par13del wrote:

Amazing how fast they were able to resolve any issues with EMALS.....
Awaiting their testing of the especially aircraft operations.

Avatar2go wrote:

par13del wrote:

Amazing how fast they were able to resolve any issues with EMALS.....
Awaiting their testing of the especially aircraft operations.

They have yet to embark an air wing and qualify their version of EMALS. That is probably 2 years away yet. They may have learned from the early US experience with EMALS, but we may never know. Unlike the US where program problems are publicly evaluated by GAO and the various IG's, then trumpeted by the media, the Chinese system is cloaked in secrecy.

keesje wrote:

It's somehow comforting to downplay new rival/ enemy's I guess.

And if we are clearly leapfrogged, look the other way or state it's really propaganda, unfair.


https://mobile.twitter.com/alvinfoo/sta ... 1181184005

johns624 wrote:

keesje wrote:

It's somehow comforting to downplay new rival/ enemy's I guess.

And if we are clearly leapfrogged, look the other way or state it's really propaganda, unfair.


https://mobile.twitter.com/alvinfoo/sta ... 1181184005

Nobody is downplaying anything. We're just not being Chicken Little. Also, what their HSR network is has no relation to their military capabilities...apples and oranges.

par13del wrote:

On the other hand, when you have strong central government this is what you can do, how is this any different from the infrastructure put in place in Europe, I am sure they served as the Chinese template.

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

On the other hand, when you have strong central government this is what you can do, how is this any different from the infrastructure put in place in Europe, I am sure they served as the Chinese template.

There's infrastructure, then there's infrastructures.

Have never been to China, but for some reason, I have the suspicious feeling that Mainland Chinese infrastructure are not as robust as say Taiwan or Singapor or Europe.

bt

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

Nicoeddf wrote:

I have been. At least a dozen times. You are mistaken.

bikerthai wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

My guess is environmental protection for the incomplete EMALS system. Keeps workers nice and dry while they finish installing the system.


bt

bikerthai wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

My guess is environmental protection for the incomplete EMALS system. Keeps workers nice and dry while they finish installing the system.

Nicoeddf wrote:

I have been. At least a dozen times. You are mistaken.

I will defer to your experience. Did you travel much beyond the big metro area?

bt

Nicoeddf wrote:

Still, dictatorships and or one-party-governments tend to be good in creating affordable.....

bikerthai wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

My guess is environmental protection for the incomplete EMALS system. Keeps workers nice and dry while they finish installing the system.

Nicoeddf wrote:

I have been. At least a dozen times. You are mistaken.

bikerthai wrote:

I will defer to your experience. Did you travel much beyond the big metro area?

bt

william wrote:

https://apnews.com/article/beijing-china-shanghai-government-and-politics-6ce51d1901b3a5658cc9ef7e62b65000

"BEIJING (AP) — Beijing launched a new-generation aircraft carrier Friday, the first such ship to be both designed and built in China, in a milestone as it seeks to extend the range and power of its navy.

The Type 003 carrier christened Fujian left its drydock at a shipyard outside Shanghai in the morning and tied up at a nearby pier, state media reports said.

State broadcaster CCTV showed assembled navy personnel standing beneath the massive ship as water jets sprayed over its deck, multi-colored streamers flew and colorful smoke was released.

Equipped with the latest weaponry and aircraft-launch technology, the Type 003 ship’s capabilities are thought to rival those of Western carriers, as Beijing seeks to turn its navy, already the world’s largest, into a multi-carrier force."

Built their own from the ground up.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war

johns624 wrote:

keesje wrote:

It's somehow comforting to downplay new rival/ enemy's I guess.

And if we are clearly leapfrogged, look the other way or state it's really propaganda, unfair.


https://mobile.twitter.com/alvinfoo/sta ... 1181184005

Nobody is downplaying anything. We're just not being Chicken Little. Also, what their HSR network is has no relation to their military capabilities...apples and oranges.

GDB wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.

Stalin wanted to post WW2 but Khrushchev canceled the project, both ships and aircraft.

It would be another 30 years before the next project, I don’t count the Kiev Class in the 70’s with their near useless Yak-36, those ships main armament were their ASM’s and SAM’s, even the next class had elements of these too and are poor carriers, having serious limits on the payloads of the aircraft.
I get the impression that the Soviet, now Russian navy are still trying to live down that unfortunate expedition to the other side of the world early in the last century.

Kiwirob wrote:

The Chinese shipbuilding industry is vastly superior to the US industry. USS Ford took 8 years to build, Fijian 6. The type 004 CVN is allegedly already laid down for a 2024 launch.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The Chinese shipbuilding industry is vastly superior to the US industry. USS Ford took 8 years to build, Fijian 6. The type 004 CVN is allegedly already laid down for a 2024 launch.

How many years before it's part of the fleet on a regular basis, though?

Kiwirob wrote:

Everyone talks about the USN being well versed in naval warfare, better than everyone else, but lets face it the USN hasn't had a fleet on fleet naval confrontation since 1945,

bikerthai wrote:

The Ukraine war has also showed me something about exercises beyond the shooting part.

Large scale excersise also allows you to work out logistics. And we have seen how logistics can turn the tide of a battle.

That is something the Chinese will need to practice across their whole fleet. Not just with a couple of carriers.

bt

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945,

Aesma wrote:

Are there missile tactics developed to defeat point defense, for example shooting several missiles simultaneously at a ship, some sea skimming, some coming from the top ? I would guess yes.

Aesma wrote:

I
I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist.

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

bikerthai wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945,

Carriers were useful during the Viernam war and would be usefull again if China gets in a tit for tat with Vietnam again.

Unless of course if the US decides to arm Vietnam like it is doing in Ukraine.

bt

A101 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

Well, the difference here is that the US has over 80 years of operational experience in carrier warfare and continues to evolve its tactics, whereas China is the new boy in the game. With a mixed fleet of carriers, the logistics is going to be a burden for quite a few years to the Chinese its going to take 10-15 years to become proficient in carrier tactics. I am not saying the Chinese cannot hurt the Americans, but I still believe the advantage is with the USN

In regards to satellites this is going to come down to the level of intensity of the campaign, all the major players have ASAT capability from missiles to emerging ground base laser to blind. Once in the blind for either side this is where the US will have the advantage.

But I do agree the role of the submarine will be of crucial importance just as in WWII for the Germans in nearly chocking the UK to the USN against the IJN, which is why the RAN place utmost importance on SSN and the race to build continually.

Whist the Chinese have shown that they can build faster in the current environment that is coming down to policy of the CCP to match the USN in numbers. What we haven’t seen is the ability to repair refit and maintain such a large fleet over the years even the US struggles in this area as it is huge and more complex than churning them out of a production line.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

Well, the difference here is that the US has over 80 years of operational experience in carrier warfare and continues to evolve its tactics, whereas China is the new boy in the game. With a mixed fleet of carriers, the logistics is going to be a burden for quite a few years to the Chinese its going to take 10-15 years to become proficient in carrier tactics. I am not saying the Chinese cannot hurt the Americans, but I still believe the advantage is with the USN
In regards to satellites this is going to come down to the level of intensity of the campaign, all the major players have ASAT capability from missiles to emerging ground base laser to blind. Once in the blind for either side this is where the US will have the advantage.
But I do agree the role of the submarine will be of crucial importance just as in WWII for the Germans in nearly chocking the UK to the USN against the IJN, which is why the RAN place utmost importance on SSN and the race to build continually.
Whist the Chinese have shown that they can build faster in the current environment that is coming down to policy of the CCP to match the USN in numbers. What we haven’t seen is the ability to repair refit and maintain such a large fleet over the years even the US struggles in this area as it is huge and more complex than churning them out of a production line.

Over 80 year with no fleet on fleet confrontations, it's easy to bomb Middle Eastern nations who can't defend themselves; as the Russians have found out fighting someone on near technical parity is a different ballgame. Who are you to say the Chinese don't have the ability to get up to speed quickly and efficiently? You have no idea what they are capable off all you can do is make assumptions.

Kiwirob wrote:

The Chinese have one of the largest vessel refit and repair operations in the world, to say they can't maintain there fleet is your anti Chinese bias showing. IMO the US suffers because they have let their shipbuilding industry run down, they don't have enough people in the industry.

GDB wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I couldn't find the propulsion specs on this carrier, is it unknown ? I see turbines, boilers, but also electric. For EMALS don't you need tons of electricity ?

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

Russia might not be the best example, but they lost several ships including a flagship, against a country with no navy and no control of its airspace.

My thinking also applies to China, and the invasion of Taiwan in particular. I would expect Taiwan to have bought and built thousands upon thousands of missiles to shoot at any invading navy and air force.

Are there missile tactics developed to defeat point defense, for example shooting several missiles simultaneously at a ship, some sea skimming, some coming from the top ? I would guess yes.

It’s diesel meaning using those EMALS then the carrier will replenishments at sea will be happening every day and for all the stated wonders of the Chinese shipbuilding they have a small fleet of auxiliaries.
Dodgy design decision number one? That’s already restricted it’s range.
I know some refuse to consider anything but CATOBAR as carrier aviation (not invented here syndrome?) but it’s not 80 since peer on near peer (the latter had a large nearby Air Force), it’s 40 years.

I know some get all excited when news and better yet a periscope picture of a US carrier from a RAN, or a leased Swedish or whoever’s submarine in an exercise.
That’s the operative word, exercise, the Swedish sub was leased by the USN for this purpose, to test against threats like that.
Which does not sound like a service sure they will only ever be ‘bombing Mid East nations who cannot fire back’.
They are training heavily for peer on peer, are their likely opponents? We know one has poorly trained and motivated crews, including naval ones.

In Ukraine we are seeing, this includes ship launched missiles, a failure rate of some 40%, this includes more modern missiles, that’s a number last associated with early generation AAM’s in the 60’s,
And what surrounds a US carrier group? A bunch of AD oriented Destroyers with large missile loads and all vessels with shorter ranged SAMs and CIWS.
As well as a fleet of ASW choppers.
There is a reason why the RN, in the last few months, announced the fitting of extra SeaCeptor SAM’s, allowing standardization on the Aster 30, while the ships are also upgraded with a BMD capability.

Of course you could also write to the defence ministries and Navies of the US, France, UK, Italy, China, Japan and tell them they are wrong about carriers because of........stuff?
(I would remind that tanks have been written off as out of date, almost since their first use, a better analogy I know is the Battleship, however they were range limited by their guns which had limits, against ships the range of their fire control, in other words, the horizon, two things that carriers competently operated don’t suffer from).

The Battle of Midway and other pacific war engagements were not the only ones, many in particular other areas like the Mediterranean had carriers in range of large land based air forces.
In 1991 the Coalition faced, on paper at least, a very large and powerful Air Force, with recent combat experience, backed up by large SAM networks, US carrier aviation was there on day one along with the land based aircraft and Tomahawks.
Turns out the other side had the training doctrine of one of the current assumed major threats.
There seems to be a correlation between modern autocratic regimes with big power ambitions being poor on the very things the USN and NATO excel in, a lot of varied training including in not only all arms but multi national operations.

Kiwirob wrote:

In the South China Sea with massive Chinese air support and missile batteries plus small sneaky subs in fairly shallow waters a carrier with out a liability wouldn't it?`

N14AZ wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

My guess is environmental protection for the incomplete EMALS system. Keeps workers nice and dry while they finish installing the system.

Thank you for your feedback.

Nicoeddf wrote:

I have been. At least a dozen times. You are mistaken.

bikerthai wrote:

I will defer to your experience. Did you travel much beyond the big metro area?

bt

Before Covid I used to travel all over China, from South China close to Vietnam to North China close to the Russian border. I use German long distance trains almost on a daily basis. I SWEAR TO YOU, THEIR RAILWAY SYSTEM WORKS WAY BETTER THAN OUR OLD ONE DOES.

Ok, it’s literally brand new whereas ours is old. But right now their system is superior.

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well, the difference here is that the US has over 80 years of operational experience in carrier warfare and continues to evolve its tactics, whereas China is the new boy in the game. With a mixed fleet of carriers, the logistics is going to be a burden for quite a few years to the Chinese its going to take 10-15 years to become proficient in carrier tactics. I am not saying the Chinese cannot hurt the Americans, but I still believe the advantage is with the USN
In regards to satellites this is going to come down to the level of intensity of the campaign, all the major players have ASAT capability from missiles to emerging ground base laser to blind. Once in the blind for either side this is where the US will have the advantage.
But I do agree the role of the submarine will be of crucial importance just as in WWII for the Germans in nearly chocking the UK to the USN against the IJN, which is why the RAN place utmost importance on SSN and the race to build continually.
Whist the Chinese have shown that they can build faster in the current environment that is coming down to policy of the CCP to match the USN in numbers. What we haven’t seen is the ability to repair refit and maintain such a large fleet over the years even the US struggles in this area as it is huge and more complex than churning them out of a production line.

Over 80 year with no fleet on fleet confrontations, it's easy to bomb Middle Eastern nations who can't defend themselves; as the Russians have found out fighting someone on near technical parity is a different ballgame. Who are you to say the Chinese don't have the ability to get up to speed quickly and efficiently? You have no idea what they are capable off all you can do is make assumptions.

LOL; you are making assumptions yourself on the collective training that the USN does across the maritime spectrum and the ability of the Chinese.

I have acknowledged that China is out performing building new ships due to the CCP policy on shipbuilding. Because the PLAN fleet is relatively young

I don’t think anyone in their right mind would use the Russian example on how the US will fight and support a force in the field against a peer-on-peer confrontation. The logistics comparison between the RF and the US is not comparable you can see how vast the log train is in how they brought in equipment over the last 50 years of operations across the globe, as I said the Chinese are no where near that level of C&C in the short term it takes years to build that level of competence.

Kiwirob wrote:

The Chinese have one of the largest vessel refit and repair operations in the world, to say they can't maintain there fleet is your anti Chinese bias showing. IMO the US suffers because they have let their shipbuilding industry run down, they don't have enough people in the industry.

I have acknowledged that China is outperforming the US in building new ships due to the CCP policy on shipbuilding. I didn’t say they cannot maintain their fleet; I am questioning their capacity to do so at a scale of the new fleet, due to fact the fleet is quite young I don’t believe they have ability to generate the kind of repair capacity that the US Navy has currently at the moment. Shipbuilding to ship repair across such an large expanded fleet is different to keeping them combat ready as the fleet ages.

ShanghaiNoon wrote:

The newer lines in China are superior but the older trains are showing their age, moreso than the ones in Europe of the same age. The Beijing-Tianjin railway feels old. The Shanghai Maglev is so dilapidated that I'm not sure I would even want to take it anymore.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

We are told the new UK ones are to "project power" - whatever that means.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.

The UK and France have carriers but are not (as far as I know) "planning on going to war". We are told the new UK ones are to "project power" - whatever that means.