If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Now that China has an aircraft carrier, all they need are some aircraft   (nytimes.com) divider line 103
    More: Amusing, Ministry of Defense, Wen Jiabao, military operation plan, National University of Singapore, aircraft, Hu Jintao  
•       •       •

10875 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2012 at 12:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-25 01:06:44 PM  
So, in other 2032 they will have designed, built, and brought into operation aircraft capable of landing on that thing, then in 2047 they will have designed, built, and brought into operation a new class of aircraft carriers.

Meanwhile the US will have moved beyond aircraft carriers to sub-orbital transports and automated attack aircraft that can be launched from the US and be anywhere in the world in 90 minutes. Our aircraft carriers will only be used for relief efforts, 3rd world dictators, and pirate suppression.
 
2012-09-25 01:07:09 PM  

Dead-Guy: Well the Japanese don't always worry about landing their planes.. they just let them take off, and then the rest is someone else's problem.


Reminds me of the Tom Lehrer lyric:

"'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun."
 
2012-09-25 01:09:07 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Dead-Guy: Well the Japanese don't always worry about landing their planes.. they just let them take off, and then the rest is someone else's problem.

Reminds me of the Tom Lehrer lyric:

"'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun."


You win a tasty Internet.
 
2012-09-25 01:09:29 PM  

punk.canuck: Uh, no it doesn't take decades. It does take a lot of money, and a large scale conflict. see US use of aircraft carriers in WW2. Unless your claiming that the US did not use carrier's effectively in WW2?


To be fair, however, the US built its first carrier in 1922. This was just to land and take off, not to project power. So it was really decades (2) .
 
2012-09-25 01:10:51 PM  

Kibbler: They have one obsolete, decrepit Russian carrier that they don't know how to use.

Obviously we need to spend $1 trillion on another dozen state-of-the-art carrier task groups before the Red Tide washes over us.


Why do you hate America?
 
2012-09-25 01:33:21 PM  
One carrier will be just enough to get them in trouble, seriously.

However, it's not about having a viable carrier force (the US would sink it in less than a week and most of that time would be spent hunting it down in the Pacific...assuming it made it out of port), it's about having a symbol.
 
2012-09-25 01:34:51 PM  
Almost gotta LOL at the launching ramp a la Royal Navy (sorry Brits). That right there is a giveaway that it's gonna have J-18's (Chinese ripoff of VTOL stealth fighters).

KiplingKat872: UNC_Samurai: Dead-Guy: Well the Japanese don't always worry about landing their planes.. they just let them take off, and then the rest is someone else's problem.

Reminds me of the Tom Lehrer lyric:

"'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun."

You win a tasty Internet.


Another classic VB phrase is "I aimed for the Moon, but I kept hitting London instead".
 
2012-09-25 01:36:26 PM  

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: I say we sell them $15 trillion dollars worth of airplanes and get even on the debt.
(and not get involved in any wars in Asia)

We can throw in all mining rights in Afghanistan.


FTFA:
Some Navy officials have even said they would encourage China to move ahead with building its own aircraft carrier and the ships to accompany it, because it would be a waste of money.

Interesting, in a number of ways.
 
2012-09-25 01:36:29 PM  
If the US aircraft in China is already destroyed, you could fly the British one up from India before Japan has a turn to attack.

/not too obscure for FARK
//Axis and Allies for anyone who is not old/geeky enough
///I know China was part of USA forces in the game
 
2012-09-25 01:40:29 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: punk.canuck: Uh, no it doesn't take decades. It does take a lot of money, and a large scale conflict. see US use of aircraft carriers in WW2. Unless your claiming that the US did not use carrier's effectively in WW2?

To be fair, however, the US built its first carrier in 1922. This was just to land and take off, not to project power. So it was really decades (2) .


I maintain that American naval doctrine in 1941 was far more advanced than popular history gives it credit for. There were obvious limitations in money available (surface warfare-minded admirals and a number of Congressmen on the important committees thought alike), but the U.S. Navy made amazing strides in the 20s and 30s with the equipment they had.
 
2012-09-25 01:45:39 PM  

hdhale: One carrier will be just enough to get them in trouble, seriously.

However, it's not about having a viable carrier force (the US would sink it in less than a week and most of that time would be spent hunting it down in the Pacific...assuming it made it out of port), it's about having a symbol.


THIS.

Having a carrier fleet is not enough. History has shown that you have to have the economic, manufacturing, logistical, and military support structure to make those carriers a viable force. If you want an example of this, look no further than Imperial Japan versus the United States. The US lost numerous carriers in World War II, but were able to quickly adapt and replace them with more advanced, more survivable and capable boats. Japan, on the other hand, was never able to recover from the losses of their carriers to American forces. They quickly became very vulnerable glass cannons.
 
2012-09-25 01:47:08 PM  

toraque:
As much as neocons are going to get all worked up about this, it's not really a near-term thing to worry about. This one is just a trainer, since it takes decades and stupid amounts of military spending to build up the institutional skill sets you need to really operate a carrier at any level of effectiveness.


And by the time we might need to sink it, we'll have gotten a shipment of ship-killer missiles from China to do the job.
 
2012-09-25 01:56:14 PM  
Even at the end of the last century, their ground troops were running around doing drills with broomsticks in place of rifles. They have money, they have numbers, but they just don't have the arms in hand to be a military threat yet, except to their neighbors.
 
2012-09-25 01:59:39 PM  
3D printer, some bootleg F-14 Tomcat design blueprints, and they're in bidness.
 
2012-09-25 02:07:41 PM  

punk.canuck: Uh, no it doesn't take decades. It does take a lot of money, and a large scale conflict. see US use of aircraft carriers in WW2. Unless your claiming that the US did not use carrier's effectively in WW2?


We were able to use carriers effectively in WW2 since we had spent the decades and money required in order to master the necessary skills.

Unless you're claiming that our carrier fleet sprang into existence fully-formed on December 7th, 1941?
 
2012-09-25 02:09:13 PM  

toraque: We were able to use carriers effectively in WW2 since we had spent the decades and money required in order to master the necessary skills.


No, they really had not. Moving to a carrier based Navy was a last minute push going into the war, spearheaded by a few officers at the top and they met with a lot of resistance at first.
 
2012-09-25 02:09:44 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
Game Over
 
2012-09-25 02:10:33 PM  
We had a couple carriers. The Naval strategy was not based on carrier fighting groups. That was last minute.
 
2012-09-25 02:10:42 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Dead-Guy: Well the Japanese don't always worry about landing their planes.. they just let them take off, and then the rest is someone else's problem.

Reminds me of the Tom Lehrer lyric:

"'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun."


Hah! I haven't heard that song in ages
 
2012-09-25 02:11:33 PM  

toraque: KiplingKat872: DRTFA, but China has one of the largest air forces in the world subby.

FTA:

China does not have planes capable of landing on the carrier and so far training for such landings has been carried out on land, they said. 

As much as neocons are going to get all worked up about this, it's not really a near-term thing to worry about. This one is just a trainer, since it takes decades and stupid amounts of military spending to build up the institutional skill sets you need to really operate a carrier at any level of effectiveness.


That won't stop the Chicom from trying.
 
2012-09-25 02:15:16 PM  
Lets Hope the Chinese don't copy the North Koreans into having a Top Gun......
 
2012-09-25 02:16:14 PM  
If it is built like the buildings and bridges in China it will probably sink in a couple of weeks anyway.
 
2012-09-25 02:17:24 PM  
Link

North Koreans have a top gun program....
 
2012-09-25 02:19:09 PM  

lamric: KiplingKat872: DRTFA, but China has one of the largest air forces in the world subby.

Land based aircraft aren't suited for carrier type landings.


Maybe they can take off from it? With that skihop thing, I guess it's not using a catapult system, so well, they could take off, and land on land.
 
2012-09-25 02:23:50 PM  

feanorn: Even at the end of the last century, their ground troops were running around doing drills with broomsticks in place of rifles. They have money, they have numbers, but they just don't have the arms in hand to be a military threat yet, except to their neighbors.


The article helpfully points out that they can't sail it south, at Vietnam could and would fark it up.
 
2012-09-25 02:24:34 PM  
Maybe they will be able to land fighters on carriers, but we still have them beat in the girth department.



www.theaviationzone.com
 
2012-09-25 02:32:09 PM  

UNC_Samurai: KiplingKat872: DRTFA, but China has one of the largest air forces in the world subby.

The Chinese never bought any Su-33s, however. And I don't think they've modified any J-10s to be carrier-capable.


The J-15 is designed for Carriers and they have them Also China owns Su-27's, so they do have the ability. leave it to the times to screw up their defense news
 
2012-09-25 02:43:12 PM  

hdhale: One carrier will be just enough to get them in trouble, seriously.

However, it's not about having a viable carrier force (the US would sink it in less than a week and most of that time would be spent hunting it down in the Pacific...assuming it made it out of port), it's about having a symbol.


I think this is the problem.
China needs things to symbolize its power, and a carrier does that while also giving the ability for power projection.
It's not about coercing the US so much as swaying the allegiances of all the little island nations in the pacific while annoying Japan and Korea.
I think it's going to affect the Japanese more than anyone. The question is how they'll respond.

/there's plenty of bad blood to begin with.
 
2012-09-25 02:53:08 PM  
IIRC, Janes is expecting China to be eight to ten years out before they have an operational air wing on that thing.
 
2012-09-25 03:18:33 PM  

KiplingKat872: Marine1: Point being, the US has a larger air force with better trained crews and better aircraft. This goes for the USAF and US Navy/Marines.

Still waiting to see how that is relevant to this discussion.


Chinese air power doesn't matter in a theoretical match up against the US. There's the tie-in. Ta-da.
 
2012-09-25 03:28:10 PM  

asmodeus224: Lead floats now?

/FU china


Churches, too.

/and a duck
 
2012-09-25 03:31:47 PM  

UNC_Samurai: The Chinese never bought any Su-33s, however.


Actually, they bought one, incomplete, from Ukraine (just like the carrier, but not pretending the fighter was going to be used as a casino).
 
2012-09-25 03:35:09 PM  

hdhale: One carrier will be just enough to get them in trouble, seriously.

However, it's not about having a viable carrier force (the US would sink it in less than a week and most of that time would be spent hunting it down in the Pacific...assuming it made it out of port), it's about having a symbol.


Yeah. They don't have the anti-sub capability needed to protect it, nor the airborne radar.
 
2012-09-25 03:42:50 PM  

Marine1: Chinese air power doesn't matter in a theoretical match up against the US. There's the tie-in. Ta-da.


Well, duh. We weren't discussing that.
 
2012-09-25 03:53:01 PM  

Loren: Yeah. They don't have the anti-sub capability needed to protect it, nor the airborne radar.


They do have the nuclear power, though.

Using the United States, for example: American Aircraft Carriers are protected by the backing of the nuclear power of the United States in a strategic sense. The loss of life from sinking a US Carrier would be so great that it would be considered, according to the nuclear operations plan, a weapon of mass destruction attack upon United States forces. The response, in turn, would be nuclear.

Mutually Assured Destruction is a powerful motivator for avoiding some avenues of military force.
 
2012-09-25 03:54:41 PM  

way south: It's not about coercing the US so much as swaying the allegiances of all the little island nations in the pacific while annoying Japan and Korea.
I think it's going to affect the Japanese more than anyone. The question is how they'll respond.


Japan already has a wide variety of indigenous air-to-ship, ship-to-ship, and surface-to-ship missiles. If they decide they need something better, they can build 'em or buy 'em.
 
2012-09-25 03:57:36 PM  
Its about intimidating their neighbors. Korea and Japan to an extent but more so places like the Philippines and Indonesia that are resource rich especially ocean resource rich and no military capability. .
 
2012-09-25 04:08:15 PM  

KiplingKat872: How much modification does that take tho'? Given the size of their air force and how much money China is currently rolling in, while I agree this is probably a tempest in a tea pot, but I don't think aircraft are really the problem here


The aircraft and the carrier are designed around each other from the start.

Landing gear, tailhook, folding wings, etc, etc.
Add in all the maintenance issues. Can the available jets fit in the already existing elevator? Can the gun be reloaded with minimal access space? Etc, etc, etc.

Someone up there mentioned taking off from the ship and landing on land. Is the nose gear up to it?
 
2012-09-25 04:13:47 PM  

punk.canuck: Uh, no it doesn't take decades. It does take a lot of money, and a large scale conflict. see US use of aircraft carriers in WW2. Unless your claiming that the US did not use carrier's effectively in WW2?


It takes decades to integrate a totally new capability into your overall OPLAN and use it effectively, especially something as large and clumsy as a carrier battle group.

Sure, you can just gas it up and ride around. And you will be a brand new reef within a very short time.
 
2012-09-25 04:35:29 PM  

Kibbler: They have one obsolete, decrepit Russian carrier that they don't know how to use.

Obviously we need to spend $1 trillion on another dozen state-of-the-art carrier task groups before the Red Tide washes over us.


THIS.

The conventional forces of any nation on Earth, one-on-one, cannot beat the US military. I it doesn't have them beat in capability it has them in numbers. With most it's both but obviously with China it's capability. By the time they get this floating death trap fully operational the US Navy will just be admitting to the existence of unmanned fighter/bombers to take on their so-so copies of aircraft designed for the soviet air force(when it was still the soviet air force). And so on.

As for unconventional, frankly fission-nukes have been obsolete for several decades. Neutron bombs replaced them. Orbital coil-guns that can cause nuclear-equivalent kinetic energy explosions have been operational for twenty years. Then there's all the stuff with HAARP and weather modification that no one is really sure about.

This is actually a very scary situation, because the sociopaths in Washington will go hawg-wild when they can wage war without having to worry about voter backlash over uselessly dead Americans, or worse because they have the plausible dependability of a weapon system that sis thought to only exist in science fiction. Right now the only thing that can stop them would be a massive economic collapse that wipes out the dollar completely.
 
2012-09-25 04:48:21 PM  

KiplingKat872: toraque: We were able to use carriers effectively in WW2 since we had spent the decades and money required in order to master the necessary skills.

No, they really had not. Moving to a carrier based Navy was a last minute push going into the war, spearheaded by a few officers at the top and they met with a lot of resistance at first.


By September of 1940 the U.S. already had 11 Essex Class on order, CV-9 to CV-19. Not quite a last minute push.
 
2012-09-25 05:26:44 PM  
jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-25 05:30:57 PM  

punk.canuck: Uh, no it doesn't take decades. It does take a lot of money, and a large scale conflict. see US use of aircraft carriers in WW2. Unless your claiming that the US did not use carrier's effectively in WW2?

toraque: KiplingKat872: DRTFA, but China has one of the largest air forces in the world subby.

FTA:

China does not have planes capable of landing on the carrier and so far training for such landings has been carried out on land, they said. 

As much as neocons are going to get all worked up about this, it's not really a near-term thing to worry about. This one is just a trainer, since it takes decades and stupid amounts of military spending to build up the institutional skill sets you need to really operate a carrier at any level of effectiveness.


I realize that it's been stated several times already... but by 1941 the United states had been working on carrier aviation for 20 years, had built 4 different generations of Carriers, and was developing a fifth. Carrier planes, pilots, and doctrine also went though a lot of R&D, PLUS we were swapping notes with the British who were also developing carrier aviation at the time. (The landing light system we use today and the angled carrier deck were originally British innovations.)

It was actually 12 years before we built a carrier from keel up, vs putting a flat top on a repurposed vessel. (The Ranger)
 
2012-09-25 05:37:50 PM  

BronyMedic: Having a carrier fleet is not enough. History has shown that you have to have the economic, manufacturing, logistical, and military support structure to make those carriers a viable force. If you want an example of this, look no further than Imperial Japan versus the United States. The US lost numerous carriers in World War II, but were able to quickly adapt and replace them with more advanced, more survivable and capable boats. Japan, on the other hand, was never able to recover from the losses of their carriers to American forces. They quickly became very vulnerable glass cannons.


Japan's carriers weren't glass cannons. (They could adequately defend themselves, even from other carriers) They were just irreplaceable when lost.
 
2012-09-25 06:29:28 PM  

KiplingKat872: DRTFA, but China has one of the largest air forces in the world subby.


One of. And most of them are obsolete copies of Soviet fighters. And none of them are carrier-capable, even if they had a real carrier (their training "carrier" can handle only jump jets).

1. U.S. Air Force
2. U.S. Navy
3. Russian Federation
4. People's Republic of China

When you add together all the air forces of southeast and east Asia OTHER than China, they can more than contain China WITHOUT U.S. help.

China is a poor country, wasting vast amounts of money on weapons. Japan could crush them like a gnat if they decided to militarize.
 
2012-09-25 07:15:32 PM  

KiplingKat872: DRTFA, but China has one of the largest air forces in the world subby.


OMG we only outnumber them 3:1 Mitt.

/And everybody else in the whole world.
 
2012-09-25 07:21:00 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: KiplingKat872: How much modification does that take tho'? Given the size of their air force and how much money China is currently rolling in, while I agree this is probably a tempest in a tea pot, but I don't think aircraft are really the problem here

The aircraft and the carrier are designed around each other from the start.

Landing gear, tailhook, folding wings, etc, etc.
Add in all the maintenance issues. Can the available jets fit in the already existing elevator? Can the gun be reloaded with minimal access space? Etc, etc, etc.

Someone up there mentioned taking off from the ship and landing on land. Is the nose gear up to it?



Nose gear on take-off and landing. Hell, the main gear landing with that kind of thud-and-grab -- the whole damn airframe for that matter. It's not simply a matter of adding a tail-hook. The U.S. services tried to build a truly joint forces fighter craft, but finally gave up. Tthe substantially bulkier frame, gear, et al. that the Navy and Marine Corps need made the thing far too heavy and under-armed for the Air Force. A carrier is a very, very short, strip, moving diagonally as you approach it, (with no approach lights, by the way, since they'd be way out in the ocean behind her) and bobbing up and down. with an arresting wire to yank the plane you're flying at full thrust in case you miss.

Maybe an A-10 could be reasonably easily converted for carriers, since it is essentially an indestructible flying tank to start with, but the overwhelming majority of ground-based aircraft would be impossible to land on an aircraft carrier. The most you could do with them is a one-shot Doolittle-type operation, loading them by crane and using the whole length of the ship as a full-power runway with which to take off in order to land on land or ditch after the mission.

Helicopters and VTOL? Sure, no airframe problem; but even pilots of those need special training and a lot of practice in order to land on a carrier that's moving on the surface and vertically.
 
2012-09-25 08:34:33 PM  

Kibbler: They have one obsolete, decrepit Russian carrier that they don't know how to use.

Obviously we need to spend $1 trillion on another dozen state-of-the-art carrier task groups before the Red Tide washes over us.


It doesn't matter how much you spend the Chinese will dominate the world within 20 years. This isn't like the 1980s when people were saying that Japan would overtake the US. With China it's inevitable that once their economy matures past a certain point they will be bigger than the US. Their population is 5 times yours so they only need a per capita GNP of 20% yours to be just as big. Big economies can afford big investments in military technology - and their economy by mid century may well be the biggest by a factor of 5.

Then there is the whole situation with China investing heavily in education particularly in science and technology at a time when education is being demonized by certain sectors of the US population.

I'm not gloating about this. I like living in a US centric world and it makes me very uncomfortable to think the world I know and grew up in is changing so dramatically. But I think it is the reality we all face.
 
2012-09-25 10:22:26 PM  
i.imgur.com

They can mass-produce these state-of-the-art VTOL fighters.
 
2012-09-25 10:46:17 PM  

kg2095: Kibbler: They have one obsolete, decrepit Russian carrier that they don't know how to use.

Obviously we need to spend $1 trillion on another dozen state-of-the-art carrier task groups before the Red Tide washes over us.

It doesn't matter how much you spend the Chinese will dominate the world within 20 years. This isn't like the 1980s when people were saying that Japan would overtake the US. With China it's inevitable that once their economy matures past a certain point they will be bigger than the US. Their population is 5 times yours so they only need a per capita GNP of 20% yours to be just as big. Big economies can afford big investments in military technology - and their economy by mid century may well be the biggest by a factor of 5.

Then there is the whole situation with China investing heavily in education particularly in science and technology at a time when education is being demonized by certain sectors of the US population.

I'm not gloating about this. I like living in a US centric world and it makes me very uncomfortable to think the world I know and grew up in is changing so dramatically. But I think it is the reality we all face.


When some wild-eyed Chicom, grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, and he looks you crooked in the eye and he asks you if ya paid your dues, you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that: "Have ya paid your dues, Jack?" "Yessir, the check is in the mail."
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report