• China starts building its second aircraft carrier
    47 replies, posted
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/2_j7.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/19/us-china-carrier-idUSBREA0I02C20140119[/url] [quote]China is building its second aircraft carrier, which is expected to take six years, and the country aims to have at least four such ships, Chinese and Hong Kong media reports said on Sunday. After two decades of double-digit increases in the military budget, China's admirals plan to develop a full blue-water navy capable of defending growing economic interests as well as disputed territory in the South and East China Seas. The country's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning - a Soviet-era ship bought from Ukraine in 1998 and re-fitted in a Chinese shipyard - has long been a symbol of China's naval build-up. Successfully operating the 60,000-tonne Liaoning is the first step in what state media and some military experts believe will be the deployment of locally built carriers by 2020. In comments carried on Chinese news websites, Wang Min, the Communist Party boss of the northeastern province of Liaoning, where the first carrier is based, said the second carrier was being built in the port city of Dalian. Its construction would take about six years, and in future China would have a fleet of at least four carriers, Wang told members of the province's legislature on Saturday, the reports added.[/quote]
China will grow larger
[QUOTE=Complifused;43592139]China will grow larger[/QUOTE] Too bad their penises won't! [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Country bashing" - GunFox))[/highlight]
Don't know why you'd bother really, carriers are just one big 'sink-me with a missile please' sign. e: especially with the types they're building and their prospects for use.
I didn't realize that aircraft carriers take that long to build.
You're basically building a floating city.
It's all called balance of power in pacific. For many decades US has dominated the power balance in pacific. Now China is just catching up.
[QUOTE=Complifused;43592139]China will grow larger[/QUOTE] damnit I came in here just to post that.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;43592417]It's all called balance of power in pacific. For many decades US has dominated the power balance in pacific. Now China is just catching up.[/QUOTE] Until their demographic crisis catches up with them. He he he
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;43592417]It's all called balance of power in pacific. For many decades US has dominated the power balance in pacific. Now China is just catching up.[/QUOTE] These might be of significant use of them for their [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(China)"]String of Pearls[/URL] initiative. If they're capable of doing this and not be at the expense of any infrastructure development for the people's benefit, then I don't see the problem with it because these also have potential for rapid deployment on humanitarian missions.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;43592417]It's all called balance of power in pacific. For many decades US has dominated the power balance in pacific. Now China is just catching up.[/QUOTE] Not really. They're still merely building pocket carriers and don't forget that US carriers tend to hae wholebattlegroups around them as well.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;43592417]It's all called balance of power in pacific. For many decades US has dominated the power balance in pacific. Now China is just catching up.[/QUOTE] Not that hard, considering the US is not concentrating all its aircraft carriers on the Pacific. Then again, the US has 19 carriers, with 4 more coming up, and work under a very different doctrine. China has a lot to catch up. And let's not go into logistics.
For comparison, the US has 10 in active service, with 1 being actively constructed, and 2 in pre-construction phases. [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=T553412;43592651]Not that hard, considering the US is not concentrating all its aircraft carriers on the Pacific. Then again, the US has 19 carriers, with 4 more coming up, and work under a very different doctrine. China has a lot to catch up. And let's not go into logistics.[/QUOTE] Where did you find them having 19 aircraft carriers with 4 more "coming up" info from?
[QUOTE]...capable of defending growing economic interests...[/QUOTE] But what about the rights and freedom of Chinese people 20 000 km away from their borders ?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43592173]Don't know why you'd bother really, carriers are just one big 'sink-me with a missile please' sign. e: especially with the types they're building and their prospects for use.[/QUOTE] Um what There's a reason the aircraft carrier replaced the battleship
It will look real nice when its done.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;43593340]Um what There's a reason the aircraft carrier replaced the battleship[/QUOTE] I wish it never did. There's something really charming about a heavy, metal plate-covered behemoth with dozens of heavy cannons on it that fire in a symphony.
[QUOTE=maxumym;43594289]I wish it never did. There's something really charming about a heavy, metal plate-covered behemoth with dozens of heavy cannons on it that fire in a symphony.[/QUOTE] they make fantastic artificial reefs
[QUOTE=maxumym;43594289]I wish it never did. There's something really charming about a heavy, metal plate-covered behemoth with dozens of heavy cannons on it that fire in a symphony.[/QUOTE] Battleships are just so expensive, and with modern missile technology they're useless, why spend tons a big ship when you can just arm a smaller ship with a lot of missiles.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43594345]Battleships are just so expensive, and with modern missile technology they're useless, why spend tons a big ship when you can just arm a smaller ship with a lot of missiles.[/QUOTE] cas with a big one you can sit 2-4 nuclear reactors in it and use those to power lasers which shoot down the missles? anyway these are only half the size of the Ford class aircraft carrier, meaning they can project power but there are obvous deficits, they cannot cross the ocean without resupply, they are gas-fired, and while they have the capability to show force in the pacific, theres so many aircraft bases throughout the pacific their advantage is very low
[QUOTE=T553412;43592651]Not that hard, considering the US is not concentrating all its aircraft carriers on the Pacific. Then again, the US has 19 carriers, with 4 more coming up, and work under a very different doctrine. China has a lot to catch up. And let's not go into logistics.[/QUOTE] Uhm there are 10 active carriers in the us navy, with 3 in construction. Don't know where you got 19 from.
i'm getting British-German Dreadnought vibes from this... I wish we didn't have to rely on China so much for it's place as the world's factory, it's uneasy knowing they want to push their interests in the Pacific and are building up their forces etc but that's just me and I could be totally wrong, just a thought
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43592173]Don't know why you'd bother really, carriers are just one big 'sink-me with a missile please' sign. e: especially with the types they're building and their prospects for use.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.aviation-central.com/1940-1945/images/aeg5d-br.jpg[/img] KO'd [img]http://www.chuckhawks.com/bismark.jpg[/img] This.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;43597179][img]http://www.aviation-central.com/1940-1945/images/aeg5d-br.jpg[/img] KO'd [img]http://www.chuckhawks.com/bismark.jpg[/img] This.[/QUOTE] Yeah, battleships might as well just have a huge neon sign over them saying "sink me"
[QUOTE=lifehole;43592654]Where did you find them having 19 aircraft carriers with 4 more "coming up" info from?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=spaceghostx;43596446]Uhm there are 10 active carriers in the us navy, with 3 in construction. Don't know where you got 19 from.[/QUOTE] I'm also counting the Tarawa and Wasp amphibious assault ships, since they can also operate Harriers. And besides, helicopters still count as aircraft.
[QUOTE=lifehole;43592654]For comparison, the US has 10 in active service, with 1 being actively constructed, and 2 in pre-construction phases. [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] Where did you find them having 19 aircraft carriers with 4 more "coming up" info from?[/QUOTE] I'm thinking he's counting the LHDs/LHAs as carriers, which is true to a point, but their air-complement isn't nearly the same as a fleet carrier. [b]Edit[/b] Derp, ninja'd.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43592173]Don't know why you'd bother really, carriers are just one big 'sink-me with a missile please' sign. e: especially with the types they're building and their prospects for use.[/QUOTE] lolwhat When carriers are sent out, they're not just sending a lone carrier to go and do shit. They send out an entire carrier [b]group[/b]. Now, the ships in that group vary, but most of them carry dozens of AAA, anti missile, and missile intercept munitions to [b]protect[/b] the carrier. Those munitions make sure that no missiles or enemy aircraft get within range of the carrier. And they do a damn fine job of it. Even if a carrier finds itself alone without any defense frigates, it's got it's own defense systems and countermeasure systems that do a pretty good job. Just because a carrier doesn't have 450mm long guns on it doesn't mean it's completely defenseless or incapable of mounting an offense.
Hey, I'm not complaining. We'll just be more prepared for moving refugees when the coastal areas start to flood.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43592173]Don't know why you'd bother really, carriers are just one big 'sink-me with a missile please' sign. e: especially with the types they're building and their prospects for use.[/QUOTE] One american Aircraft Carrier has a more powerful airforce than 70% of the world's countries 75% of the world is water. That's why
[QUOTE=T553412;43597291]I'm also counting the Tarawa and Wasp amphibious assault ships, since they can also operate Harriers. And besides, helicopters still count as aircraft.[/QUOTE] Nobody in the U.S. Navy considers those to be Aircraft Carriers. There's a huge difference between actual aircraft carries and ships that carry aircraft.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.