-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Goodbye US Nav, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
- Thread starter steffychun
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 9,230
- Points
- 63
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
Hmm, I do not follow closely weapons development and have no idea of comparisons, especially on technology, but since WW2, no other country has been involved in warfare as much as USA and most of their weapons are purposely built/designed with some enemy target in mind, and many have been used, successfully (eg. Iraq War), so whether their technology sucks or not, the question should be - compared to who?
If by ASUW you mean anti-surface ballistics, I think they do have equipment in that category.
Cheers!
Hmm, I do not follow closely weapons development and have no idea of comparisons, especially on technology, but since WW2, no other country has been involved in warfare as much as USA and most of their weapons are purposely built/designed with some enemy target in mind, and many have been used, successfully (eg. Iraq War), so whether their technology sucks or not, the question should be - compared to who?
If by ASUW you mean anti-surface ballistics, I think they do have equipment in that category.
Cheers!
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 12,839
- Points
- 63
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 970
- Points
- 28
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
hahaha, should be heshe. Please give TS your 7 points.
hahaha, should be heshe. Please give TS your 7 points.
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
the report originte from Pinkov of Kanwa magazine..he got a list of broken records in his past publications about chinese military. i would take this with a big pinch of salt.
the report originte from Pinkov of Kanwa magazine..he got a list of broken records in his past publications about chinese military. i would take this with a big pinch of salt.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 76,984
- Points
- 113
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
I thought they using oars. If nuclear, will contaminate the ocean.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,560
- Points
- 113
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
there are no such things as anti-surface ballistics. US destroyers only have SAMs.
there are no such things as anti-surface ballistics. US destroyers only have SAMs.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 7,083
- Points
- 63
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
Try to dig your head out of your arsehole with a toothpick. Or you talking through your arsehole and shitting via your mouth?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
By MATTHEW HICKLEY
Published: 10 November 2007
When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.
At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.
That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.
American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.
AND
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/kazianis-chinas-carrier-killer-missile/
China is developing what could be seen as the ultimate such weapon, a real nightmare for the U.S. Navy. Since at least the mid-1990s, Beijing has been developing a highly advanced ballistic missile, the DF-21D, popularly dubbed “the carrier-killer.” On paper, such a missile could truly complicate Washington’s ability to move naval vessels as a hedge against China’s growing military might.
How the missile works is key to understanding its deadly potential. The weapon is mobile, making its detection difficult — even under the best of circumstances. When fired, the missile is guided using advanced radar, satellites and possibly even an unmanned aerial vehicle. Various reports indicate it has a maneuverable warhead potentially capable of defeating missile-defense systems. It slams down on its target — an oceangoing vessel like an aircraft carrier — at speeds of Mach 10 to 12. Even more frightening, the missile allegedly holds the ability to attack naval vessels up to approximately 1,000 miles away, outranging by many times the strike range of all U.S. aircraft aboard existing carriers.
Until recently, considering the science fiction-like description of such a weapon, many doubted the ability of China’s still-evolving defense industry to develop the missile. Many have pointed to the inability of Soviet engineers in the 1970s to develop similar weapons. Hitting a moving target on the high seas is not an easy feat; only a world-class scientific and defense industry would even make the attempt.
However, simply dismissing China’s capability to develop such a missile may have been wishful thinking. A recent report from the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation mined Chinese sources and publicly available information to conclude that America has reason to worry.
Chinese military experts began thinking about how to use missiles against naval vessels as early as the 1970s. After America deployed two aircraft carriers during the 1995-96 Taiwan crises, research moved into high gear. According to the report, as of 2010, the DF-21D was capable of hitting slow-moving targets. Late that same year, a U.S. admiral declared the missile had reached “initial operational capacity,” and U.S. officials this year think China has actually deployed the latest version of the missile.
Still, many U.S. officials question whether the DF-21D missile will operate as claimed under battlefield conditions. They aren’t sure the missile could actually take out an aircraft carrier and wonder whether — or at least hope that — our own missiles might be able to intercept and destroy a carrier-killer before it reaches its target.
While the Chinese carrier-killer is cause for concern, so too is the fact that other nations are developing or at least lusting after such hardware. Countries such as North Korea, Syria, Iran and others are acquiring increasingly advanced weapons with the clear goal of keeping U.S. forces out of potential areas of conflict, or at least forcing us to pay an inordinately heavy price for involvement. Compounding the problem is the tendency to use scarce resources to prepare to refight the last war rather than to prepare for future conflicts. Without a sustained effort to negate the challenge of weapons such as China’s carrier-killer, America could be in for quite a shock.
Try to dig your head out of your arsehole with a toothpick. Or you talking through your arsehole and shitting via your mouth?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
By MATTHEW HICKLEY
Published: 10 November 2007
When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.
At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.
That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.
American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.
AND
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/kazianis-chinas-carrier-killer-missile/
China is developing what could be seen as the ultimate such weapon, a real nightmare for the U.S. Navy. Since at least the mid-1990s, Beijing has been developing a highly advanced ballistic missile, the DF-21D, popularly dubbed “the carrier-killer.” On paper, such a missile could truly complicate Washington’s ability to move naval vessels as a hedge against China’s growing military might.
How the missile works is key to understanding its deadly potential. The weapon is mobile, making its detection difficult — even under the best of circumstances. When fired, the missile is guided using advanced radar, satellites and possibly even an unmanned aerial vehicle. Various reports indicate it has a maneuverable warhead potentially capable of defeating missile-defense systems. It slams down on its target — an oceangoing vessel like an aircraft carrier — at speeds of Mach 10 to 12. Even more frightening, the missile allegedly holds the ability to attack naval vessels up to approximately 1,000 miles away, outranging by many times the strike range of all U.S. aircraft aboard existing carriers.
Until recently, considering the science fiction-like description of such a weapon, many doubted the ability of China’s still-evolving defense industry to develop the missile. Many have pointed to the inability of Soviet engineers in the 1970s to develop similar weapons. Hitting a moving target on the high seas is not an easy feat; only a world-class scientific and defense industry would even make the attempt.
However, simply dismissing China’s capability to develop such a missile may have been wishful thinking. A recent report from the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation mined Chinese sources and publicly available information to conclude that America has reason to worry.
Chinese military experts began thinking about how to use missiles against naval vessels as early as the 1970s. After America deployed two aircraft carriers during the 1995-96 Taiwan crises, research moved into high gear. According to the report, as of 2010, the DF-21D was capable of hitting slow-moving targets. Late that same year, a U.S. admiral declared the missile had reached “initial operational capacity,” and U.S. officials this year think China has actually deployed the latest version of the missile.
Still, many U.S. officials question whether the DF-21D missile will operate as claimed under battlefield conditions. They aren’t sure the missile could actually take out an aircraft carrier and wonder whether — or at least hope that — our own missiles might be able to intercept and destroy a carrier-killer before it reaches its target.
While the Chinese carrier-killer is cause for concern, so too is the fact that other nations are developing or at least lusting after such hardware. Countries such as North Korea, Syria, Iran and others are acquiring increasingly advanced weapons with the clear goal of keeping U.S. forces out of potential areas of conflict, or at least forcing us to pay an inordinately heavy price for involvement. Compounding the problem is the tendency to use scarce resources to prepare to refight the last war rather than to prepare for future conflicts. Without a sustained effort to negate the challenge of weapons such as China’s carrier-killer, America could be in for quite a shock.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,464
- Points
- 0
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
Beijing began purchasing old carriers to learn their secrets. In a seldom discussed episode, China in 1985 purchased the Australian carrier HMS Melbourne for scrap — or so it was thought at the time. However, the flight deck of the Melbourne was kept intact and used for pilot training in carrier takeoffs and landings (though a static flight deck would, of course, have been of limited utility, since it could not replicate the pitch and roll of an aircraft carrier at sea).
Melbourne was the largest warship any of the Chinese experts had seen in 1985, and they were surprised by the amount of equipment which was still in place. Only the electronic equipment and weapons were removed.
Beijing began purchasing old carriers to learn their secrets. In a seldom discussed episode, China in 1985 purchased the Australian carrier HMS Melbourne for scrap — or so it was thought at the time. However, the flight deck of the Melbourne was kept intact and used for pilot training in carrier takeoffs and landings (though a static flight deck would, of course, have been of limited utility, since it could not replicate the pitch and roll of an aircraft carrier at sea).
Melbourne was the largest warship any of the Chinese experts had seen in 1985, and they were surprised by the amount of equipment which was still in place. Only the electronic equipment and weapons were removed.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2009
- Messages
- 627
- Points
- 0
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
Fuck you! You are a clone of steffychute! Cheebye KNN shamelessly asking points for your main nick.
Nah bei.
Fuck you! You are a clone of steffychute! Cheebye KNN shamelessly asking points for your main nick.
Nah bei.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,560
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 34,379
- Points
- 113
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
How come jamban jar jar blinks not yet pop up to sarpork his beloved chinks and scream racism?
How come jamban jar jar blinks not yet pop up to sarpork his beloved chinks and scream racism?
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,560
- Points
- 113
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
who are you talking about
who are you talking about
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 34,379
- Points
- 113
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
You need to hang out here more....
Me referring to our resident chinese chauvinist aka Mr Mandarin himself....rastafah jah
You need to hang out here more....
Me referring to our resident chinese chauvinist aka Mr Mandarin himself....rastafah jah
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,424
- Points
- 0
Ah Tiong navy vs US navy....?? It will be like West Ham vs Bayern!!..and it will be more than 1-7!!
The key question is not how many but whether China mastered catapult launched technology or whether she will continue to depend on ski ramp.
Shipborne AWACS are too under power to take off from ski ramp and without AWACS coverage, the aircraft carrier wouldn't be able to venture far because she needs to depend on land-base AWACS to provide coverage.
In addition, carrier don't operate alone. Every carrier needs around 10 supporting vessels and subs to escort. Having 10 CBG means china needs to build more than 100 vessels. And what the use of having 10 carrier if you only intend to use in on South China Sea and East China Sea?
Shipborne AWACS are too under power to take off from ski ramp and without AWACS coverage, the aircraft carrier wouldn't be able to venture far because she needs to depend on land-base AWACS to provide coverage.
In addition, carrier don't operate alone. Every carrier needs around 10 supporting vessels and subs to escort. Having 10 CBG means china needs to build more than 100 vessels. And what the use of having 10 carrier if you only intend to use in on South China Sea and East China Sea?
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 6,814
- Points
- 113
PLA navy need at least 20 years to develop the carrier battle group. weapon technologies aside, just the logistic tail of even one CBG is staggering. even if the PLA carrier is nuclear, the supporting ASW and Aegis ships need to refuel, so fast fleet oilers are needed, plus ships carrying supplies and parts to sustain the CBG tour of duty lasting at least 03 months.
also need to expand the training facilities to accommodate the huge number of personnel needed to man all the vessels. Training take time and experience need time and effort. if each carrier has 30+ fighters and support crafts, then huge number of trained aircrew are also needed. Again time is need to train the aircew to fly the 400 aircrafts just on the carrier fleet and not counting the shore based regiments.
personally, I think it a mistake. unless PLA navy can develop something similar in size of a Nimitz class fleet carrier, only then PLA navy can take on the USN over open water. A 30+ aircrafts carrier cannot cut it. As much as US Navy project power via the Carrier Battle Group, it the silent force that strike fear to all ship captains.
It maybe US carriers battle victories that get into newspaper in WW2 but the USN Pacific submarine force sunk more than 50% of all Japanese ships lost in WW2. It the submarine sinking the tankers and other freighters that prevent IJN from getting supplies to replenish war materials and the lack of POL mean insufficient flying time for new aircrews which mean the new aviators were barely train when they went out again USN pilots.
also need to expand the training facilities to accommodate the huge number of personnel needed to man all the vessels. Training take time and experience need time and effort. if each carrier has 30+ fighters and support crafts, then huge number of trained aircrew are also needed. Again time is need to train the aircew to fly the 400 aircrafts just on the carrier fleet and not counting the shore based regiments.
personally, I think it a mistake. unless PLA navy can develop something similar in size of a Nimitz class fleet carrier, only then PLA navy can take on the USN over open water. A 30+ aircrafts carrier cannot cut it. As much as US Navy project power via the Carrier Battle Group, it the silent force that strike fear to all ship captains.
It maybe US carriers battle victories that get into newspaper in WW2 but the USN Pacific submarine force sunk more than 50% of all Japanese ships lost in WW2. It the submarine sinking the tankers and other freighters that prevent IJN from getting supplies to replenish war materials and the lack of POL mean insufficient flying time for new aircrews which mean the new aviators were barely train when they went out again USN pilots.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 9,230
- Points
- 63
Re: Goodbye US Navy, China plans to build 10 aicraft carriers
Ah Tiong naval technology was already advanced in the old days anhd had large sailing vessels back in the days of Admiral Cheng Ho, but for aircraft carrier, sails are not practical as they get in the way of aircraft landings and takeoffs, so they've secretly reverted to oars. With such a huge manpower resource, they won't face any chance of shorthandedness. You're right, no need nuclear.
Cheers!
Ah Tiong naval technology was already advanced in the old days anhd had large sailing vessels back in the days of Admiral Cheng Ho, but for aircraft carrier, sails are not practical as they get in the way of aircraft landings and takeoffs, so they've secretly reverted to oars. With such a huge manpower resource, they won't face any chance of shorthandedness. You're right, no need nuclear.
Cheers!
Similar threads
