• China starts building its second aircraft carrier
    47 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sltungle;43592163]Too bad their penises won't![/QUOTE] Why is this kind of racism tolerated?
Too bad china can't figure out how to launch and recover planes off of them.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;43597574]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.[/QUOTE] Nobody considers ski ramp launch carriers to be actual carriers either, which is what the current Chinese carrier is. Yay, you've launched a jet with like 100 rounds of cannon ammo and a half tank of fuel. Gold star. The next two will be patterned after the Liaoning, which uses the ski jump. [url]http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20131211000053&cid=1101[/url] EDIT: The America Class amphibious assault ships can launch and retrieve the V-22 Osprey and the F-35B STOVL. Which, unlike China, means a single carrier can launch an aircraft, and refuel them in the air using only aircraft from the ship. [img]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/513/jmig.jpg[/img] Our "non carrier" carriers, can do more than their carriers can.
[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] Besides the previously mentioned defensive systems, If they pick up enemy aircraft, they'll launch aircraft to deal with threats as well. There is one threat though, Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles, which they have no defense against. Drawback with them is, you have to know were the carrier is at.
[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] The most amount of active aircraft carriers a country has is 2. USA has 10. China wont catch up.
[QUOTE=Medevila;43598062]Yes [IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/winner.png[/IMG] that such a wonderful nation is expanding its ability to project its power[/QUOTE] But but more competition means better for the consumer right?? How can two superpowers building a giant military NOT benefit the average man? Good sir talk sense.
[QUOTE=kurva;43597621]Why is this kind of racism tolerated?[/QUOTE] Yeah no.
[QUOTE=sltungle;43592163]Too bad their penises won't! [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Country bashing" - GunFox))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Seriously? We're not adult enough to let the boxes handle it? We have to ban for... "Country Bashing"? It's not even a specific person or necessarily group. ffs. As for China, i keep telling people she's on track to take the world spotlight. Foregoing with Environmental and humanitarian protection, the Chinese are trying to play top dog. Which, for the vast majority of the topic, I don't mind. The only thin that concerns me is stuff like; [quote] China's admirals plan to develop a full blue-water navy capable of defending growing economic interests as well as [u]disputed territory in the South and East China Seas.[/u][/quote] So Korea, Philippines, and island states scattered about the area. That could be a wasp nest for the West down the road. Though to what extent it is hard to say.
It is important to note that these aircraft carriers are powered conventionally, whereas all of the United States' aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered.
[QUOTE=Keys;43601938]Seriously? We're not adult enough to let the boxes handle it? We have to ban for... "Country Bashing"? It's not even a specific person or necessarily group. ffs. As for China, i keep telling people she's on track to take the world spotlight. Foregoing with Environmental and humanitarian protection, the Chinese are trying to play top dog. Which, for the vast majority of the topic, I don't mind. The only thin that concerns me is stuff like; So Korea, Philippines, and island states scattered about the area. That could be a wasp nest for the West down the road. Though to what extent it is hard to say.[/QUOTE] So besides them making their way to the top over a mountain of their dead citizens, using slave labor, completely destroying the SEA environment, and aggressively trying to start wars over specs of dirt in the ocean for the sake of nationalist pride, you're cool with China being the international top dog. yeah hokay. [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] Seriously, China is like North Korea in far too many aspects, the difference is is that they have an economy thats able to support their nation.
[QUOTE=Complifused;43592139]China will grow larger[/QUOTE] why does this joke have to get posted whenever china builds something
I'm worried what will happen next time we have a conventional war between two nations. Aircraft carriers are nice to use as a remote airbase that you can park off the coast of any country, but they're pretty easy to destroy. I mean, not even counting our plethora of conventional weapons, we're pretty damn close to having ship mounted railguns with a range of 100 miles. Shoot down missiles all you want; it's virtually impossible to stop a slug travelling at mach 5. I could see railguns making an appearance on submarines, more importantly than the current plans to put them on battleships. Current satellites can give you the GPS position of any enemy ship. A submarine with a railgun could pop up anywhere within 100 miles of the enemy ship, fire a couple of salvos at it and retreat back underwater. Even if the enemy ship got word of it before the sub even breached the surface of the water, it would be gone before they even have a chance to scramble aircraft, let alone fly 100 miles. And technologically wise, this will likely be feasible by the year 2020, if it isn't already. The Navy's days are numbered. Soon submarines are all that will remain.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;43602267]I'm worried what will happen next time we have a conventional war between two nations. Aircraft carriers are nice to use as a remote airbase that you can park off the coast of any country, but they're pretty easy to destroy. I mean, not even counting our plethora of conventional weapons, we're pretty damn close to having ship mounted railguns with a range of 100 miles. Shoot down missiles all you want; it's virtually impossible to stop a slug travelling at mach 5. I could see railguns making an appearance on submarines, more importantly than the current plans to put them on battleships. Current satellites can give you the GPS position of any enemy ship. A submarine with a railgun could pop up anywhere within 100 miles of the enemy ship, fire a couple of salvos at it and retreat back underwater. Even if the enemy ship got word of it before the sub even breached the surface of the water, it would be gone before they even have a chance to scramble aircraft, let alone fly 100 miles. And technologically wise, this will likely be feasible by the year 2020, if it isn't already. The Navy's days are numbered. Soon submarines are all that will remain.[/QUOTE] The reality of what a conventional war would look like with modern technology is one of the factors that prevents it.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;43602267]I'm worried what will happen next time we have a conventional war between two nations. Aircraft carriers are nice to use as a remote airbase that you can park off the coast of any country, but they're pretty easy to destroy. I mean, not even counting our plethora of conventional weapons, we're pretty damn close to having ship mounted railguns with a range of 100 miles. Shoot down missiles all you want; it's virtually impossible to stop a slug travelling at mach 5. I could see railguns making an appearance on submarines, more importantly than the current plans to put them on battleships. Current satellites can give you the GPS position of any enemy ship. A submarine with a railgun could pop up anywhere within 100 miles of the enemy ship, fire a couple of salvos at it and retreat back underwater. Even if the enemy ship got word of it before the sub even breached the surface of the water, it would be gone before they even have a chance to scramble aircraft, let alone fly 100 miles. And technologically wise, this will likely be feasible by the year 2020, if it isn't already. The Navy's days are numbered. Soon submarines are all that will remain.[/QUOTE] Your rail gun theory is nice and all, but you're assuming that hunter subs and anti-sub aircraft would let an enemy sub get within a hundred miles of a carrier group. Another thing is that you're assuming intercept missiles and CRAM style anti air systems aren't going to advance any further. Current CRAM's can hit a mortar or artillery shell out of the sky by sending a massive salvo of 20mm shells at it. Another thing is that even current intercept missiles are incredibly fucking fast. Our current ones can hit Mach 10 without givin a shit. It wouldn't be all that hard to imagine one of those missiles eliminating a rail gun slug.
[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] to be fair the swordfish was an incredible airplane
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43602323]Your rail gun theory is nice and all, but you're assuming that hunter subs and anti-sub aircraft would let an enemy sub get within a hundred miles of a carrier group. Another thing is that you're assuming intercept missiles and CRAM style anti air systems aren't going to advance any further. Current CRAM's can hit a mortar or artillery shell out of the sky by sending a massive salvo of 20mm shells at it. Another thing is that even current intercept missiles are incredibly fucking fast. Our current ones can hit Mach 10 without givin a shit. It wouldn't be all that hard to imagine one of those missiles eliminating a rail gun slug.[/QUOTE] Solid point. However: To your first point: Hunter subs/anti sub aircraft will be powerless. Draw a 100 mile radius circle in the water. That's a massive area. What do you think the spotting range is of anti-sub aircraft? How quick do you think they can respond? Now, how quickly do you think a sub can raise its bow out of the water, release a few salvoes, and dive back under? Surprisingly quickly. These subs aren't meant to hold their ground. They're meant for harassment. They don't have to be stealthy at all. The point is that the enemy literally cannot react fast enough. The ship itself could fire its own railgun at the sub the second it breaches the water. The sub would still have time to fire it's load and dive away. Subs can submerge. Ships can't. CRAM can only stop certain things. Mortars and artillery shells have a few things in common: They are explosive and they are moving relatively slow upon interception. It's basically like an enemy throwing explosive barrels at you. The second you hit them with anything, they explode in midair. Railguns are extremely fast, and are a solid metal slug. Firing 20mm at them is useless because they can't be exploded. The only thing you could hope to do is physically stop them - which is impossible with any conventional armament because the railgun slug will have momentum that is several magnitudes larger than whatever you throw at it. It's like firing a pistol at a train. The only logical thing that could stop it once fired is another railgun firing directly at the incoming shell. Which is incredibly difficult. I'm talking borderline impossible. Aircraft carriers are pretty fragile. They're great to own if you have undisputed control of your seas. If you don't, they're going to go down real quick in any real conflict of equal forces.
[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] If you count pocket carriers and helicarriers, it might actually. 10 traditional and 9 helicarriers [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;43597574]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.[/QUOTE] Imho generally speaking the only one who doesn't consider them carriers are americans, because you're used to the notion of supercarriers as being the traditional carrier. In nations without a navy, or which operate mainly pocket carriers you're looking at a much bigger acceptance of smaller carriers. Hell, as far as I know, even the US is thinking of having more smaller, faster carriers which don't act as a floating city and act as a much smaller target.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.