR BACKSIDE" IN THE INTERNATIONAL DEBT GAME.

CHINA'S NEW A/C CARRIER COULD BE TWICE AS FAST AS ANYTHING WE HAVE, PLUS THE STABILITY OF A CATAMARAN TYPE HULL WILL GREATLY REDUCE THE PITCHING, YAWING AND SWAYING COMMON TO OUR PRESENT DESIGNS.---

Paul Pless
11-10-2011, 04:22 PM
CHINA'S NEW A/C CARRIER COULD BE TWICE AS FAST AS ANYTHING WE HAVE, PLUS THE STABILITY OF A CATAMARAN TYPE HULL WILL GREATLY REDUCE THE PITCHING, YAWING AND SWAYING COMMON TO OUR PRESENT DESIGNS.---
that'd have to be pretty fast. . .

LeeG
11-10-2011, 04:26 PM
will it have to displace water?


btw, it's all in capital letters and no pictures. Somethings not right.

WX
11-10-2011, 04:29 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QqlF6nBGeVc/TAoo2HV7I0I/AAAAAAAAFbc/HLAlASImBRQ/s1600/2-732089.jpg

WX
11-10-2011, 04:34 PM
They are building more conventional designs as well.
http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-aircraft-carrier-lastest.html

SMARTINSEN
11-10-2011, 04:37 PM
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/graphics/china1.jpg

ishmael
11-10-2011, 04:41 PM
Impressive!

I'm not up on military hardware, but have had an intuition for awhile that developments in hyper-sonic missile technology will eventually give any of these behemoths a run for their money.

Soundbounder
11-10-2011, 04:44 PM
THIS IS QUANTUM LEAP ABOVE ANYTHING WE HAVE ON THE DRAWING BOARD. THEY HAVE THOUGHT " OUTSIDE THE BOX " ON THIS ONE. BETTER SPEED, LARGER CAPACITY,MUCH MORE STABLE, ETC A lack of stability hasn't really been an issue with carriers, has it?


THE STABILITY OF A CATAMARAN TYPE HULL WILL GREATLY REDUCE THE PITCHING, YAWING AND SWAYING COMMON TO OUR PRESENT DESIGNS

Also, it's not like US engineers are unfamiliar with this newfangled concept known as a catamaran.

If you received it in an email, chances are very high it is bogus.

Presently, China is rebuilding a Soviet carrier from the 1980's which it purchased several years ago.

LeeG
11-10-2011, 04:49 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QqlF6nBGeVc/TAoo2HV7I0I/AAAAAAAAFbc/HLAlASImBRQ/s1600/2-732089.jpg

very good, I like the rounded off edges. It looks positively frightening.

Paul Pless
11-10-2011, 05:11 PM
A lack of stability hasn't really been an issue with carriers, has it?High speed maneuvers during sea trials of the Eisenhower.

http://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nimitz-trial-920-0.jpg?w=920&h=647

http://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nimitz-trial-920-1.jpg?w=920&h=568

http://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nimitz-trial-920-3.jpg?w=920&h=529

Soundbounder
11-10-2011, 05:15 PM
Thanks Paul.... I wasn't aware of that.

Regardless, I still think the catamaran carrier images were lifted from a video game.

johnw
11-10-2011, 05:16 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QqlF6nBGeVc/TAoo2HV7I0I/AAAAAAAAFbc/HLAlASImBRQ/s1600/2-732089.jpg

Those don't look like high-speed hulls to me.

Paul Pless
11-10-2011, 05:18 PM
I wasn't disagreeing with you Soundbounder. Not that I know anything about aircraft carriers or big ship stability; I just think those are pretty impressive maneuvers by a ship that weighs over 100,000 tons and is traveling at over 40mph in those pics.

seanz
11-10-2011, 05:21 PM
Those don't look like high-speed hulls to me.

Just wait till they get up on the plane........:)

johnw
11-10-2011, 05:32 PM
They really do look like something from a video game. I don't think any naval architect working on a catamaran aircraft carrier would design such hulls, but I can easily see a graphic designer thinking, "this would look cool."

The Bigfella
11-10-2011, 05:32 PM
The Indonesians have worked it all out.... more speed? Sure, just bolt on some more outboards...

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Cape%20and%20Asia/040-1.jpg

B_B
11-10-2011, 05:35 PM
Just wait till they get up on the plane........:)
Ahh, the whole SHIP flies! Dang they're good!

Hwyl
11-10-2011, 05:35 PM
I was coming through the Chesapeake bay bridge tunnel a couple of years ago, there was a big American aircraft carrier bdirectly behind me, I was doing 6 knots.

"Sailboat in position #####"
"this is sailboat Usurper"
"Switch and answer XXX"
"this is sailboat Usurper"
"Captain we need you to pass 500 yards behind us"
"Which way would you like me to turn, I'm doing 6 knots"
"Captain we need you to pass 500 yards behind us"
"I can't possibly get behind you without your passing me first, which side would you like to pass on"
"Captain, this is a US navy warship, we need you to pass 500 yards behind us thats the length of X football fields"
"I'm not trying to be awkward, but I need to know which way to turn"
"Captain we need you to pass 500 yards behind us"
"O.K. I am changing my course 25 degrees to Starboard, my new course will be ###, I'll be outside of the channel in approximately two minutes"
<New voice> ""Hold that course until we are past you captain, have a good day"


This really happened, except the boat was not called Usurper, please don't compare it to that stupid lighthouse joke.

ishmael
11-10-2011, 05:39 PM
Who was it who said something to the effect that we are always preparing to fight the last war? I could Google it, but I like the repartee here.

In the last major world conflict, WWII, our carriers played a seminal role in the Pacific. Years back I spent half a day aboard one of an Essex class, and while considerably smaller than our current batch it was very big.

Our carriers have gone to war in many smaller conflicts since WW II, and are an impressive platform for projecting air power to anyplace there is water to float them. I do think that in a serious shooting war they are incredibly vulnerable. How many uber-quiet submarines, armed with stand-off hypersonic missiles can you build for the cost of a single carrier battle group?

Nicholas Scheuer
11-10-2011, 05:46 PM
While catamarans are generally faster than monohull boats of similar capacity, I strongly suspect that the Chinese idea of a catamaran aircraft carrier featuring a pair of fat hulls, each one resembling a monohull, will in no way be "fast".

Moby Nick

Arizona Bay
11-10-2011, 05:47 PM
This is what they are working on now, still a few years away from service.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14470882

ChrisBen
11-10-2011, 05:50 PM
Tagged "Undetermined" by Snopes but more pics here.
snopes.com: Chinese Aircraft Carrier (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/chinacarrier.asp)

Bob Adams
11-10-2011, 06:03 PM
A lack of stability hasn't really been an issue with carriers, has it?





I take it you have never been to sea in a Midway class carrier.

Soundbounder
11-10-2011, 06:11 PM
I take it you have never been to sea in a Midway class carrier.I wouldn't have asked the question if I had.

LeeG
11-10-2011, 06:14 PM
I was coming through the Chesapeake bay bridge tunnel a couple of years ago, there was a big American aircraft carrier bdirectly behind me, I was doing 6 knots.

"Sailboat in position #####"
"this is sailboat Usurper"
"Switch and answer XXX"
"this is sailboat Usurper"
"Captain we need you to pass 500 yards behind us"
"Which way would you like me to turn, I'm doing 6 knots"
"Captain we need you to pass 500 yards behind us"
"I can't possibly get behind you without your passing me first, which side would you like to pass on"
"Captain, this is a US navy warship, we need you to pass 500 yards behind us thats the length of X football fields"
"I'm not trying to be awkward, but I need to know which way to turn"
"Captain we need you to pass 500 yards behind us"
"O.K. I am changing my course 25 degrees to Starboard, my new course will be ###, I'll be outside of the channel in approximately two minutes"
<New voice> ""Hold that course until we are past you captain, have a good day"


This really happened, except the boat was not called Usurper, please don't compare it to that stupid lighthouse joke.

maybe he was simply leaving the choice of how you got there up to you. Wait, you were in a tunnel????

Hwyl
11-10-2011, 06:38 PM
No, he likes to maintain a 500 yard perimeter but was also constrained by his draft. He was coming so fast tat I could not get 500 yards away before he passed.

I was going oover a tunnel between two bridges, it's a bit narrow.,

http://www.cbbt.com/images/1isl.jpg

Paul Pless
11-10-2011, 06:41 PM
No, he likes to maintain a 500 yard perimeter but was also constrained by his draft. He was coming so fast tat I could not get 500 yards away before he passed.

I was going oover a tunnel between two bridges, it's a bit narrow.,I think that they were having fun with you. Surely they encounter an innumerable number of small craft and they know what kind of maneuverability and speed a small sailboat is capable of.

Gerarddm
11-10-2011, 07:00 PM
Bogus aircraft carrier design, #1. You never put the island in the middle of your flight deck(s) for example.

#2, during sea trials that CVN was probably practically empty. I would think she'd be a lot more stable with full inventory on board.

#3. Effective CVN operations depend a LOT on doctrine and training, and support group vessels. It's not like you build one and send it out by herself. We've been doing it since before WWII. Nobody has carrier ops down like we do. It would take the Chinese decades to get where we are.

jack grebe
11-10-2011, 07:07 PM
Pretty cool lookin boat............they gonna put a junk rig on it?:d

Bruce Hooke
11-10-2011, 07:19 PM
I think that they were having fun with you. Surely they encounter an innumerable number of small craft and they know what kind of maneuverability and speed a small sailboat is capable of.

As I read the interchange, the issue was not that they did not know the speed and maneuverability of a small sailboat, it was that someone was not thinking clearly on board the carrier and was not getting that Hwyl wanted to know which side of him the aircraft carrier wanted to pass on.

LeeG
11-10-2011, 07:22 PM
Bogus aircraft carrier design, #1. You never put the island in the middle of your flight deck(s) for example.

.

say it aint so! the rubber ducky waterplane is time tested.

johnw
11-10-2011, 07:39 PM
No, he likes to maintain a 500 yard perimeter but was also constrained by his draft. He was coming so fast tat I could not get 500 yards away before he passed.

I was going oover a tunnel between two bridges, it's a bit narrow.,

http://www.cbbt.com/images/1isl.jpgCertainly not as tight as when I was going through Agate Pass, which has a navigable channel about 30 yards wide, and met the Boeing hydrofoil going through the other way. I was in a 31' ketch, single-handing under jib, mizzen and engine, and I think I was going faster than expected. They sent a helicopter ahead, I suspect to check out the path, but I was in the channel when they came to it, up on their stilts and going at least 30 knots. I got outside the channel in a hurry!

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/images/hydrofoil1_n.jpg

JimD
11-10-2011, 08:02 PM
When will the plans be available and is there a junk rig option? I'm assuming its trailerable.

johnw
11-10-2011, 08:25 PM
When will the plans be available and is there a junk rig option? I'm assuming its trailerable.

Once you've deflated it, trailering is an option.

Hwyl
11-10-2011, 08:33 PM
I think that they were having fun with you. Surely they encounter an innumerable number of small craft and they know what kind of maneuverability and speed a small sailboat is capable of.

The feeling on the boat, whose crew contained the father of an Annapolis cadet, was that they had put a trainee on the radio and told him verbatim what to say. Apparently first year Annapolis Cadets are only allowed to say three things to an officer: "Yes sir" "no sir" or "II'll find out sir".

There could be something about aircraft carriers, during this exchange I could not help but think about one of our West coast ex carrier guys,who can be particularly obtuse, I'm glad it wasn't him on the radio

Mad Scientist
11-10-2011, 09:42 PM
The 'trainee' theory souds correct - plus, the kid was probably too nervous to have a good appreciation of the situation.

It takes plenty of practice to be part of the Bridge team, no matter what size warship.

Tom

pipefitter
11-10-2011, 09:57 PM
Looks like a good place for one of these.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/future-weapons/objects/images/weapons/weapon_zone_1/weapons/imagelarge_moab.png

Paul Girouard
11-10-2011, 10:22 PM
#2, during sea trials that CVN was probably practically empty. I would think she'd be a lot more stable with full inventory on board.

#3. Effective CVN operations depend a LOT on doctrine and training, and support group vessels. It's not like you build one and send it out by herself. We've been doing it since before WWII. Nobody has carrier ops down like we do. It would take the Chinese decades to get where we are.

#2: They can get a pretty good lean going when they need to. Generally they don't crank to hard on the helm , if they do it's when all the A/C are tied down with at least 15 chains on each A/C . In the photo's Paul linked that would have been sea trials right after she came out of the final fit and finish phase just prior to her commissioning.

But at night running to a new op area , they do stand on the throttles and if they need to they can stand her up on the rails at times.

#2: Mirror and strings , it's all done with mirrors and strings! But yes no one does carrier ops like the USN, we can fly, and operate rings around other navies. We un-rep , re-fuel , vert-rep , all while underway , some times with three ships abreast taking on fuel and cargo.

Paul Girouard
11-10-2011, 10:26 PM
The feeling on the boat, whose crew contained the father of an Annapolis cadet, was that they had put a trainee on the radio and told him verbatim what to say. Apparently first year Annapolis Cadets are only allowed to say three things to an officer: "Yes sir" "no sir" or "II'll find out sir".

There could be something about aircraft carriers, during this exchange I could not help but think about one of our West coast ex carrier guys,who can be particularly obtuse, I'm glad it wasn't him on the radio


You mean me Garth? For the record the radio I was heard on was only for flight deck / inter-communication between the flight deck , my squadrons and other squadrons maintenance control center and the ships flight deck control station located in the base of the island forward. None of mine was ship to ship, that's the black shoe sailors gig.

The Bigfella
11-10-2011, 10:33 PM
snip.... But yes no one does carrier ops like the USN, we can fly, and operate rings around other navies. We un-rep , re-fuel , vert-rep , all while underway , some times with three ships abreast taking on fuel and cargo.

I do believe one or two of our conventional subs has "sunk" one or two of your carriers during exercises. Oh yeah, didn't a Chinese sub pop up next to one of your carriers a while back too? :d

Paul Girouard
11-10-2011, 10:38 PM
I do believe one or two of our conventional subs has "sunk" one or two of your carriers during exercises. Oh yeah, didn't a Chinese sub pop up next to one of your carriers a while back too? :d

I didn't say we could out wit a sub. The bubble heads like to say " There are two kinds of ships at sea , submarines and targets! "

Waddie
11-10-2011, 10:44 PM
Given the advancements that have taken place in weapons that can successfully attack aircraft carriers, I don't think carriers are really meant to be a front line weapon in all out major, global nuclear level war. They are floating platforms capable of projecting great firepower on a moments notice. They replace dozens of vulnerable and difficult to maintain (politically) ground bases. They are the best weapon there is for pissing on small scale fires. Which is exactly the kind of warfare we have been fighting the last 70 years.

regards,
Waddie

purri
11-10-2011, 10:51 PM
I do believe one or two of our conventional subs has "sunk" one or two of your carriers during exercises. Oh yeah, didn't a Chinese sub pop up next to one of your carriers a while back too? :d

There was a "claiming incident" off Hawaii with a CV and an Oberon class sub during Rim-Pac mid 90's. They weren't too pleased.

ishmael
11-11-2011, 01:45 AM
Many moons ago, I lived just down river from the Bath Iron Works on the Kennebec River in Maine. At the time, and I believe still, they were one of two shipyards building escort vessels for the USN. Destroyers, I suppose you'd call them destoyers. One design purpose was to form the defensive screen for our carriers. To that end they were equipped with what was dubbed "Phalanx", a high rate of fire radar-guided Gattling gun, that was apparently pretty successful in tests at bringing down incoming missiles--the sub-sonic missiles of the era.

While I'm sure the technology has changed in the intervening thirty years, I wonder how, or if, our defensive capabilities have kept up with missile technology. It's one thing to shoot down a handful of sub-sonic missiles, yet quite another to take out a swarm of two dozen travelling at mach 3. God forbid that we ever find out, but my seat of the pants thinking on this is that we should be de-emphasizing carriers and focusing on submarines.

The Bigfella
11-11-2011, 02:38 AM
Yeah, I've been up close to a Phalanx, but didn't get personal. Maybe 10 years back - possibly a tad more, because I don't think the Cole attack had happened then - the USS Enterprise was in Sydney Harbour and I tootled up in my little power catamaran and had a chat with the sailors down on the aft smoking deck. There were two cruisers berthed behind her too. I wouldn't have been more than 20 metres from the Phalanxes. It all went pear shaped when the local MPs got a tad upset with my presence... whistles going off, yelling and so on. I beat a gentlemanly retreat from the area. They've changed the law now... 100 metre exclusion zones, I believe.

ishmael
11-11-2011, 03:18 AM
I can't remember the details, but I was fairly hooked in to the maritime community in Bath, and got an invitation to tour BIW. There was one of the ships I mentioned on the ways. Interesting process,
BIW was one of the pioneers in modular construction. They'd build a maybe thirty foot section complete with wiring, plumbing etc. in a shop, then hoist it on to the ways with a massive crane, and weld it up. During that tour I saw a phalanx close up. It looked a little like R2D2 on steroids.

varadero
11-11-2011, 04:41 AM
Effective CVN operations depend a LOT on doctrine and training, and support group vessels. It's not like you build one and send it out by herself. We've been doing it since before WWII. Nobody has carrier ops down like we do. It would take the Chinese decades to get where we are.

I would have to agree with that, The RN will probably take decades to learn it all again after only a short time of not doing it.

Paul Girouard
11-11-2011, 09:18 AM
Carriers have the Phalanx system, multiple guns mounted in the cat walks. They can spit out a lot of shells in a very short time A carries far from defenseless, but they do count on our subs to take care of most of the other guys subs. I like to think those subs that got us in those exercises had a USN sub right in their baffles laughing about fooling them into "thinking" the aggressors sub had gotten us.

Tylerdurden
11-11-2011, 09:23 AM
This has Sorcha Fal written all over it. Just stupid to think the Chinese could present a carrier threat considering what it takes to train a crew and conduct ops.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-11-2011, 09:27 AM
Effective CVN operations depend a LOT on doctrine and training, and support group vessels. It's not like you build one and send it out by herself. We've been doing it since before WWII. Nobody has carrier ops down like we do. It would take the Chinese decades to get where we are.

True of course, but do keep in mind that they started two decades ago. They will be there in another two, at the latest.

peb
11-11-2011, 09:32 AM
No matter what a nation's economic capabilities are, developing a carrier threat similiar to the US would be a huge undertaking and take decades. There is the ship design and build. There is the aircraft design and build, aircraft of many types: fighters, light bombers, awacs, etc. There is a need for nuclear attack subs, and all types of surface ships to go in the carrier task force. Training for a wide, wide range of crew. Projecting carrier power worldwide is a huge undertaking. I just cannot see it happening in less than 20 years.

Tylerdurden
11-11-2011, 09:35 AM
Then there is rail guns.......

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-11-2011, 09:40 AM
No matter what a nation's economic capabilities are, developing a carrier threat similiar to the US would be a huge undertaking and take decades. There is the ship design and build. There is the aircraft design and build, aircraft of many types: fighters, light bombers, awacs, etc. There is a need for nuclear attack subs, and all types of surface ships to go in the carrier task force. Training for a wide, wide range of crew. Projecting carrier power worldwide is a huge undertaking. I just cannot see it happening in less than 20 years.

Lets see where China is now:

1. Most important - national consensus in support of a blue water navy. Check

2. First carriers under construction - check

3. Carrier borne aircraft prototypes being flight tested - check

4. Nuclear attack subs - check

5. Other surface ship types - check

6. RAS capacity - check

Two more decades at the outside. That's assuming the first generation carriers and aircraft turn out to be duds.

Bruce Hooke
11-11-2011, 10:35 AM
It is worth keeping in mind as well that China does not have to equal the US in terms of ability to project power through their navy in order have a real impact via their projected power and change the balance of power a bit.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-11-2011, 10:48 AM
Very true; indeed we are already seeing this with China's first deployment of naval forces on a long term basis in the Indian Ocean for anti-piracy operations. Ten years ago that was unthinkable

David W Pratt
11-11-2011, 11:04 AM
Don't carriers have to be fast to launch the jets?
If the quality of the build is like the Chinese tools at Home Creepo, it will probably be water soluble, OTOH, if it is like my Norinco 1911 it could be impressive.

Paul Pless
11-11-2011, 11:08 AM
Don't carriers have to be fast to launch the jets?Not since the advent of the steam catapult.

Hwyl
11-11-2011, 11:17 AM
Tagged "Undetermined" by Snopes but more pics here.
snopes.com: Chinese Aircraft Carrier (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/chinacarrier.asp)

Seems no one wanted to read post 22

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-11-2011, 11:35 AM
Seems no one wanted to read post 22

We've been discussing the real ones.

peb
11-11-2011, 11:44 AM
Andrew, you know more than I, so here is a question. Seem like I read a lot about how China has overbuilt much infrastructure and real estate. If so, will the desire to maintain economic growth drive an even bigger military buildup, as other capital investments decline?

Gerarddm
11-11-2011, 11:44 AM
Carriers have the Phalanx system, multiple guns mounted in the cat walks. They can spit out a lot of shells in a very short time A carries far from defenseless, but they do count on our subs to take care of most of the other guys subs.

Phalanx is old technology by now. Carriers now have rolling airframe missle systems ( RAM ), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile. Other USN ships have them too. Serious ju-ju.

One can not expect a carrier to solely defend herself, which is why her battlegroup has Aegis-equipped Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers. Aegis radar/fire control systems were designed to thwart Soviet saturation-level cruise missle strikes. Anti-sub warfare capabilities, once the provenance of destroyers, has shifted dramatically to subs.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-11-2011, 11:50 AM
Andrew, you know more than I, so here is a question. Seem like I read a lot about how China has overbuilt much infrastructure and real estate. If so, will the desire to maintain economic growth drive an even bigger military buildup, as other capital investments decline?

I will think about that one before replying. The official military budget is under stated and there is quite a bit of cross subsidy from civil to military taking place.

Rich VanValkenburg
11-11-2011, 11:56 AM
I'm not very worried. It's probably made from Chinese steel.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-11-2011, 12:01 PM
I'm not very worried. It's probably made from Chinese steel.

You are out of date. As recently as the 1990s the Chinese steel industry was running old steelworks built on Soviet lines which were for technical reasons incapable of producing the more interesting and demanding grades of steel reliably.

It's a brand new industry now; all the old steelworks have been replaced.

Bruce Hooke
11-11-2011, 12:48 PM
You are out of date. As recently as the 1990s the Chinese steel industry was running old steelworks built on Soviet lines which were for technical reasons incapable of producing the more interesting and demanding grades of steel reliably.

It's a brand new industry now; all the old steelworks have been replaced.

I bet that is true of more than just the steel industry.


If the quality of the build is like the Chinese tools at Home Creepo, it will probably be water soluble, OTOH, if it is like my Norinco 1911 it could be impressive.

In addition to what Andrew said about the steel industry, I'd be that when the customer is the Chinese military there might be a bit more leverage to get the quality-control right than when the customer is some retailer in the US. There is also the matter of how much of the quality (or lack thereof) of Chinese made tools has to do with a lack of ability to make high-quality products and how much has to do with design decisions where quality is consciously traded off for lower manufacturing costs and thus lower prices on the store shelves. I'd bet the latter is at least a part of why Chinese tools have a mediocre reputation (and at least some of those design decisions were probably made in the US!).

That said, I imagine it will take quite a bit of time before the Chinese could hope to build a carrier battle group that would truly be the equal of a US carrier battle group, but since direct war with the US seems like a relatively less likely scenario than a lot of other possibilities this does not really matter that much. What matters is presumably that China is quickly developing the ability to effectively project force around the globe. Not all that many countries can do this and so another one in the mix does change geo-politics.

Tom Hunter
11-11-2011, 01:31 PM
The real threat is the Chinese building a small number of carrier battle groups that look like they could fight us, so we starve our universities and infrastructure to spend money on a large number of groups that can fight them.
No less than Admiral Mike Mullen identified overspending and deficit as the real threat to our security. Trolling emails like this one probably don’t matter at all, or perhaps they give small aid to the Chinese.

Mad Scientist
11-11-2011, 02:54 PM
...While I'm sure the technology has changed in the intervening thirty years, I wonder how, or if, our defensive capabilities have kept up with missile technology. It's one thing to shoot down a handful of sub-sonic missiles, yet quite another to take out a swarm of two dozen travelling at mach 3...

A decade ago, the emphasis was on all kinds of Electronic Warfare tricks, including 'stealth' technology. Some might remember Prince Andrew discussing how helicopters were used during the Falklands war to defeat misssile radar target acquisition. Hey, if it works...
And, when push comes to shove, escorts would be expected to be sacrificial targets, and 'absorb' the missiles intended for carriers (if you don't have a British containership handy).

I don't know how things have progressed, but I imagine that a missile moving at Mach 3, once thrown off the target, would never have time to reacquire it and maneuver for the kill.

Tom

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-11-2011, 03:34 PM
Andrew, you know more than I, so here is a question. Seem like I read a lot about how China has overbuilt much infrastructure and real estate. If so, will the desire to maintain economic growth drive an even bigger military buildup, as other capital investments decline?

Pierce, I've now had a think about it.

China has a real economy that is really growing very fast, By that I mean that what is really happening is that a billion or so people feel that tomorrow is likely to be better than today, because it has been for the past thirty years, and they feel that if they invest and work hard they can improve their situation. This has to do with the jackboot of Mao's state being lifted off their necks, so they find it worth while to try harder. At another level, the Government is inclined to overdo the infrastructure, but that tends to turn out well - when I arrived in China a huge land line phone network was approaching completion, just in time for phones to go mobile...but China has a phone system that was ready made for the Internet.

To put this another way, the Chinese economy is very vigorous - rather like the US economy in the later 19th century. It bounces, rather than lurches, from one crisis to the next. There surely is a real estate bubble, and it will surely burst, but that won't really matter - people will pick themselves up and carry on.

There definitely is a desire to maintain economic growth, but one lesson that everyone seems to have absorbed is that preached by Paul Kennedy - military overspend does you no good -and the Chinese can see how the Russians crippled themselves with excessive military spending.

So, having thought about it, I believe that the answer to your question is "no". There is a redeployment of military spending towards force projection and towards higher levels of technology, but I don't see a "military build up" as such, and I don't think that military spending will be used to kick start the economy after the property crash.

peb
11-11-2011, 03:53 PM
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I was just speculating with my question.