This thread is about carriers. Check your Moe
-
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.
Japan had 1st Aircraft Carrier in 1921. China is refitting a Russian one due 2014
- Thread starter manokie
- Start date
This thread is about carriers. Check your Moe
yes, and i'm talking about drones on carriers. nitwit.
Thats completely irrelevant chicken fuckface
For a time Chinese regarded themselves as only advanced nation in the world and basically closed themselves to the outside world. Their fleet of ships came back and reported that world is full of uncouth barbarians. Hence no need for offensive weapons.
Today, the country that can invest the most will have the most powerful military. Of course you need a robust economy and a strong mfg sector to finance and build the weapons. Soviets has brilliant designs but no money and hopeless central controlled economy that could not build a good tire.
Technology and information goes to the one that can pay $$. There is really no big secret in building a modern carrier - it just cost heck of a lot of $$ and can easily be sunk by missiles.
The most stupid thing is to write off potential of a country - especially a country like China with all that potential. If you did it would be like what the Chinese did all those years before - think that world is all uncivilised and backward in technology. It could very well come back and bite!
Today, the country that can invest the most will have the most powerful military. Of course you need a robust economy and a strong mfg sector to finance and build the weapons. Soviets has brilliant designs but no money and hopeless central controlled economy that could not build a good tire.
Technology and information goes to the one that can pay $$. There is really no big secret in building a modern carrier - it just cost heck of a lot of $$ and can easily be sunk by missiles.
The most stupid thing is to write off potential of a country - especially a country like China with all that potential. If you did it would be like what the Chinese did all those years before - think that world is all uncivilised and backward in technology. It could very well come back and bite!
China is rich now but note that they were even richer in Qing Dynasty as compared to other nations at that time.
And what happened?
Drones are the future and data link come from satellite which is hard to jam. So to defeat drones you need to go after satellites. That is the future.
It again all boils down to power projection. If you need to send a drone 8K miles to engage enemy then you have issues with refueling, slower speeds for endurance. These are weak points for you enemies to go after.
It again all boils down to power projection. If you need to send a drone 8K miles to engage enemy then you have issues with refueling, slower speeds for endurance. These are weak points for you enemies to go after.
You can see 22ddh and 16ddh here. Both built by Japanese in their homeland. Unlike the Chinese, who chose the shortcut to buy and refit an antique carrier.
Don't be fooled that it is used to carry helicopters.
F35s don't need a lane to take off.
Wah, want to bullshit, don't bullshit until like this mah. These 2 ships in your pic, they don't exist. The photo is so evidently photoshopped. As far as I know, the Japs only have one small 18,000 ton helo carrier, Haryu (DDH 181 if I recall). This measely carrier can only embark less than 1 squadron of helos and no fixed wing aircraft. As for the Chinese ex russian carrier, I think its at least 60,000 tons with the possibility for much larger air wing. Whether the Chinese will ever really make it complete and operational is another matter.
The Chinese need to do something. Its all geopolitics, something you don't comprehend. The Americans have been treating the PAcific Ocean as their own private lake for decades. For a country that has aspirations to being a true world global power, this situation is untenable. If the Chinese do not want to continue to forfeit the Pacific to the US, they must do something that has a physically imposing presence. And that would not be a sampan, or sub, or a destroyer. Hence a carrier.
My mighty OA does not need aircraft carriers to ban anyone who does not worship my mighty reCHEEme.
Hōshō (Japanese: 鳳翔, meaning "flying phoenix") became the first flat-deck aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1921,
China bought the unfinished Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag in 2001 from Ukraine, to be refitted to be made operational in 2014.
Does it tell you much about the difference between the weak Chinese and strong Japanese?
We Chinese must seriously buck up!
A shift is afoot in the People's Liberation Army's attitude toward the U.S. in Asia. As recently as a few years ago, Chinese officials acknowledged that the American military is a stabilizing force in the region. But while China's civilian leaders still want to enhance military-to-military ties, Chinese officers have become increasingly confrontational, in written statements and deeds.
Exhibit A is the PLA's challenge to the U.S. Navy's right to operate in international waters near China's coast. In response to the announcement this month of new exercises in the Yellow Sea involving the aircraft carrier USS George Washington—something the Navy has been doing for decades—Rear Admiral Yang Yi told an Australian journalist that this was "some kind of challenge and humiliation to China's national interest and the feelings of the Chinese people." After similar protests last month the Pentagon caved, opting to deploy the Washington and its battle group on the other side of the Korean peninsula.
Beijing has also decided to enforce its claim to almost the entire South China Sea as its "historical waters," identifying this as a "core interest" on a par with Taiwan and Tibet. Spratly, here I come again...
The Chinese today and twenty years ago differed very much. With the upcoming general staff akin to gookia mmng pat hor, not much respects are accorded to the US Navy. It was their father's and grandfather's eras that were bedazzled by the might of the US navy but the younger generation just couldn't give two fucks to them. It is an interesting developement.
The Chinese are not strong enough to confront the US yet but being well-equiped certainly has its advantages. Three aircraft carriers are already on their future plan with an eventual numbers of around 20. It all boiled down to affordability and China's star is on the rise, while USA is coming down fast.
Exhibit A is the PLA's challenge to the U.S. Navy's right to operate in international waters near China's coast. In response to the announcement this month of new exercises in the Yellow Sea involving the aircraft carrier USS George Washington—something the Navy has been doing for decades—Rear Admiral Yang Yi told an Australian journalist that this was "some kind of challenge and humiliation to China's national interest and the feelings of the Chinese people." After similar protests last month the Pentagon caved, opting to deploy the Washington and its battle group on the other side of the Korean peninsula.
Beijing has also decided to enforce its claim to almost the entire South China Sea as its "historical waters," identifying this as a "core interest" on a par with Taiwan and Tibet. Spratly, here I come again...
The Chinese today and twenty years ago differed very much. With the upcoming general staff akin to gookia mmng pat hor, not much respects are accorded to the US Navy. It was their father's and grandfather's eras that were bedazzled by the might of the US navy but the younger generation just couldn't give two fucks to them. It is an interesting developement.
The Chinese are not strong enough to confront the US yet but being well-equiped certainly has its advantages. Three aircraft carriers are already on their future plan with an eventual numbers of around 20. It all boiled down to affordability and China's star is on the rise, while USA is coming down fast.
A shift is afoot in the People's Liberation Army's attitude toward the U.S. in Asia. As recently as a few years ago, Chinese officials acknowledged that the American military is a stabilizing force in the region. But while China's civilian leaders still want to enhance military-to-military ties, Chinese officers have become increasingly confrontational, in written statements and deeds.
Exhibit A is the PLA's challenge to the U.S. Navy's right to operate in international waters near China's coast. In response to the announcement this month of new exercises in the Yellow Sea involving the aircraft carrier USS George Washington—something the Navy has been doing for decades—Rear Admiral Yang Yi told an Australian journalist that this was "some kind of challenge and humiliation to China's national interest and the feelings of the Chinese people." After similar protests last month the Pentagon caved, opting to deploy the Washington and its battle group on the other side of the Korean peninsula.
Beijing has also decided to enforce its claim to almost the entire South China Sea as its "historical waters," identifying this as a "core interest" on a par with Taiwan and Tibet. Spratly, here I come again...
The Chinese today and twenty years ago differed very much. With the upcoming general staff akin to gookia mmng pat hor, not much respects are accorded to the US Navy. It was their father's and grandfather's eras that were bedazzled by the might of the US navy but the younger generation just couldn't give two fucks to them. It is an interesting developement.
The Chinese are not strong enough to confront the US yet but being well-equiped certainly has its advantages. Three aircraft carriers are already on their future plan with an eventual numbers of around 20. It all boiled down to affordability and China's star is on the rise, while USA is coming down fast.
Please the US star is not coming down that fast and the Chinese star is not rising that fast. The Chinese are practical people. They know that they have invested $billions in many 3rd world countries in Africa, South America, etc. to buy up their minerals and start business opportunities there. Large numbers of Chinese are stationed in these countries to build infrastructures there or to oversee the operations. These countries they do business with are inherently unstable banana republics. If things get bad in a hurry, they cannot rely on the UN or the even worse the US to rescue or evacuate their citizens much less protect their $billion investments. So in addition to tweaking the american noses, these proposed Chinese carriers are very much a practical big stick and insurance policy for their overseas interests.
advanced usaf (tier 2+) drones can reach a range of 3000 nautical miles. israeli drones can reach up to 2000 miles. the usn has not started with drones, but they could. the us marine corp and army have their own drones. it's stupid and stubborn for the usn, especially the carrier battle group, not to use drones from carriers. imagine the extended range of carrier + drones (30000+3000). and you can pack more drones and weapons in a carrier, with less fuel. on the other hand, you can build a much smaller and faster carrier to carry an adequate amount of drones to deliver the same fire power at longer range and endurance as a nimitz class nucleared powered carrier. us naval airmen is like a strong union - you can't break their lock on how the carrier battle group is operated and equipped. at least robert gates broke the lockhold of the air force union of pilots.
whoever cannot put carriers and drones together is a nitwit.
Carrier drone combo would be quite deadly. Also it would increase endurance. But then the carrier itself could become sitting duck.
Good read. China will not be able to confront the US Navy in the middle of Pacific for the next 25 years.
However, it maybe able to confront them within 1000 to 2000 miles of Chinese coastal waters. At that distance, super quiet diesel sub (short range), missiles, dedicated satellites will be able to detect and maybe even sink a carrier. Once that threat is there, US Navy will not want to risk their carriers coming into taiwan Straits
Chinese carriers - agreed - great for humanitarian missions, operations to protect Chinese foreign installations, etc. But with the Chinese never forget the business side - make and sell carriers!!!
Think about this - Chinese ski jump type carrier 40K tons - conventional powered could be had for $500M + whole flight wing of Chinese fighters and helicopters - $500M. US$1B for a fully equiped carrier. Many countries would be interested. If price is right, they could sell 5 of these a year.
Right now only US and Russia makes carriers. Forget about US because of price. Russia may not have the quality/price advantage. While a carrier is a lot more sophisticated than most ships, the Chinese have been building lots of high quality LNG tanker ships so the best practices are there.
However, it maybe able to confront them within 1000 to 2000 miles of Chinese coastal waters. At that distance, super quiet diesel sub (short range), missiles, dedicated satellites will be able to detect and maybe even sink a carrier. Once that threat is there, US Navy will not want to risk their carriers coming into taiwan Straits
Chinese carriers - agreed - great for humanitarian missions, operations to protect Chinese foreign installations, etc. But with the Chinese never forget the business side - make and sell carriers!!!
Think about this - Chinese ski jump type carrier 40K tons - conventional powered could be had for $500M + whole flight wing of Chinese fighters and helicopters - $500M. US$1B for a fully equiped carrier. Many countries would be interested. If price is right, they could sell 5 of these a year.
Right now only US and Russia makes carriers. Forget about US because of price. Russia may not have the quality/price advantage. While a carrier is a lot more sophisticated than most ships, the Chinese have been building lots of high quality LNG tanker ships so the best practices are there.
do you know what is a carrier without destroyer/frigate escort - A sitting Duck
Royal Navy to reduce to smallest size ever to save carriers
The Navy is set to be reduced to the smallest size in its history after admirals yesterday offered drastic reductions in the fleet in order to save two new aircraft carriers from defence cuts.
Under the plans, the number of warships would be cut by almost half to just 25, with frigates, destroyers, submarines, minesweepers and all amphibious craft scrapped.
Even if built, the new carriers could sail without any British aircraft to fly from them after admirals "mortgaged everything" to persuade ministers not to abandon the £5.2 billion programme. The ships could also be delayed for years and redesigned to save money, defence sources have disclosed.
In a final appeal to the National Security Council, Navy chiefs yesterday offered to make cuts that would reduce the senior service to its smallest since the time of Henry VIII.
One new aircraft carrier is already under construction, but the fate of the second has emerged as the central issue of the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which is supposed to frame military planning for the next decade.
With less than two weeks until the review is due to report, government spokesmen last night insisted that "no decisions have been taken" on the second carrier.
A meeting of senior Cabinet members yesterday stopped short of a formal decision on the carrier order, although insiders now believe both ships will be built. However, the timetable and the specification for the carriers remain in the balance.
Options still on the table include delaying delivery by several years and redesigning one or both ships to carry cheaper jets or even helicopters. Alternatively, the second carrier could be built but put on "extended readiness", effectively mothballed as soon as it was completed.
Army commanders and General Sir David Richards, the new Chief of the Defence Staff, have questioned the cost of the carriers and their potential military value.
The Navy has argued that having two carriers is vital if Britain is to retain its place as a top-rank military power. Its case has been bolstered by the procurement contracts for the carriers that commit the Government to place alternative work with the shipyards even if a carrier is abandoned.
It is understood that the Navy has offered to slim down to as few as 12 surface ships, leaving it with six Type 45 destroyers and six Type 23 frigates. In addition, its submarine fleet would reduce to seven Astute hunter-killers plus the four Trident nuclear deterrent boats. With the two carriers, this would reduce the fleet by half from its current total of 42 ships.
"If we want the two carriers it means we have to mortgage everything and by that I mean reducing the fleet by almost a half," said a senior Navy source.
Navy analysts warned that the cuts would mean Britain reducing its fleet to the size of the Italian navy and almost half the size of the French.
Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, warned in a letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph last week that the Navy could lose its entire amphibious landing capability and be unable to mount even a relatively small-scale operation such as the intervention in Sierra Leone. To prevent that outcome, ministers have discussed reconfiguring the first new carrier as a helicopter platform that would also carry Royal Marine commandos. The carrier would then ultimately replace the existing helicopter ship, HMS Ocean.
Navy sources have said that the reduction would mean Britain would find it "extremely difficult" to protect sea lanes on which 90 per cent of the country's trade relies.
It would also have to drop either anti-piracy patrols in the Middle East, protecting oil platforms in the Gulf or counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean.
As well as defining strategic needs, ministers are trying to cut the £37 billion annual defence budget as part of the Coalition's deficit reduction plan. Even though those cuts are likely to be held well below 10 per cent, Dr Fox still has to fund a £38 billion "black hole" in the military order book.
The carriers are currently designed to carry specially built Short Take-Off Vertical Landing Jets, which are significantly more expensive than conventional catapult-launched fighters.
One option discussed at the council was delaying at least one of the new carriers and equipping it with a catapult.
Ministers debated that option to allow “interoperability” with other nations, including France and the US, whose carrier-based jets are catapult-launched.
A row has broken out over the fate of the Harrier and Tornado warplanes. One type of jet is almost certain to be retired early. The RAF, which controls the Tornado fleet, wants the Harriers scrapped. The Navy wants them saved. The row remains unresolved and retiring the Harriers remains a strong possibility.
That could mean carriers enter service even though Britain lacked warplanes to fly from them. To fill the “capability gap”, the UK would have to borrow jets from an ally.
A No 10 spokesman said: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Royal Navy to reduce to smallest size ever to save carriers
The Navy is set to be reduced to the smallest size in its history after admirals yesterday offered drastic reductions in the fleet in order to save two new aircraft carriers from defence cuts.
Under the plans, the number of warships would be cut by almost half to just 25, with frigates, destroyers, submarines, minesweepers and all amphibious craft scrapped.
Even if built, the new carriers could sail without any British aircraft to fly from them after admirals "mortgaged everything" to persuade ministers not to abandon the £5.2 billion programme. The ships could also be delayed for years and redesigned to save money, defence sources have disclosed.
In a final appeal to the National Security Council, Navy chiefs yesterday offered to make cuts that would reduce the senior service to its smallest since the time of Henry VIII.
One new aircraft carrier is already under construction, but the fate of the second has emerged as the central issue of the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which is supposed to frame military planning for the next decade.
With less than two weeks until the review is due to report, government spokesmen last night insisted that "no decisions have been taken" on the second carrier.
A meeting of senior Cabinet members yesterday stopped short of a formal decision on the carrier order, although insiders now believe both ships will be built. However, the timetable and the specification for the carriers remain in the balance.
Options still on the table include delaying delivery by several years and redesigning one or both ships to carry cheaper jets or even helicopters. Alternatively, the second carrier could be built but put on "extended readiness", effectively mothballed as soon as it was completed.
Army commanders and General Sir David Richards, the new Chief of the Defence Staff, have questioned the cost of the carriers and their potential military value.
The Navy has argued that having two carriers is vital if Britain is to retain its place as a top-rank military power. Its case has been bolstered by the procurement contracts for the carriers that commit the Government to place alternative work with the shipyards even if a carrier is abandoned.
It is understood that the Navy has offered to slim down to as few as 12 surface ships, leaving it with six Type 45 destroyers and six Type 23 frigates. In addition, its submarine fleet would reduce to seven Astute hunter-killers plus the four Trident nuclear deterrent boats. With the two carriers, this would reduce the fleet by half from its current total of 42 ships.
"If we want the two carriers it means we have to mortgage everything and by that I mean reducing the fleet by almost a half," said a senior Navy source.
Navy analysts warned that the cuts would mean Britain reducing its fleet to the size of the Italian navy and almost half the size of the French.
Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, warned in a letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph last week that the Navy could lose its entire amphibious landing capability and be unable to mount even a relatively small-scale operation such as the intervention in Sierra Leone. To prevent that outcome, ministers have discussed reconfiguring the first new carrier as a helicopter platform that would also carry Royal Marine commandos. The carrier would then ultimately replace the existing helicopter ship, HMS Ocean.
Navy sources have said that the reduction would mean Britain would find it "extremely difficult" to protect sea lanes on which 90 per cent of the country's trade relies.
It would also have to drop either anti-piracy patrols in the Middle East, protecting oil platforms in the Gulf or counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean.
As well as defining strategic needs, ministers are trying to cut the £37 billion annual defence budget as part of the Coalition's deficit reduction plan. Even though those cuts are likely to be held well below 10 per cent, Dr Fox still has to fund a £38 billion "black hole" in the military order book.
The carriers are currently designed to carry specially built Short Take-Off Vertical Landing Jets, which are significantly more expensive than conventional catapult-launched fighters.
One option discussed at the council was delaying at least one of the new carriers and equipping it with a catapult.
Ministers debated that option to allow “interoperability” with other nations, including France and the US, whose carrier-based jets are catapult-launched.
A row has broken out over the fate of the Harrier and Tornado warplanes. One type of jet is almost certain to be retired early. The RAF, which controls the Tornado fleet, wants the Harriers scrapped. The Navy wants them saved. The row remains unresolved and retiring the Harriers remains a strong possibility.
That could mean carriers enter service even though Britain lacked warplanes to fly from them. To fill the “capability gap”, the UK would have to borrow jets from an ally.
A No 10 spokesman said: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
US on it way to USSR. They country will have to pay or take a deep budget cut to save the economy. Every year US budget is on deficit and the balloon very soon will burst. US$600billion to maintain it Army. Of the $600b less than 10% go to the pay/salary. That $500b burning away every year. Or about US$1.5b/day.
Who need an aircraft carrier when you can simply nuke one? Easy to build aircraft carrier or nuclear weapon? The Japanese could not built a nuclear weapon though they can build aircraft carrier in world war 2, therefore building aircraft carrier is more easy 
Last edited:
I am refering to world war 2
In WW2 both China and Japan didn't know how to build nukes.
Japan got aircraft carriers but China didn't.
Let's facts of history as Chinese, we were behind at that time.
No use trying to rewrite and decorate history.
Look forward to the future. Make sure we don't fall behind again.
That's right. As long as you always think you are not good enough, you will progress.
Similar threads
