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.

(Reuters)   Chinese "Aircraft Carrier" that at present carries no aircraft, and isn't seaworthy, sucessfully upgraded to "floating runway"   (reuters.com) divider line 200
    More: Interesting, floating runway, Liaoning Province, Iranian Navy, military sciences, People's Liberation Army, aircraft, Hu Jintao  
•       •       •

14343 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2012 at 12:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-26 11:05:11 AM  
 
2012-11-26 11:10:51 AM  
Honestly, an air-craft carrier is SO 20th century-at this point why not build something that can launch thousands of cruise missile and drones? Same bang- a whole lot less buck
 
2012-11-26 11:11:30 AM  
Uh oh. Guess we'd better commission another dozen carrier battle groups before we lose our competitive edge.
 
2012-11-26 11:11:31 AM  
Crrrrikey.
 
2012-11-26 11:12:13 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Uh oh. Guess we'd better commission another dozen carrier battle groups before we lose our competitive edge.


How many Bayonets does it have on board?
 
2012-11-26 11:13:07 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Uh oh. Guess we'd better commission another dozen carrier battle groups before we lose our competitive edge.


www.steelfalcon.com

A dozen, you say?
 
2012-11-26 11:22:32 AM  
Well done China. You've reached the 1930s level of naval power.
 
2012-11-26 11:33:32 AM  

GAT_00: Well done China. You've reached the 1930s level of naval power.

 

Achievement Unlocked- Ready to re-fight WWII
 
2012-11-26 11:42:53 AM  

Shadow Blasko: Crrrrikey.


Its Combat Information Center is equipped with P-P-P-Powerbooks
 
2012-11-26 11:55:56 AM  

Shadow Blasko: Pocket Ninja: Uh oh. Guess we'd better commission another dozen carrier battle groups before we lose our competitive edge.

How many Bayonets does it have on board?


How many Marines are on board? I think it's a one to one relationship for Marines and Bayonets.
 
2012-11-26 12:13:58 PM  
I was *assured* by the right Hon. Rep. from South Derpington that China having an aircraft carrier was the end of US sea supremacy in th Pacific!

/it's really more of a battle cruiser with a stubby runway, in any event
 
2012-11-26 12:23:39 PM  
Think of the concept of a dirty bomb, a relatively small explosive device surrounded by toxic substances. It's a threat because it's cheap and relatively simple to create.

Here we have the dirty aircraft carrier. Any state it visits is going to have dead zones for miles around it's ports.
 
2012-11-26 12:31:34 PM  
FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?
 
2012-11-26 12:32:31 PM  
movableteacher.com

What a super-carrier might look like.
 
2012-11-26 12:33:01 PM  
- The J-15 is an unlicensed Su33 copy that clearly violates sukhoi intellectual property. as much as I dislike the Russian government, they have a strong case here. Russia has refused to sell certain aircraft to China now simply because of the belief that China will again act like the thieves that they are, intellectual propertywise.
- The aircraft carrier was bought under false pretenses with promises that it would never be militarized or used as a military vessel. China lies again.

I'm no sinophobe, but the chinese are pretty guilty in this one.

China at work.
 
2012-11-26 12:34:13 PM  

Magorn: Honestly, an air-craft carrier is SO 20th century-at this point why not build something that can launch thousands of cruise missile and drones? Same bang- a whole lot less buck


Wouldn't a ship that can launch a bunch of drones look a lot like an aircraft carrier anyway? You wouldn't need pilots on the crew, but you'd still need almost everyone else.
 
2012-11-26 12:34:29 PM  
Don't worry, the sailors on board will probably die from lead paint poisoning anyway.
 
2012-11-26 12:35:13 PM  
Summon Bayonets!
 
2012-11-26 12:35:18 PM  
U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range. This new carrier is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
 
2012-11-26 12:36:26 PM  
Unless it has a good CWIS and other point defense systems, then all it is is a big floating target for cruise missiles.
 
2012-11-26 12:36:58 PM  
Enough to do what they want for now - project force and get their way in spats with neighboring countries. They aren't trying to go toe-to-toe with the u.s........yet.
 
2012-11-26 12:37:28 PM  
The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.
 
2012-11-26 12:38:08 PM  
Empty cities and empty carriers. China really is a paper tiger.

It wouldn't surprise me if they are currently mining an area that has nothing worth mining just to keep a town/city employed.
 
2012-11-26 12:38:20 PM  
Meh - it's probably a cheap copy that'll only work in the store. One they get it home, it'll stop working and contaminate their children with lead.
 
2012-11-26 12:38:30 PM  
I think India's navy is hungry for a fight; can take-out-chinese.
 
2012-11-26 12:38:40 PM  
China might now be as powerful as the USA was in 1942. Better spend another trillion dollars refitting our military to maintain superiority over a billion dollar military.
 
2012-11-26 12:38:55 PM  

dittybopper: FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?


Yes.
 
2012-11-26 12:41:12 PM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: - The J-15 is an unlicensed Su33 copy that clearly violates sukhoi intellectual property. as much as I dislike the Russian government, they have a strong case here. Russia has refused to sell certain aircraft to China now simply because of the belief that China will again act like the thieves that they are, intellectual propertywise.
- The aircraft carrier was bought under false pretenses with promises that it would never be militarized or used as a military vessel. China lies again.

I'm no sinophobe, but the chinese are pretty guilty in this one.

China at work.


Next you'll say there's no lobster in shrimp with lobster sauce.

/ps that's not chicken either.
 
2012-11-26 12:41:18 PM  

styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.


Not sure if serious...
 
2012-11-26 12:41:54 PM  
It would look better at the bottom of the Pacific, encrusted in skulls.
 
2012-11-26 12:43:15 PM  
Landing an airplane is a show of force?
 
2012-11-26 12:44:54 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: I think India's navy is hungry for a fight; can take-out-chinese.


Now I'm hungry for some take-out-chinese....
 
2012-11-26 12:45:17 PM  
FTA: "The home-built J-15 fighter jet took off from and landed on the Liaoning, a reconditioned Soviet-era vessel from Ukraine which only came into service in September this year."

What does this even mean? Did some guy build a F-18 knockoff in his garage?

/not that I would put that past them. Crafty, they are...
 
2012-11-26 12:46:54 PM  
U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range. This new carrier is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Citation needed.
 
2012-11-26 12:47:12 PM  

Magorn: GAT_00: Well done China. You've reached the 1930s level of naval power. 

Achievement Unlocked- Ready to re-fight WWII


One carrier would have slowed down the Japanese by like....a whole day! So they are still at "prepared to be steamrolled by neighbors" part of WWII
 
2012-11-26 12:47:39 PM  

styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.


I was going to mention that. I thought it was a hybrid F-14/F-15.
 
2012-11-26 12:48:36 PM  
tonytiger.jpg
 
2012-11-26 12:49:52 PM  

abhorrent1: Landing an airplane is a show of force?


Well it does mean that the planes aren't 1 time use. So they could make multiple attack runs. That's kind of a show of force.
 
2012-11-26 12:49:54 PM  
NOBODY has the ability to make an offensive move against the USA. Nobody.
Which makes a scenario of being invaded like the movie Red Dawn a joke.
www.globalsecurity.org
 
2012-11-26 12:50:27 PM  

Millennium: Magorn: Honestly, an air-craft carrier is SO 20th century-at this point why not build something that can launch thousands of cruise missile and drones? Same bang- a whole lot less buck

Wouldn't a ship that can launch a bunch of drones look a lot like an aircraft carrier anyway? You wouldn't need pilots on the crew, but you'd still need almost everyone else.


what you describe would be in no way a replacement for an AC.

AC is to totally dominate local* airspace. what you are describing would be an over sized missile boat and recon platform, it would not create any sort of air superiority situation, but would be, if it were fast and stealthy enough, be a nasty attack craft to send with AC's to be able to hit harder.
 
2012-11-26 12:50:55 PM  

mainstreet62: styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.

I was going to mention that. I thought it was a hybrid F-14/F-15.


I hit send too soon.

The winglets in front are new. The F-14 has wings that can be swept back, but these look fixed. Probably just added them so they can claim they didn't plagiarize US design for the 5 billionth time....
 
2012-11-26 12:52:19 PM  

BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

All sunk by submarines.

/Probably an incomplete list.
 
2012-11-26 12:52:31 PM  

BronyMedic: Pocket Ninja: Uh oh. Guess we'd better commission another dozen carrier battle groups before we lose our competitive edge.

[www.steelfalcon.com image 600x222]

A dozen, you say?


Link

So the Ark royal will be a bran new carrier without any planes to fly off its deck? Sounds british to me..
 
2012-11-26 12:52:39 PM  

baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range. This new carrier is nothing but smoke and mirrors.


A) Armed forces generally don't announce "oh yeah we picked them up 40 miles away" even if they did
B) any sub sitting around on batteries can have a fleet blunder over them.
 
2012-11-26 12:53:15 PM  

mainstreet62:
The winglets in front are new. The F-14 has wings that can be swept back, but these look fixed. Probably just added them so they can claim they didn't plagiarize US design for the 5 billionth time....


Yes if it's one thing China worries about it's the negative connotations of ripping off other's work.

You in the market for a Folex?
 
2012-11-26 12:54:13 PM  
www.sydesjokes.com
What a Chinese Aircraft Carrier may look like.

/Or, China's newest nuclear submarine struts its stuff.
 
2012-11-26 12:54:22 PM  

Mithiwithi: dittybopper: FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?

Yes.


So Yes said it?
 
2012-11-26 12:54:23 PM  
If you zoom in to the picture and look very close, you will see one of those smiley face Walmart stickers on it.
 
2012-11-26 12:54:24 PM  

Linoleum_Blownapart: dirty bomb


A dirty bomb is a joke, the sort of suicide note one sends when putting a bullet through your own skull is less preferable to dying in the fire of nuclear retaliation, or simply hellfire from the local drone.

Seriously though, the dirty bomb is the upper-decker of nuclear warfare, in that you'll get shot breaking in to leave one.
 
2012-11-26 12:54:31 PM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: Russia has refused to sell certain aircraft to China now simply because of the belief that China will again act like the thieves that they are, intellectual propertywise.



That's pretty rich, coming from Russia.
 
2012-11-26 12:55:09 PM  
Just read up on the carrier itself. Pretty amazing actually and a hell of a deal for China.. That thing was built in Russia and never completed (like most things in Russia).. Then it just sat around with no engines or electronics for ever.. China basically got a empty shell for a bargain price.
 
2012-11-26 12:55:23 PM  

dittybopper: FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?


Hu's on first.
 
2012-11-26 12:56:54 PM  
Magorn: Honestly, an air-craft carrier is SO 20th century-at this point why not build something that can launch thousands of cruise missile and drones?

Sounds like you want a missile corvette.

But I'm all about the iron canon frigate.
 
2012-11-26 12:57:33 PM  

baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-26 12:58:55 PM  
Cute. Very cute.

/'Mericuh
 
2012-11-26 12:59:20 PM  
It's funny to see "so what?" comments from the same folks who were telling us - about three months back - that China wouldn't even start landing planes on this ship for another three to five years. Or (this time last year) that the thing wouldn't even be able to land or launch planes for a very long time. Or (two years ago) wouldn't be able to sail under its own power until at least 2015...

Of course, considering the amount of money China's been spending on anti-carrier ballistic missiles and hunter-killer subs, why would one carrier make a difference? Or three (currently under construction: two more locally-produced carriers)?

They're not building this stuff to go up against the US in a head-to-head fight. They're building up to take over local waters - like the South China Sea. They're obviously going under the assumption that the US won't stop them if they get ambitious in that area.
 
2012-11-26 01:00:16 PM  

BronyMedic: Pocket Ninja: Uh oh. Guess we'd better commission another dozen carrier battle groups before we lose our competitive edge.

[www.steelfalcon.com image 600x222]

A dozen, you say?


An M7 reference before any SHIELD helicarrier reference? That was unexpected.

Flying carriers have been done to death anyway. Now, this on the other hand...
images.community.wizards.com

/hot
 
2012-11-26 01:00:33 PM  

BigNumber12: Bomb Head Mohammed: Russia has refused to sell certain aircraft to China now simply because of the belief that China will again act like the thieves that they are, intellectual propertywise.


That's pretty rich, coming from Russia.


Russians may be jackholes, but they at least play by something resembling a set of rules. It's bad when they can look down upon your country and say, "Try being original for once."
 
2012-11-26 01:00:52 PM  

baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range. This new carrier is nothing but smoke and mirrors.


No citation needed. Google results in pages of confirmation.
 
2012-11-26 01:01:08 PM  

dittybopper: Mithiwithi: dittybopper: FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?

Yes.

So Yes said it?


No, that's an English rock band. The outgoing president of China is Hu.
 
2012-11-26 01:03:02 PM  

GAT_00: Well done China. You've reached the 1930s level of naval power.


You're more right than you know. That carrier doesn't have catapults, so the aircraft have to get off the deck on the power of their engines alone, running down the whole length of the deck. Even with the ski jump at the end, that means the J-15 could only take off with no ordnance and a partial fuel load.

So, for military utility, not much.

However, for developing the institutional knowledge needed to actually operate a carrier, it was probably worth every ruble (or whatever) they paid the Russians for the thing. Catapults aren't that complicated to design.
 
2012-11-26 01:03:23 PM  

dittybopper: Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

All sunk by submarines.

/Probably an incomplete list.


If the sub can get close enough.

i.imgur.com 

i.imgur.com

A sub I worked on had a scope picture in the control room of an SH-60 dipping it's sonar right on top of the sub. A reminder, I guess.
 
2012-11-26 01:03:27 PM  

Marine1: Russians may be jackholes, but they at least play by something resembling a set of rules. It's bad when they can look down upon your country and say, "Try being original for once."



Without a doubt. I'm just pointing out that they have one of the richest technological espionage traditions on earth.
 
2012-11-26 01:03:44 PM  

styckx: Just read up on the carrier itself. Pretty amazing actually and a hell of a deal for China.. That thing was built in Russia and never completed (like most things in Russia).. Then it just sat around with no engines or electronics for ever.. China basically got a empty shell for a bargain price.


I still chuckle that until not long ago, the thing was going to be a floating casino.
 
2012-11-26 01:04:49 PM  
Gleeman:

*Replace nukes with air dropped torpedoes these days, of course.
 
2012-11-26 01:05:44 PM  

whither_apophis: baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range. This new carrier is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

A) Armed forces generally don't announce "oh yeah we picked them up 40 miles away" even if they did
B) any sub sitting around on batteries can have a fleet blunder over them.


This.

Hell, back when the US and UK had completely mastered the U-boat menace, to the point where it wasn't a significant threat at all, the Germans still occasionally got lucky. For example, the USS Block Island, an escort carrier specifically tasked with hunting down and killing U-boats, was torpedoed and sank on May 29th, 1944. Her escorts sank the U-boat, which is what I suspect would have happened to the PLAN* sub that surfaced near the USS Kitty Hawk, if it got that far.

*People's Liberation Army Navy. Yes, they call it that.
 
2012-11-26 01:06:23 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: dittybopper: FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?

Hu's on first.


Wai?
 
2012-11-26 01:08:48 PM  

Mithiwithi: dittybopper: Mithiwithi: dittybopper: FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?

Yes.

So Yes said it?

No, that's an English rock band. The outgoing president of China is Hu.


Oh, ok. Hu's next?
 
2012-11-26 01:08:51 PM  
I'd personally be more afraid of those carrier-sinking missiles they've conjured up.

I mean, you could find some way to intercept it, I'm sure, but still.
 
2012-11-26 01:09:23 PM  

Mithiwithi: dittybopper: FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?

Yes.


Hu said what?
 
2012-11-26 01:09:56 PM  

mjohnson71: baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]


Link
 
2012-11-26 01:09:59 PM  

clutchcargo2002: styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.

Not sure if serious...


Absolutely serious. They both have the " -15", plus F and a J are only, what, 4...maybe 5 places apart in the alphabet? Sure, one may be a chinese knockoff, but for all intents and purposes the J-15 and F-15 are the same thing.
 
2012-11-26 01:10:50 PM  

dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:


www.history.navy.mil
warandgame.files.wordpress.com
www.fas.org
2.bp.blogspot.com

Naval aviators might disagree...

/How will the chinese ever get the ship to float if it's full of lead?
 
2012-11-26 01:10:53 PM  

Gleeman: dittybopper: Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

All sunk by submarines.

/Probably an incomplete list.

If the sub can get close enough.

[i.imgur.com image 850x352] 

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]

A sub I worked on had a scope picture in the control room of an SH-60 dipping it's sonar right on top of the sub. A reminder, I guess.


Subs can get close enough, but it requires some luck and skill.

Flood a choke point with conventional boats just making steerage on batteries, and it's not out of the question that one would get a lucky shot.
 
2012-11-26 01:12:08 PM  
I didn't know Chinese people rolled their r's. "Aircrraft Carrier" is hard to say. Stupid Mandarin.
 
2012-11-26 01:12:26 PM  

baronvonzipper: mjohnson71: baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

Link


Daily Fail?
 
2012-11-26 01:12:49 PM  
Given the rather flippant responses to this thread I even hesitate to mention this. But I will as, apparently, none of the posters have ever designed, built, operated, or managed any of the following. An aircraft carrier. A jet fighter. A navy. An air force.

The Peoples Liberation Army as they like to be called is taking steps to learn how to operate aircraft from the deck of ship moving in the ocean. You see unlike the previous posters here they realize that all of the things it takes to operate an aircraft carrier are not easy. To this end they purchased an incomplete carrier from the Ukraine. They are using it to train a core of pilots and crew for their naval ambitions.

They are currently building from the dockyard up their first truly operational aircraft carrier. Likely to be in service around 2020.

It amazes me how intelligent people continue to look down their noses at the Chinese and their military. Some folks should wake up. China is not a paper tiger. In a decade or two China could cause much trouble in the pacific if they made the calculation that it was worth the cost to do so. By trouble I mean the projection of hundreds of thousands of men within their chosen sphere of influence for as long as they could maintain the supply lines.
 
2012-11-26 01:14:15 PM  

Misconduc: So the Ark royal will be a bran new carrier without any planes to fly off its deck? Sounds british to me..


Nah. It's got planes. But in 2035 when the class was first commissioned, they're still flying VF-11s.

www.macrossworld.com
 
2012-11-26 01:14:20 PM  

dittybopper: Gleeman: dittybopper: Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

All sunk by submarines.

/Probably an incomplete list.

If the sub can get close enough.

[i.imgur.com image 850x352] 

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]

A sub I worked on had a scope picture in the control room of an SH-60 dipping it's sonar right on top of the sub. A reminder, I guess.

Subs can get close enough, but it requires some luck and skill.

Flood a choke point with conventional boats just making steerage on batteries, and it's not out of the question that one would get a lucky shot.


True, just saying it's not an automatic sinking just because there's a sub about.
 
2012-11-26 01:15:05 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

[www.history.navy.mil image 700x500]
[warandgame.files.wordpress.com image 800x545]
[www.fas.org image 700x480]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

Naval aviators might disagree...


The naval aviators on this boat no doubt disagreed also:

upload.wikimedia.org

Their job was to specifically go out to hunt and kill German U-boats, using things like air-dropped homing torpedoes. Nonetheless, their ship was sunk out from underneath them by a U-boat.
 
2012-11-26 01:16:45 PM  

Frogfoot: Given the rather flippant responses to this thread I even hesitate to mention this. But I will as, apparently, none of the posters have ever designed, built, operated, or managed any of the following. An aircraft carrier. A jet fighter. A navy. An air force.

The Peoples Liberation Army as they like to be called is taking steps to learn how to operate aircraft from the deck of ship moving in the ocean. You see unlike the previous posters here they realize that all of the things it takes to operate an aircraft carrier are not easy. To this end they purchased an incomplete carrier from the Ukraine. They are using it to train a core of pilots and crew for their naval ambitions.

They are currently building from the dockyard up their first truly operational aircraft carrier. Likely to be in service around 2020.

It amazes me how intelligent people continue to look down their noses at the Chinese and their military. Some folks should wake up. China is not a paper tiger. In a decade or two China could cause much trouble in the pacific if they made the calculation that it was worth the cost to do so. By trouble I mean the projection of hundreds of thousands of men within their chosen sphere of influence for as long as they could maintain the supply lines.


I think most folks realize that the Chinese could become a force to be reckoned with. However, at this point they really aren't. They've got a huge military, but can't get it to the USA. Sure, they could cause all sorts of problems for Japan, Russia, or folks in their immediate vicinity, but even that's a losing proposition.
 
2012-11-26 01:17:27 PM  
"The home-built J-15 fighter jet"

Dedicated hobbyists??
 
2012-11-26 01:18:03 PM  

baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range. This new carrier is nothing but smoke and mirrors.


I'm calling shenanigans.

For one, a Chinese sub trailing a carrier battle group would never purposfully reveal their position. And they'd never surface in the middle of a carrier battle group.

For One: It'd be considered a hostile act, and those ships would open up on the unknown. You don't get close to a Carrier Battle Group unless you are cleared to.
For Two: It'd be a major international incident since carriers are considered de-facto US Soil, and any attack on them is considered grounds for the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation.
 
2012-11-26 01:19:00 PM  

Gleeman: True, just saying it's not an automatic sinking just because there's a sub about.


Well, yeah. But the reverse is also true: Just because you've got a modern carrier battle group doesn't mean you are impervious to attack by submarine.

And you could sacrifice a *LOT* of conventional boats before you came close to equaling the cost of a single supercarrier.
 
2012-11-26 01:19:15 PM  
Wouldja believe a half-dozen empty barrels, duct-taped together, and a boyscout in a pair of water-wings?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
Ehh
2012-11-26 01:19:37 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: I think India's navy is hungry for a fight; can take-out-chinese.


An hour after the peace treaty is signed, they'll be hungry for war again.
 
2012-11-26 01:21:10 PM  
dittybopper:

Can you provide any examples of submarines attacking a carrier in the past 50 years?
 
2012-11-26 01:21:44 PM  

mainstreet62: mainstreet62: styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.

I was going to mention that. I thought it was a hybrid F-14/F-15.

I hit send too soon.

The winglets in front are new. The F-14 has wings that can be swept back, but these look fixed. Probably just added them so they can claim they didn't plagiarize US design for the 5 billionth time....


Actually it doesn't look anything like either a F-15 or F-14.

It does look exactly like the Russian Su-33.
 
2012-11-26 01:21:59 PM  

Linoleum_Blownapart: Here we have the dirty aircraft carrier. Any state it visits is going to have dead zones for miles around it's ports.


it'll be really dangerous once it turns into a flotilla and starts carrying inuits.
 
2012-11-26 01:23:48 PM  

ronaprhys: Frogfoot: Given the rather flippant responses to this thread I even hesitate to mention this. But I will as, apparently, none of the posters have ever designed, built, operated, or managed any of the following. An aircraft carrier. A jet fighter. A navy. An air force.

The Peoples Liberation Army as they like to be called is taking steps to learn how to operate aircraft from the deck of ship moving in the ocean. You see unlike the previous posters here they realize that all of the things it takes to operate an aircraft carrier are not easy. To this end they purchased an incomplete carrier from the Ukraine. They are using it to train a core of pilots and crew for their naval ambitions.

They are currently building from the dockyard up their first truly operational aircraft carrier. Likely to be in service around 2020.

It amazes me how intelligent people continue to look down their noses at the Chinese and their military. Some folks should wake up. China is not a paper tiger. In a decade or two China could cause much trouble in the pacific if they made the calculation that it was worth the cost to do so. By trouble I mean the projection of hundreds of thousands of men within their chosen sphere of influence for as long as they could maintain the supply lines.

I think most folks realize that the Chinese could become a force to be reckoned with. However, at this point they really aren't. They've got a huge military, but can't get it to the USA. Sure, they could cause all sorts of problems for Japan, Russia, or folks in their immediate vicinity, but even that's a losing proposition.


The economic zones affliliated with the MANY disputed islands in the China Sea are more than enough to prompt belligerance in the region. The Asians have hated e/o for a long time. Somehow I doubt that there will be some sort of pan-asian cooperative over these resources. 

But hey, selling off our old naval equipment to China's rivals, might be nice.
 
2012-11-26 01:23:48 PM  
China needs carriers to protect their growing demand for oil.

US gets 6% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. The US Navy is thinking of withdrawing a carrier group from the region, due to our decreasing dependence on their oil.

If China wants to keep buying Saudi oil, it will be their job to keep the tanker shipping lanes open.
 
2012-11-26 01:27:30 PM  

SirHolo: China needs carriers to protect their growing demand for oil.

US gets 6% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. The US Navy is thinking of withdrawing a carrier group from the region, due to our decreasing dependence on their oil.

If China wants to keep buying Saudi oil, it will be their job to keep the tanker shipping lanes open.


Question is, do we want the Chinese having that sort of influence in that part of the world?

Place is already a powder keg that goes off every few weeks.
 
2012-11-26 01:28:03 PM  

Decillion: Empty cities and empty carriers. China really is a paper tiger.

It wouldn't surprise me if they are currently mining an area that has nothing worth mining just to keep a town/city employed.


this. really really this.
 
2012-11-26 01:28:04 PM  

SirHolo: China needs carriers to protect their growing demand for oil.

US gets 6% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. The US Navy is thinking of withdrawing a carrier group from the region, due to our decreasing dependence on their oil.

If China wants to keep buying Saudi oil, it will be their job to keep the tanker shipping lanes open.


Iranian Revolutionary Guard masturbating furiously over thought of such.jpg
 
WGJ
2012-11-26 01:29:01 PM  
If the Chinese really wanted to cripple the US, all it would have to do is seize all of the factories that are owned by US companies. The job creators have completely destroyed this country's ability to maintain itself in this scenario and we would be crippled in less than a month.
 
2012-11-26 01:30:27 PM  
Landed this month. They expect to figure out how to take it off by 2014.
 
2012-11-26 01:30:51 PM  

ronaprhys: Frogfoot: Given the rather flippant responses to this thread I even hesitate to mention this. But I will as, apparently, none of the posters have ever designed, built, operated, or managed any of the following. An aircraft carrier. A jet fighter. A navy. An air force.

The Peoples Liberation Army as they like to be called is taking steps to learn how to operate aircraft from the deck of ship moving in the ocean. You see unlike the previous posters here they realize that all of the things it takes to operate an aircraft carrier are not easy. To this end they purchased an incomplete carrier from the Ukraine. They are using it to train a core of pilots and crew for their naval ambitions.

They are currently building from the dockyard up their first truly operational aircraft carrier. Likely to be in service around 2020.

It amazes me how intelligent people continue to look down their noses at the Chinese and their military. Some folks should wake up. China is not a paper tiger. In a decade or two China could cause much trouble in the pacific if they made the calculation that it was worth the cost to do so. By trouble I mean the projection of hundreds of thousands of men within their chosen sphere of influence for as long as they could maintain the supply lines.

I think most folks realize that the Chinese could become a force to be reckoned with. However, at this point they really aren't. They've got a huge military, but can't get it to the USA. Sure, they could cause all sorts of problems for Japan, Russia, or folks in their immediate vicinity, but even that's a losing proposition.


China's economy is going to asplode soon. They're currently propping it up with useless spending projects with little hope of return. It's going to be ugly.

/just read that article on empty faux European cities for an example.
 
2012-11-26 01:32:21 PM  

WGJ: If the Chinese really wanted to cripple the US, all it would have to do is seize all of the factories that are owned by US companies. The job creators have completely destroyed this country's ability to maintain itself in this scenario and we would be crippled in less than a month.


They don't want to cripple us. They're a lot of things, but they're not stupid. They know that their economic fortunes are directly tied to the well-being of the United States.

Raise their own influence at the expense of ours, definitely, but certainly not cripple the US.
 
2012-11-26 01:33:39 PM  
BronyMedic: For Two: It'd be a major international incident since carriers are considered de-facto US Soil, and any attack on them is considered grounds for the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation.

No.
 
2012-11-26 01:33:58 PM  

Frogfoot: Given the rather flippant responses to this thread I even hesitate to mention this. But I will as, apparently, none of the posters have ever designed, built, operated, or managed any of the following. An aircraft carrier. A jet fighter. A navy. An air force.

The Peoples Liberation Army as they like to be called is taking steps to learn how to operate aircraft from the deck of ship moving in the ocean. You see unlike the previous posters here they realize that all of the things it takes to operate an aircraft carrier are not easy. To this end they purchased an incomplete carrier from the Ukraine. They are using it to train a core of pilots and crew for their naval ambitions.

They are currently building from the dockyard up their first truly operational aircraft carrier. Likely to be in service around 2020.

It amazes me how intelligent people continue to look down their noses at the Chinese and their military. Some folks should wake up. China is not a paper tiger. In a decade or two China could cause much trouble in the pacific if they made the calculation that it was worth the cost to do so. By trouble I mean the projection of hundreds of thousands of men within their chosen sphere of influence for as long as they could maintain the supply lines.


Now we know Mitt Romney's Fark handle.
 
2012-11-26 01:34:04 PM  

WGJ: If the Chinese really wanted to cripple the US, all it would have to do is seize all of the factories that are owned by US companies. The job creators have completely destroyed this country's ability to maintain itself in this scenario and we would be crippled in less than a month.


At which point their current economy of "build ghost towns to keep construction strong" might not quite hold up?
 
2012-11-26 01:36:51 PM  
I've seen video of this boat at sea. Not sure what Subby means by "isn't seaworthy".
 
2012-11-26 01:37:58 PM  

WGJ: If the Chinese really wanted to cripple the US, all it would have to do is seize all of the factories that are owned by US companies. The job creators have completely destroyed this country's ability to maintain itself in this scenario and we would be crippled in less than a month.


They'd be crippling themselves as well.
 
2012-11-26 01:40:59 PM  

Mithiwithi: dittybopper: Mithiwithi: dittybopper: FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?

Yes.

So Yes said it?

No, that's an English rock band. The outgoing president of China is Hu.


First base
 
2012-11-26 01:41:56 PM  

fluffy2097: dittybopper:

Can you provide any examples of submarines attacking a carrier in the past 50 years?


Given that we are really talking about a cruiser with a ski-jump flight deck... you might want to look up the Falklands war.

And that was using WWII era torpedos.
 
2012-11-26 01:43:00 PM  

WGJ: If the Chinese really wanted to cripple the US, all it would have to do is seize all of the factories that are owned by US companies. The job creators have completely destroyed this country's ability to maintain itself in this scenario and we would be crippled in less than a month.


Yeah, but the US could just start tactically nuking parts of china until they gave the factories back!

/My scenario makes just as much sense as yours.
//IE: none.
 
2012-11-26 01:43:12 PM  
Complete rubbish. The type of ship is a clue. It carries aircraft. That's it. That's all it does. They have no suitable aircraft to carry.
 
2012-11-26 01:44:30 PM  
This just in from the China Daily

In the eyes of his teachers and classmates at college, he studied hard and was always happy to lend a helping hand; his colleagues respected him because he had devoted all his life to his work; and for Chinese military fans, he was the man who enabled the country's first carrier-based fighter jet to fly high.
However, the respected Luo Yang, a senior aircraft designer, can no longer hear these words of praise.
Luo, general manager of the Shenyang Aircraft Corp, which develops and manufactures the J-15 fighter jet, died of a heart attack on Sunday morning in Dalian, Liaoning province, soon after the carrier-based aircraft successfully completed landing and take-off tests on the country's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning. He was 51.
 
2012-11-26 01:44:39 PM  

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: NOBODY has the ability to make an offensive move against the USA. Nobody.


Somewhere there is a color coded version showing Russia and Possibly China as non-allied US carriers.
More lopsided than it first appears.
 
2012-11-26 01:46:46 PM  

John the Magnificent:

Don't help him.

/no mention of carriers actually being attacked and sunk according to a skim of wikipedia.
//a cruiser was lost though, and a destroyer.
///Hardly the same as a modern US carrier battlegroup as well.

 
2012-11-26 01:48:01 PM  

Magorn: GAT_00: Well done China. You've reached the 1930s level of naval power. 

Achievement Unlocked Unrocked - ReadyLeady to re-fight WWII

 
2012-11-26 01:49:18 PM  

lordargent: Magorn: Honestly, an air-craft carrier is SO 20th century-at this point why not build something that can launch thousands of cruise missile and drones?

Sounds like you want a missile corvette.

But I'm all about the iron canon frigate.


I think I might have to play that game later. If you invest in salvage corvettes early in the single player campaign, you can end up with a mass of more than a hundred ion cannon frigates in a sphere of death formation. Quite entertaining.
 
2012-11-26 01:50:26 PM  

ronaprhys: Frogfoot: Given the rather flippant responses to this thread I even hesitate to mention this. But I will as, apparently, none of the posters have ever designed, built, operated, or managed any of the following. An aircraft carrier. A jet fighter. A navy. An air force.

The Peoples Liberation Army as they like to be called is taking steps to learn how to operate aircraft from the deck of ship moving in the ocean. You see unlike the previous posters here they realize that all of the things it takes to operate an aircraft carrier are not easy. To this end they purchased an incomplete carrier from the Ukraine. They are using it to train a core of pilots and crew for their naval ambitions.

They are currently building from the dockyard up their first truly operational aircraft carrier. Likely to be in service around 2020.

It amazes me how intelligent people continue to look down their noses at the Chinese and their military. Some folks should wake up. China is not a paper tiger. In a decade or two China could cause much trouble in the pacific if they made the calculation that it was worth the cost to do so. By trouble I mean the projection of hundreds of thousands of men within their chosen sphere of influence for as long as they could maintain the supply lines.

I think most folks realize that the Chinese could become a force to be reckoned with. However, at this point they really aren't. They've got a huge military, but can't get it to the USA. Sure, they could cause all sorts of problems for Japan, Russia, or folks in their immediate vicinity, but even that's a losing proposition.


I can't believe that people still don't take them seriously. Besides, they've pulled off the "we're just taking this off your hands" thing with a carrier before, in 1985 (HMAS Melbourne). This isn't a new thing.

However, India's navy has been doing the naval aviation thing for longer, and they even have battle experience. In a Chinese/Indian carrier vs. carrier fight, I'd have a hard time betting against India even with the obvious disparity in carrier capabilities.
 
2012-11-26 01:52:03 PM  

styckx: Just read up on the carrier itself. Pretty amazing actually and a hell of a deal for China.. That thing was built in Russia and never completed (like most things in Russia).. Then it just sat around with no engines or electronics for ever.. China basically got a empty shell for a bargain price.


So it's a "Romney" then?
 
WGJ
2012-11-26 01:52:31 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: WGJ: If the Chinese really wanted to cripple the US, all it would have to do is seize all of the factories that are owned by US companies. The job creators have completely destroyed this country's ability to maintain itself in this scenario and we would be crippled in less than a month.

They'd be crippling themselves as well.


The Chinese government would have no problem with making their citizens suffer, they would just go back to where they were a couple of decades ago. Our country on the other hand would implode from the stock market overreacting and we basically would destroy ourselves from within.
 
2012-11-26 01:52:35 PM  

Frogfoot: It amazes me how intelligent people continue to look down their noses at the Chinese and their military. Some folks should wake up. China is not a paper tiger. In a decade or two China could cause much trouble in the pacific if they made the calculation that it was worth the cost to do so. By trouble I mean the projection of hundreds of thousands of men within their chosen sphere of influence for as long as they could maintain the supply lines.


They could call it the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Just think of the money the Walton heirs can make and ship to the Caymans if the Chicom enslaves SE Asia for them.
 
2012-11-26 01:54:03 PM  
We should sell them the Enterprise without the photon torpedos.
 
2012-11-26 01:59:59 PM  

fluffy2097: dittybopper:

Can you provide any examples of submarines attacking a carrier in the past 50 years?


Do military exercises count?

img474.imageshack.us

sitelife.aviationweek.com

willdishong.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

www.dutchsubmarines.com
 
2012-11-26 02:03:40 PM  
dittybopper:

I can post random photos too!

desertwar.net

static.ddmcdn.com

www.nytimes.com
 
2012-11-26 02:03:56 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

[www.history.navy.mil image 700x500]
[warandgame.files.wordpress.com image 800x545]
[www.fas.org image 700x480]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

Naval aviators might disagree...

/How will the chinese ever get the ship to float if it's full of lead?


And the SH-60 shot earlier. Ain't nothing like hunting subs from aircraft.
 
2012-11-26 02:05:18 PM  

dittybopper: fluffy2097: dittybopper:

Can you provide any examples of submarines attacking a carrier in the past 50 years?

Do military exercises count?

[img474.imageshack.us image 492x328]

[sitelife.aviationweek.com image 440x293]

[willdishong.com image 554x419]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x190]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x322]

[www.dutchsubmarines.com image 300x235]


You are making me want to install Silent Hunter 4.
 
2012-11-26 02:05:19 PM  

fluffy2097: dittybopper:

I can post random photos too!


Those weren't random: All were aircraft carriers sunk by submarines. If there was a shot of the actual carrier sinking, I used that, but generally there isn't.
 
2012-11-26 02:05:22 PM  
Landing an aircraft on a carrier is a long way from that carrier being a deployable weapons platform.
 
2012-11-26 02:06:10 PM  

mjohnson71: baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]


Twice in the 1990s Russian Akula and Typhoon class submarines were spotted less then a mile from an American carrier group, neither were detected until they surfaced to "show off" and be escorted away.
 
2012-11-26 02:06:24 PM  
I think I might have to play that game later. If you invest in salvage corvettes early in the single player campaign, you can end up with a mass of more than a hundred ion cannon frigates in a sphere of death formation. Quite entertaining.

lolwut?
 
2012-11-26 02:07:46 PM  

Lego_Addict: dittybopper: fluffy2097: dittybopper:

Can you provide any examples of submarines attacking a carrier in the past 50 years?

Do military exercises count?

[img474.imageshack.us image 492x328]

[sitelife.aviationweek.com image 440x293]

[willdishong.com image 554x419]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x190]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x322]

[www.dutchsubmarines.com image 300x235]

You are making me want to install Silent Hunter 4.


I've heard it isn't that good. I'm still playing Silent Hunter 3 with the GWX expansion pack, and of course full manual everything, including manual targeting:

img185.imageshack.us

img179.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-26 02:09:02 PM  

Two16: styckx: Just read up on the carrier itself. Pretty amazing actually and a hell of a deal for China.. That thing was built in Russia and never completed (like most things in Russia).. Then it just sat around with no engines or electronics for ever.. China basically got a empty shell for a bargain price.

So it's a "Romney" then?


The election is over. You can crawl back under your bridge.
 
2012-11-26 02:09:11 PM  

letrole: BronyMedic: For Two: It'd be a major international incident since carriers are considered de-facto US Soil, and any attack on them is considered grounds for the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation.

No.


I know you're just herping and derping here, but for those FARKers not familiar with your talents, I'll elaborate.

The Bush administration made the SIOP (Single Integrated Operations Plan, the nuclear playbook) activatable in the event the United States, or it's troops, were attacked by a WMD by a foreign nation or extragovernmental group supported by a foreign nation. What that means is if North Korea were to use, as an example, Mustard Gas against the DMZ, the United States could retaliate by shoving a Trident up Pyongyang's ass.

Attacks on United States Carriers are considered WMD attacks due to the potential for massive loss of life, and the Military and monitary value of a US carrier. In addition, carriers are still considered nuclear force projection assets.

When Obama came into office in 08, he changed our nation from SIOP to OPLAN 8010. That part didn't change.
 
2012-11-26 02:10:13 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: [www.sydesjokes.com image 600x395]
What a Chinese Aircraft Carrier may look like.

/Or, China's newest nuclear submarine struts its stuff.


RIP The Mighty O
 
2012-11-26 02:11:44 PM  
I expected it to look more like this.

www.filmbuffonline.com
 
2012-11-26 02:14:28 PM  
this is GRREAAT NEWS for the American.........

1.bp.blogspot.com 


OTOH it is also quite upsetting that so many Americans (as evident here) view China as a mortal enemy when the opposite is not true.

The average Chinese definitely do not desire or dream of an sort of sinking or destruction everytime a new American Navy ship gets commissioned, a new plane flies etc.
 
2012-11-26 02:16:07 PM  

Amphipath: I expected it to look more like this.

[www.filmbuffonline.com image 250x213]


This is China.
go.hrw.com
www.onlinenewspapers.com

This is Japan.
www.lonelyplanet.com
www.mapsofworld.com

The Japanese Do not like to be confused with the Chinese, and any Chinese person with any knowledge of history would smack you senseless for being a Racist White American for calling them Japanese.
 
2012-11-26 02:17:12 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: this is GRREAAT NEWS for the American.........

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x196] 


OTOH it is also quite upsetting that so many Americans (as evident here) view China as a mortal enemy when the opposite is not true.

The average Chinese definitely do not desire or dream of an sort of sinking or destruction everytime a new American Navy ship gets commissioned, a new plane flies etc.


Neither did the average German or Japanese citizen back in the 1920's and 1930's. That doesn't mean their armament programs weren't a potential future threat.
 
2012-11-26 02:18:04 PM  

styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.


and a pinto which has 4 wheels and a hood looks exactly like the Ferrari Enzo. Methinks you fail.. the J-15 is actually a modified copy of Russian SU-27.
 
2012-11-26 02:23:05 PM  
BronyMedic: The Bush administration made the SIOP (Single Integrated Operations Plan, the nuclear playbook) activatable in the event the United States, or it's troops, were attacked by a WMD by a foreign nation

So is a strafing run WMD? Is a suicide speedboat WMD?
 
2012-11-26 02:24:22 PM  

dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 773x574]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 307x240]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x204]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x591]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 740x554]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x201]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 604x480]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x187]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x193]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x154]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x80]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x102]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x88]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x180]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x107]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x180]

All sunk by submarines.

/Probably an incomplete list.


Two small problems. First, the Marus weren't even legitimate escort carriers, they were glorified Army ferries that couldn't top 20 knots. Not exactly the type of vessel a navy uses for force projection.

And secondly, the Yorktown is highly misleading, because the I-168 was effectively a kill-stealing biatch. CV-5 was put out of commission by Hiryu's bombers - I-168 hit a ship that was under tow with only a damage assessment party aboard.
 
2012-11-26 02:25:13 PM  
Trucker:
Landing an aircraft on a carrier is a long way from that carrier being a deployable weapons platform.

Just a couple of months ago, it was "sailing an aircraft carrier out of a harbor is a long way from being able to land planes on it."

Just over a year ago, it was "buying an uncompleted aircraft carrier is a long way from being able to sail it out of a harbor."
 
2012-11-26 02:26:59 PM  

darch: I think I might have to play that game later. If you invest in salvage corvettes early in the single player campaign, you can end up with a mass of more than a hundred ion cannon frigates in a sphere of death formation. Quite entertaining.

lolwut?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-26 02:26:59 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: OTOH it is also quite upsetting that so many Americans (as evident here) view China as a mortal enemy when the opposite is not true.

The average Chinese definitely do not desire or dream of an sort of sinking or destruction everytime a new American Navy ship gets commissioned, a new plane flies etc.


Neither does the average American. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just as brainwashed as the ones you claim think the average Chinese citizen does.

Americans don't want war. We're a war weary culture. 12 years of brushfire war and regieme change will do that to you.

But it's also a good idea, as the big kid on the block, to be able to go up against the other big kid on the block militarily. Especially as resources become more and more scarce, and that big kid doesn't want to share his toys.
 
2012-11-26 02:28:01 PM  

dittybopper: Lego_Addict: dittybopper: fluffy2097: dittybopper:

Can you provide any examples of submarines attacking a carrier in the past 50 years?

Do military exercises count?

[img474.imageshack.us image 492x328]

[sitelife.aviationweek.com image 440x293]

[willdishong.com image 554x419]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x190]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x322]

[www.dutchsubmarines.com image 300x235]

You are making me want to install Silent Hunter 4.

I've heard it isn't that good. I'm still playing Silent Hunter 3 with the GWX expansion pack, and of course full manual everything, including manual targeting:

[img185.imageshack.us image 800x600]

[img179.imageshack.us image 800x600]


I've only ever played 4. I haven't played it in over 2 years now either. I was hooked on it for a while though. Stalking a convoy, getting some tonnage, and then running from the destroyers was a lot of fun.

I tried but never got into the manual targeting. Although, I kept the oxygen, fuel, etc. settings legit
 
2012-11-26 02:28:10 PM  

some_beer_drinker: Decillion: Empty cities and empty carriers. China really is a paper tiger.

It wouldn't surprise me if they are currently mining an area that has nothing worth mining just to keep a town/city employed.

this. really really this.


Carriers are 'empty' during quals and airwings are formed afterward.

I can't believe subby/farkers are so dumb.

Even an establish Navy like the USN do not put aircraft on them the first time a carrier rolls off into water.

I would say China is probably at least 2 years before this ship is operational and have an active airwing on board. This is just the initial flight test.
Nothing to see move along....
 
2012-11-26 02:29:30 PM  
I realize that, for some reason (which has never been explained to me), this is IMPOSSIBLE, but...

I think it would be truly hilarious if the Chinese seized all of the US-owned factories in their country.

Wouldn't it be fun to see all of the corporations who chose to locate there suddenly go belly up?

I'd be willing to suffer through the crippling recession such an event would lead to, if there was only a chance that our leaders might learn some kind of lesson from it.
 
2012-11-26 02:33:18 PM  
Why does china lack original thinking? They just rip off designs.
 
2012-11-26 02:33:51 PM  

Mithiwithi: dittybopper: Mithiwithi: dittybopper: FTFA:

"We should make active planning for the use of military forces in peacetime, expand and intensify military preparedness, and enhance the capability to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, the most important of which is to win local war in an information age," Hu said.

Hu said that?

Yes.

So Yes said it?

No, that's an English rock band. The outgoing president of China is Hu.


that's what i was asking.
 
2012-11-26 02:35:15 PM  

dittybopper: SuperNinjaToad: this is GRREAAT NEWS for the American.........

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x196] 


OTOH it is also quite upsetting that so many Americans (as evident here) view China as a mortal enemy when the opposite is not true.

The average Chinese definitely do not desire or dream of an sort of sinking or destruction everytime a new American Navy ship gets commissioned, a new plane flies etc.

Neither did the average German or Japanese citizen back in the 1920's and 1930's. That doesn't mean their armament programs weren't a potential future threat.


so your argument is let's hate them first in case they hate us later? huh?

/confuse!
 
2012-11-26 02:38:28 PM  

doczoidberg: I realize that, for some reason (which has never been explained to me), this is IMPOSSIBLE, but...

I think it would be truly hilarious if the Chinese seized all of the US-owned factories in their country.

Wouldn't it be fun to see all of the corporations who chose to locate there suddenly go belly up?

I'd be willing to suffer through the crippling recession such an event would lead to, if there was only a chance that our leaders might learn some kind of lesson from it.


No, they could do it, but it would hurt them too much to do so.

When goods don't cross borders, armies do.
 
2012-11-26 02:38:36 PM  

BronyMedic: SuperNinjaToad: OTOH it is also quite upsetting that so many Americans (as evident here) view China as a mortal enemy when the opposite is not true.

The average Chinese definitely do not desire or dream of an sort of sinking or destruction everytime a new American Navy ship gets commissioned, a new plane flies etc.

Neither does the average American. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just as brainwashed as the ones you claim think the average Chinese citizen does.


then I guess you must've missed 90% of the postings here which are definitely very belligerent and anti-China.
 
2012-11-26 02:55:21 PM  

doczoidberg: I realize that, for some reason (which has never been explained to me), this is IMPOSSIBLE, but...

I think it would be truly hilarious if the Chinese seized all of the US-owned factories in their country.

Wouldn't it be fun to see all of the corporations who chose to locate there suddenly go belly up?

I'd be willing to suffer through the crippling recession such an event would lead to, if there was only a chance that our leaders might learn some kind of lesson from it.


Except for the fact that it would actually help America, and severely hurt the Chinese. And that it would not only cripple the chinese economy, which is HEAVILY DEPENDANT on Exports to the West, but severely impact their ability to conduct international business.

The recession wouldn't even be that severe, to be quite honest. America would do what it always does, crank back up factories and manufacturing centers, and replace the jobs here, or go to other countries for outsourcing, like India.

SuperNinjaToad: then I guess you must've missed 90% of the postings here which are definitely very belligerent and anti-China.


Historically, China has been very expansionary since the People's Republic banished the Nationalists to Taiwan. Just because I don't want another war doesn't mean I'm nieve about Chinese ambition.
 
2012-11-26 02:57:45 PM  

Magorn: Honestly, an air-craft carrier is SO 20th century-at this point why not build something that can launch thousands of cruise missile and drones? Same bang- a whole lot less buck


Because the aircraft carrier isn't designed to fight a war.

It's designed to look big when you project force.
 
2012-11-26 02:59:00 PM  

GAT_00: Well done China. You've reached the 1930s level of naval power.


Chinese jet taking off from their carrier:
s1.reutersmedia.net

Biplane taking from carrier in the 1930s:

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

If you can't tell the difference then you are truly a master of the herpaderp.
 
2012-11-26 02:59:01 PM  

spawn73: Magorn: Honestly, an air-craft carrier is SO 20th century-at this point why not build something that can launch thousands of cruise missile and drones? Same bang- a whole lot less buck

Because the aircraft carrier isn't designed to fight a war.

It's designed to look big when you project force.


Well, it also helps that a single Aircraft Carrier has more planes than the Air Force of most nations.
 
2012-11-26 03:00:19 PM  

NephilimNexus: Chinese jet taking off from their carrier


It's a chinese knock-off of the SU-33, illegally produced without license. The F/A-18 was specifically designed to kill them and MIG-29s.
 
2012-11-26 03:04:40 PM  
It was originally the Soviet carrier "Riga" ... I think I sank that ship in a rousing game of Red Storm Rising once.

www.gb64.com

/Hot like using a Stinger on an annoying helo
 
2012-11-26 03:18:30 PM  

BronyMedic: It's a chinese knock-off of the SU-33, illegally produced without license. The F/A-18 was specifically designed to kill them and MIG-29s.


So? The Chinese military has no interest in fighting with the US. We're their biggest customers, remember? Unlike the USA, however, they're capable of thinking past the next financial quarter. They are an emergent economy that is going through explosive growth. The USA is a crumbling economy that is slowly imploding upon itself. Fifty years from now the UN is still going to need peacekeepers to keep random wacko dictators in check. Fifty years from now the USA isn't going to be in any shape to do it for them. China is simply getting a head start for their future role as the world's leading nation in a few decades (or less) and making sure that they'll be ready for all the responsibilities that entails.

There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

1.bp.blogspot.com

All empires fall in the end. New ones take their place. The cycle repeats.
 
2012-11-26 03:19:56 PM  

Lego_Addict: I tried but never got into the manual targeting.


If you can remember high school geometry, you can do manual targeting. It's all just triangles.
 
2012-11-26 03:21:27 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: dittybopper: SuperNinjaToad: this is GRREAAT NEWS for the American.........

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x196] 


OTOH it is also quite upsetting that so many Americans (as evident here) view China as a mortal enemy when the opposite is not true.

The average Chinese definitely do not desire or dream of an sort of sinking or destruction everytime a new American Navy ship gets commissioned, a new plane flies etc.

Neither did the average German or Japanese citizen back in the 1920's and 1930's. That doesn't mean their armament programs weren't a potential future threat.

so your argument is let's hate them first in case they hate us later? huh?

/confuse!


Hu said anything about hating? We're armchair wargaming against a potential future opponent. Nothing wrong with that.
 
2012-11-26 03:24:25 PM  

zarberg: It was originally the Soviet carrier "Riga" ... I think I sank that ship in a rousing game of Red Storm Rising once.

[www.gb64.com image 320x200]

/Hot like using a Stinger on an annoying helo


Are there any good (but still reasonably simple) sub games out there anymore?
 
2012-11-26 03:27:36 PM  

Frogfoot: China is not a paper tiger.


they are. china has the resources and population to be better but not the mind set. the nation as a whole is about getting things done at the cheapest cost, which usually ends up sacrificing quality. they can build as many ships and airplanes as they want, but they'll probably cut corners and use the lowest rust proof materials, making it all worthless after a few years.
 
2012-11-26 03:31:11 PM  

NephilimNexus: BronyMedic: It's a chinese knock-off of the SU-33, illegally produced without license. The F/A-18 was specifically designed to kill them and MIG-29s.

So? The Chinese military has no interest in fighting with the US. We're their biggest customers, remember? Unlike the USA, however, they're capable of thinking past the next financial quarter. They are an emergent economy that is going through explosive growth. The USA is a crumbling economy that is slowly imploding upon itself. Fifty years from now the UN is still going to need peacekeepers to keep random wacko dictators in check. Fifty years from now the USA isn't going to be in any shape to do it for them. China is simply getting a head start for their future role as the world's leading nation in a few decades (or less) and making sure that they'll be ready for all the responsibilities that entails.

There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

All empires fall in the end. New ones take their place. The cycle repeats.


It's cute you think that.

Really, it is. That's all I have to say to that.

China is a friend of the United States as long as it continues to be profitable to do so.

China will never become the type of country you describe as long as they maintain borderline tolterian control of the populace, continue to aggressively posture and commit acts of overt industrial and international espionage with it's neighboring nations (Taiwan and Russia), and scarce resources terrestrially will either force them to look upwards, or to look outwards to other countries. The funny thing is, the idea of resource wars are no longer the realm of speculative and science fiction, but a burdoning reality. Peak oil, combined with the scarcity of rare earth and metal element sources for use in high technology and construction industries are going to fuel them.

The China of 2100 will look nothing like the China today. But the United States is nothing like the British Empire you compare it too, and the factors which caused it's collapse, and a comparison with the Roman empire is equally as fallicious.
 
2012-11-26 03:33:59 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: They aren't trying to go toe-to-toe with the u.s........yet.


Why would China want to go toe to toe with their best customer?
That would be like Wal-Mart attacking the local trailer park.
 
2012-11-26 03:39:41 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Two small problems. First, the Marus weren't even legitimate escort carriers, they were glorified Army ferries that couldn't top 20 knots. Not exactly the type of vessel a navy uses for force projection.


The flip side of that is that the submarines they faced had underwater speeds measured in the single digits. Usually, the *LOW* single digits.

And secondly, the Yorktown is highly misleading, because the I-168 was effectively a kill-stealing biatch. CV-5 was put out of commission by Hiryu's bombers - I-168 hit a ship that was under tow with only a damage assessment party aboard.


OK, so that's 1 that's iffy.
 
2012-11-26 03:59:12 PM  

NephilimNexus: There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).


The US has a number of advantages Britain never did -- primarily that it's not located on a rocky, resource-poor island and isn't dependent upon far-flung colonies under dubious administrative control.
 
2012-11-26 04:02:58 PM  

This text is now purple: NephilimNexus: There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

The US has a number of advantages Britain never did -- primarily that it's not located on a rocky, resource-poor island and isn't dependent upon far-flung colonies under dubious administrative control.


Plus, we speak English, unlike the English.
 
2012-11-26 04:03:00 PM  

NephilimNexus: BronyMedic: It's a chinese knock-off of the SU-33, illegally produced without license. The F/A-18 was specifically designed to kill them and MIG-29s.

So? The Chinese military has no interest in fighting with the US. We're their biggest customers, remember? Unlike the USA, however, they're capable of thinking past the next financial quarter. They are an emergent economy that is going through explosive growth. The USA is a crumbling economy that is slowly imploding upon itself. Fifty years from now the UN is still going to need peacekeepers to keep random wacko dictators in check. Fifty years from now the USA isn't going to be in any shape to do it for them. China is simply getting a head start for their future role as the world's leading nation in a few decades (or less) and making sure that they'll be ready for all the responsibilities that entails.

There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

All empires fall in the end. New ones take their place. The cycle repeats.


It's been Europe for 2000 years, and it'll be Europe for the next 2000 years.

You don't think USA is Europe? Think a bit. It is.
 
2012-11-26 04:12:23 PM  

WGJ: If the Chinese really wanted to cripple the US, all it would have to do is seize all of the factories that are owned by US companies. The job creators have completely destroyed this country's ability to maintain itself in this scenario and we would be crippled in less than a month.


Except for all the US debt they've purchased becoming worthless that's a flawless idea. Oh and the removal of almost all foriegn investment seeing as it could be taken at any moment. Then you have the US and its allies locking out Chinese companies over seas. Then you have the whole WW3 thing to deal with which they are in no way capable of fighting. China doesn't want to deal with the US they want to flex nuts in their backyard not across the ocean.
 
2012-11-26 04:13:31 PM  

Misconduc: mjohnson71: baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

Twice in the 1990s Russian Akula and Typhoon class submarines were spotted less then a mile from an American carrier group, neither were detected until they surfaced to "show off" and be escorted away.


None of these "sub in the middle of the fleet" stories make any sense. There's no reason for a sub to surface to "show off." If you have penetrated the outer escorts, the last thing you want to tell the US Navy is that you really do have that ability. Better for them to be surprised when it really matters. And if you're the US you have no reason to make it clear to the sub you know where they are at all times. I'm guessing the reality is the destroyers just hung around to when the sub got within x miles and then made it clear that they were detected.
 
2012-11-26 04:21:59 PM  

dittybopper: This text is now purple: NephilimNexus: There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

The US has a number of advantages Britain never did -- primarily that it's not located on a rocky, resource-poor island and isn't dependent upon far-flung colonies under dubious administrative control.

Plus, we speak English, unlike the English.


Considering they invented the language they sure can't speak it very well.
 
2012-11-26 04:29:13 PM  
So,,, Did I miss the obvious ?

Plane isn't landing... but taking off... In the pics.... and not a whole lotta fuel doing it as well...
Like the theater ropes around the plane and the body guard.

I call shenanigans.
 
2012-11-26 04:31:01 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Two16: styckx: Just read up on the carrier itself. Pretty amazing actually and a hell of a deal for China.. That thing was built in Russia and never completed (like most things in Russia).. Then it just sat around with no engines or electronics for ever.. China basically got a empty shell for a bargain price.

So it's a "Romney" then?

The election is over. You can crawl back under your bridge.


Election is, in fact, over. Statement is still true.

/#100lbs test
 
2012-11-26 04:53:35 PM  

ronaprhys: Meh - it's probably a cheap copy that'll only work in the store. One they get it home, it'll stop working and contaminate their children with lead.


Scratch one frattop.
 
2012-11-26 04:59:43 PM  

dittybopper: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

[www.history.navy.mil image 700x500]
[warandgame.files.wordpress.com image 800x545]
[www.fas.org image 700x480]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

Naval aviators might disagree...

The naval aviators on this boat no doubt disagreed also:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 614x480]

Their job was to specifically go out to hunt and kill German U-boats, using things like air-dropped homing torpedoes. Nonetheless, their ship was sunk out from underneath them by a U-boat.


You guys seem to keep showing pictures of carriers from 60 years ago. Im fairly sure that our sub detection capabilities have gotten a bit better in 6 decades. Another bit to note...we spent several of those decades equipping and training to fight a nearly equal enemy...something that China is not.
 
2012-11-26 05:04:12 PM  

dittybopper: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

[www.history.navy.mil image 700x500]
[warandgame.files.wordpress.com image 800x545]
[www.fas.org image 700x480]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

Naval aviators might disagree...

The naval aviators on this boat no doubt disagreed also:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 614x480]

Their job was to specifically go out to hunt and kill German U-boats, using things like air-dropped homing torpedoes. Nonetheless, their ship was sunk out from underneath them by a U-boat.


Damn, that's a tiny deck!
 
2012-11-26 05:09:28 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: You guys seem to keep showing pictures of carriers from 60 years ago. Im fairly sure that our sub detection capabilities have gotten a bit better in 6 decades. Another bit to note...we spent several of those decades equipping and training to fight a nearly equal enemy...something that China is not.


Don't bother, he'll just post more pictures of world war II carriers and declare himself right.
 
2012-11-26 05:10:40 PM  

Gone In 26 Minutes: darch: I think I might have to play that game later. If you invest in salvage corvettes early in the single player campaign, you can end up with a mass of more than a hundred ion cannon frigates in a sphere of death formation. Quite entertaining.

lolwut?

[Homeworld]


Tried that but found the learning curve rather steep, probably give it another try when I have more time to invest in learning the nuances of the game.

Sasquach: Are there any good (but still reasonably simple) sub games out there anymore?


i.imgur.com
If you want modern this one is decent (Sonalysts conducts sonar research for the USN), but I highly recommend installing one of the community patches that make it more stable. Not very popular so it can be found in the $10 game section at Wal-Mart and so on.
 
2012-11-26 05:40:58 PM  
s1.reutersmedia.net
"Home-grown J-15" from TFA

www.rusarmy.com
Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker launching from the Admiral Kusnetsov Ca. 1998 

Congrats, China. You're now officially 15 years behind the times.
 
2012-11-26 05:56:02 PM  
Those who are pooh-poohing China's initial steps into aircraft carrier operations are making a huge mistake. They are rapidly learning what it take to operate carriers and their aircraft. In 20 years, they'll have at least 5 operational carriers and a full complement of quality aircraft to fly on them. Why shouldn't they? With a trade surplus on the order of $25B per month, they could afford to build one every other week if they decide to do so.

Why are they doing it? I doubt it's simply to secure oil supplies as some have suggested. They can just buy that; as can anyone else. Like the USA, they'll use their carrier forces to apply pressure wherever they feel they need to; regionally at first and later globally. If I were going to bet on a specific purpose for the carriers it would be Taiwan; which they very much want. 20 to 50 years from now they're going to send a large naval force to Taiwan and say to the world "We're taking this. You might be able to stop us but are you prepared to pay the price?"
 
2012-11-26 06:19:20 PM  

skullkrusher: I didn't know Chinese people rolled their r's. "Aircrraft Carrier" is hard to say. Stupid Mandarin.


Actually, it's a double l, so it's "ailcllaft". Then, if spoken by a Mexican, the double l becomes an i becoming "ailciaft".
 
2012-11-26 06:28:15 PM  

GoSlash27: Congrats, China. You're now officially 15 years behind the times.


i.imgur.com
36 years behind the times, and a 95-0 air to air record.
 
2012-11-26 06:38:21 PM  

rv4-farker: they'll have at least 5 operational carriers and a full complement of quality aircraft to fly on them


They will have 5 operation carriers based on a thirty year old carrier platform they reverse engineered from the Russians. And they will not have quality planes. They'll have 40 year old aircraft which were illegally copied off the Russians (HAHEHEH. TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY, EH?) which the latest generation of US Navy Fighters employed TODAY were built specifically to kill in the late 80s.
 
2012-11-26 06:56:48 PM  
I was very satisfied with Reuters' slideshow.
 
2012-11-26 06:59:12 PM  

BronyMedic: rv4-farker: they'll have at least 5 operational carriers and a full complement of quality aircraft to fly on them

They will have 5 operation carriers based on a thirty year old carrier platform they reverse engineered from the Russians. And they will not have quality planes. They'll have 40 year old aircraft which were illegally copied off the Russians (HAHEHEH. TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY, EH?) which the latest generation of US Navy Fighters employed TODAY were built specifically to kill in the late 80s.


And more importantly, no way to replenish them underway. Also no way to operate their aircraft in IFR/ night conditions. There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.
 
2012-11-26 07:59:56 PM  
Please do not taunt billions of Chinese males into a who's military peener is bigger contest, for cryin out loud.
 
2012-11-26 08:47:55 PM  
"Assumption is the mother of all fark-ups". More specifically, underestimating ones adversary is the quickest way to lose a contest.

BronyMedic: rv4-farker: they'll have at least 5 operational carriers and a full complement of quality aircraft to fly on them

They will have 5 operation carriers based on a thirty year old carrier platform they reverse engineered from the Russians. And they will not have quality planes. They'll have 40 year old aircraft which were illegally copied off the Russians (HAHEHEH. TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY, EH?) which the latest generation of US Navy Fighters employed TODAY were built specifically to kill in the late 80s.


Why would you assume they're going to base their own carrier designs on the Russian ship they have? They're just using that ship to learn about carrier operations. When they start building their own ships they'll be very good and will incorporate the best ideas from around the world. Maybe, at first, not quite on a par with the best of what the USA has to offer but still formidable weapon systems. Same with the aircraft, they've taken a low-cost, low-risk approach by copying Russian planes. Meanwhile, away from the news headlines, they're working on their own designs. They're not building some of the highest performance supercomputers for nothing.

GoSlash27: And more importantly, no way to replenish them underway. Also no way to operate their aircraft in IFR/ night conditions. There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.


Apparently, since there haven't been any news articles about Chinese development of tankers and other carrier group support vessels, it means that no one there has thought of these issues. And 20 years from now, they're going to launch a carrier full of airplanes into the wide ocean and say "Oops. Why didn't anyone tell me we couldn't operate these things in clouds and darkness?"

Such assumptions are either willfully ignorant rationalizations to avoid dealing with a difficult problem or just plain racism.
 
2012-11-26 09:14:27 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: dittybopper: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

[www.history.navy.mil image 700x500]
[warandgame.files.wordpress.com image 800x545]
[www.fas.org image 700x480]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

Naval aviators might disagree...

The naval aviators on this boat no doubt disagreed also:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 614x480]

Their job was to specifically go out to hunt and kill German U-boats, using things like air-dropped homing torpedoes. Nonetheless, their ship was sunk out from underneath them by a U-boat.

You guys seem to keep showing pictures of carriers from 60 years ago. Im fairly sure that our sub detection capabilities have gotten a bit better in 6 decades. Another bit to note...we spent several of those decades equipping and training to fight a nearly equal enemy...something that China is not.


Don't forget that while sub detection has gotten better over the last sixty years, so have the subs. If anything, carriers are more vulnerable. Back in 1944 a U-boat had limited underwater endurance, it was very slow underwater (max 7 knots, normal cruise 3 knots), and they totally overwhelmed by aerial assault. The Allies even had an air dropped antisubmarine homin torpedo.

Since then, even conventional subs have 20+ knot underwater speeds, AIP systems allow them to travel silently for weeks, and sub sonar is better by leaps and bounds over what it was in WWII.

In other words, it balances out, and WWII ASW is the only real large scale naval at where subs fought carriers. I think it would be stupid to ignore the lessons just because it was a few decades ago.
 
2012-11-26 09:16:52 PM  

GoSlash27: There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.


The British and French might take offense to that remark. Granted their carriers aren't fully on our level, but the British would have been boned without theirs during the Falklands War, and the de Gaulle put in a stellar performance during Libya.
 
2012-11-26 09:45:10 PM  

Gleeman: GoSlash27: There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.

The British and French might take offense to that remark. Granted their carriers aren't fully on our level, but the British would have been boned without theirs during the Falklands War, and the de Gaulle put in a stellar performance during Libya.

The British force contingent in the Falklands operated from a civilian container ship and they didn't stick around. Mostly because the Argentinians sunk it.
And the DeGaulle did a fine job... In their back yard.

My point is that it's one thing to land a plane on a boat, but quite another to take a boatload of airplanes anywhere on the globe and use it as an instrument of war. It took us decades to figure it out, and we're still the only ones that can do it.
 
2012-11-26 10:03:16 PM  

GoSlash27: Gleeman: GoSlash27: There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.

The British and French might take offense to that remark. Granted their carriers aren't fully on our level, but the British would have been boned without theirs during the Falklands War, and the de Gaulle put in a stellar performance during Libya.
The British force contingent in the Falklands operated from a civilian container ship and they didn't stick around. Mostly because the Argentinians sunk it.
And the DeGaulle did a fine job... In their back yard.

My point is that it's one thing to land a plane on a boat, but quite another to take a boatload of airplanes anywhere on the globe and use it as an instrument of war. It took us decades to figure it out, and we're still the only ones that can do it.


EXACTLY.. so why are there all these pivoting and projecting about this entire drama? It seems like Americans are the only one butthurting and using insane strawmen arguments about the 'lameness' etc of this ship, it's aircraft etc...
hmm almost reminds of a certain political party running up to the election.

Last I check PLAN never said anything about the ship operational, ready to conduct serious flight operations nor have they said anything about challenging USN or heck they never even bragged about their accomplishments but yet it is always the Americans who like to project and wax discontent.
 
2012-11-26 11:34:45 PM  
China's biggest goal isn't conflict with the United States right now, it's about establishing supremacy in Asia, especially regarding resources and border disputes. Every single country with the exceptions of North Korea and Cambodia are afraid of the Chinese due to the belligerent way they're pressing their territorial claims- whether it's against the Vietnamese and Filipinos in the South China Sea or the Japanese with the Senkaku islands. Even the Indian government has registered complaints with Beijing over a new passport which shows disputed Indian territories as "part of China."

That's always the phrase the CPC goes to, "part of China," as a way to express legitimacy and ownership. The US should be very, very concerned with increasing Chinese belligerence- not out of any "yellow peril" sense of jingoism or cold war fears, but because of the very devious and untrustworthy way the CPC does business in China. Taiwan has been an ally for decades- because DC can trust a democratic government with a vested interest in being friendly to the US.

The authoritarian, cliquish, and frankly neurotic Beijing government is only afraid of one thing- losing power. That's why Xi Jinping talked about corruption so much in his Party Congress speech- the Party is afraid of turning into the Kuomintang of the 40s and 50s and losing the support of the people, and if they can't rein in corruption or the economy slows down, it's a sure bet the sand will shift beneath their feet.

I live in mainland China and most of the people I talk to will quietly say, "I love my country but I hate my government." They want China to be strong, but they want a chance to help run their country- and not just quietly go along with what the Party tells them to do.
 
2012-11-27 04:21:02 AM  

styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.


It looks more like a SU-33.

Aircraft designs have been converging for a while because they're all subject to the same set of physical laws.
 
2012-11-27 04:30:52 AM  

GoSlash27: My point is that it's one thing to land a plane on a boat, but quite another to take a boatload of airplanes anywhere on the globe and use it as an instrument of war. It took us decades to figure it out, and we're still the only ones that can do it.


That's because an aircraft carrier by itself is pretty helpless. It only works as one piece in a larger unified battle group. The costs of a single carrier are insane; those for a battlegroup are astronomical, and you're lucky if you can keep it at sea 1/3 or 1/2 the time... so if you want a CVBG at sea year round you need to have another one or two back in port getting refit.
 
2012-11-27 06:14:13 AM  

clyph: styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.

It looks more like a SU-33.

Aircraft designs have been converging for a while because they're all subject to the same set of physical laws.


... and physical spies.
 
2012-11-27 07:13:58 AM  

Kuroutesshin: China's biggest goal isn't conflict with the United States right now, it's about establishing supremacy in Asia, especially regarding resources and border disputes. Every single country with the exceptions of North Korea and Cambodia are afraid of the Chinese due to the belligerent way they're pressing their territorial claims- whether it's against the Vietnamese and Filipinos in the South China Sea or the Japanese with the Senkaku islands. Even the Indian government has registered complaints with Beijing over a new passport which shows disputed Indian territories as "part of China."

That's always the phrase the CPC goes to, "part of China," as a way to express legitimacy and ownership. The US should be very, very concerned with increasing Chinese belligerence- not out of any "yellow peril" sense of jingoism or cold war fears, but because of the very devious and untrustworthy way the CPC does business in China. Taiwan has been an ally for decades- because DC can trust a democratic government with a vested interest in being friendly to the US.

The authoritarian, cliquish, and frankly neurotic Beijing government is only afraid of one thing- losing power. That's why Xi Jinping talked about corruption so much in his Party Congress speech- the Party is afraid of turning into the Kuomintang of the 40s and 50s and losing the support of the people, and if they can't rein in corruption or the economy slows down, it's a sure bet the sand will shift beneath their feet.

I live in mainland China and most of the people I talk to will quietly say, "I love my country but I hate my government." They want China to be strong, but they want a chance to help run their country- and not just quietly go along with what the Party tells them to do.


Eloquently said.
 
2012-11-27 08:00:39 AM  

Kuroutesshin: China's biggest goal isn't conflict with the United States right now, it's about establishing supremacy in Asia, especially regarding resources and border disputes. Every single country with the exceptions of North Korea and Cambodia are afraid of the Chinese due to the belligerent way they're pressing their territorial claims- whether it's against the Vietnamese and Filipinos in the South China Sea or the Japanese with the Senkaku islands. Even the Indian government has registered complaints with Beijing over a new passport which shows disputed Indian territories as "part of China."

That's always the phrase the CPC goes to, "part of China," as a way to express legitimacy and ownership. The US should be very, very concerned with increasing Chinese belligerence- not out of any "yellow peril" sense of jingoism or cold war fears, but because of the very devious and untrustworthy way the CPC does business in China. Taiwan has been an ally for decades- because DC can trust a democratic government with a vested interest in being friendly to the US.

The authoritarian, cliquish, and frankly neurotic Beijing government is only afraid of one thing- losing power. That's why Xi Jinping talked about corruption so much in his Party Congress speech- the Party is afraid of turning into the Kuomintang of the 40s and 50s and losing the support of the people, and if they can't rein in corruption or the economy slows down, it's a sure bet the sand will shift beneath their feet.

I live in mainland China and most of the people I talk to will quietly say, "I love my country but I hate my government." They want China to be strong, but they want a chance to help run their country- and not just quietly go along with what the Party tells them to do.


/Smart Buttoned
 
2012-11-27 08:50:17 AM  

dittybopper:Eloquently said.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: /Smart Buttoned


Yay! That degree in Asian history is finally paying off!
 
2012-11-27 09:11:38 AM  

dead: ... and physical spies.


Not as much as you'd think as it applies to external appearances. Engines, avionics, weapons... that's a different story.
 
2012-11-27 11:10:26 AM  

Kuroutesshin: dittybopper:Eloquently said.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: /Smart Buttoned

Yay! That degree in Asian history is finally paying off!


Here is another thing to consider, and a possible reason for the PRC to be interested in developing a blue water navy:

For the foreseeable future, the country that controls the sea controls not only China's energy supply (from the Middle East and elsewhere) but its food supply as well.

Apparently, the PRC is increasingly relying on imports to feed its population.
 
2012-11-27 12:43:25 PM  

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: NOBODY has the ability to make an offensive move against the USA. Nobody.
Which makes a scenario of being invaded like the movie Red Dawn a joke.
[www.globalsecurity.org image 850x1076]


God Bless you, farker
 
2012-11-27 01:06:06 PM  
I forgot to mention, anyone saying that the J-15 looks a lot like the F-15 should be reminded that the F-15 looks suspiciously like the MiG-25.
 
2012-11-27 01:08:23 PM  
Kuroutesshin: China's biggest goal isn't conflict with the United States right now, it's about establishing supremacy in Asia, especially regarding resources and border disputes.............(cont) I live in mainland China and most of the people I talk to will quietly say, "I love my country but I hate my government." They want China to be strong, but they want a chance to help run their country- and not just quietly go along with what the Party tells them to do.

well put! Not to get on my soapbox and I would say that the very greatest weapon the US has against China isnt its military, but on the principle with which it was founded on, freedom. Freedom is a very real, and very powerful psychological weapon, and is our strongest force multiplier. So many people hate us for it, because those in the lead are afraid of it, because they know their "regimes" would collapse with it. Say what you want about the direction of America, but we will always be free. We will not risk the death of millions with an all out war with China, we will simply prey on the biggest fears of the Chinese gov't and that is to overwhelm its people with our culture, they are already massive reports of this fear coming from alternative news outlets. This is why so many things are restricted, they dont want the people having power, because when the few rule the many, you keep the few ignorant. This is how we beat the Russians, overwhelm them with our culture and capitalism and watch the corruption cripple them from within, we are a selfish species that has survived through this very instinct.

But, never underestimate any gov't when faced with the loss of power as evidenced by what we are seeing now in Syria, and look how weak (relatively speaking) they are compared to us.

Can of worms
 
2012-11-27 01:11:55 PM  
note to self, read a long post before you post it, grammar nazi, please feel free to kill my paragraph
 
Displayed 200 of 200 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report