China's new aircraft carrier (s)

Their first new aircraft carrier is to be finished in December... That my friends is very quick by u.s.a. standards... Will it work ? The new U.S. carrier, from what I have heard and read, is having big problems with their new catapult system..

I like this channel and have been a subscriber for a what seems like a couple of years.
youtu.be...

I think by finished they mean floating. They are years away from operational.
Funny video by the way....

Carriers are good for projecting force against other hapless nations. China isn't vested in Carriers because they realize in todays world they are basically LSTs (Large Slow Targets).

Submarines, anti shipping missiles and mines are the flavor of modern warfare. Anything bobbing on the surface is meat.

originally posted by: intrptr
Carriers are good for projecting force against other hapless nations. China isn't vested in Carriers because they realize in todays world they are basically LSTs (Large Slow Targets).

Submarines, anti shipping missiles and mines are the flavor of modern warfare. Anything bobbing on the surface is meat.

That is true for big wars against serious tech advanced opponents.... However many of China's neighbors have absolutely nothing to go up against a Chinese carrier battle group (except some aviation assets).. The waters around much of S.E. Asia are kinda shallow for grand sub operations especially close to much of the shore .. In other words subs can and will be sitting ducks from both airborne and shipborne anti-sub efforts.

There has been much discussion (even in Thailand) about the purchase of 3 Chinese made subs.. Everything from Chinese junk, to not enough water to successfully hide a sub in many areas, has been used to say, We don't need them and they won't work around our coastal areas"...

Glad you guys enjoyed the video .... I too enjoy his funny (without slap stick B.S.) commentaries.

a reply to: 727Sky

Just a huge waste of money when we now have the ability to build drones as big or small as one wants...you could have a much smaller carrier with fewer personnel but this is all about making money..we and they have cruise missiles, space technology, EMP technology, nuclear technology, submarine technology,...all these weapons are just for someone to profit off of...

We finally have ISIS that now possesses some military hardware (thanks to us) that we could use Vietnam era weapons against and do just fine....what's the point of this stuff? *Rant*

a reply to: 727Sky

The new U.S. carrier, from what I have heard and read, is having big problems with their new catapult system..

Big deal, those carriers are just to give our people something to build. Several hundred TR3-B's make up our new carrier group.

They can steal all the plans they want, it still won't work. Too much gets lost in translation, and their manufacturing has poor quality control.

China is still 20 years away from fronting a world class military.

I'd imagine it'll be floatable by december but an actually usable things going to take a lot of time and thats before they even get around to training the crews

a reply to: Maxatoria

Operating the carrier is an incredibly complex task. US Navy carriers operations take months to iron out the details and we still mess it up sometimes.

They can produce as many as they want, but if the General wants them as a trophy, their efficacy will be nearly nothing. They would need to actually commit to becoming a carrier Navy in order to make these ships perform as power projection platforms.

My bet is they are rusted and docked 5 years after they launch.

They're, as I understand it, at least the better part of a decade away from being operational.

Carrier doctrine is incredibly complex. ...and they're starting from scratch. Crews. Pilots/aircrew. All have to be trained for deck operations, and that takes time to do right.

It would go faster if they had help. But which country is going to? The U.S.? Not a chance. The British? Ditto. The Indians? I think they'd just as soon sink it.

a reply to: seagull

At least one appears to be a CATOBAR too, which is completely different from their current design. So they're essentially starting from scratch.

a reply to: 727Sky

The issues with EMALS were worked out. There are no major issues currently.

originally posted by: cosmania
a reply to: Maxatoria

Operating the carrier is an incredibly complex task. US Navy carriers operations take months to iron out the details and we still mess it up sometimes.

...and that's after nearly a century of using well established doctrine.

They can produce as many as they want, but if the General wants them as a trophy, their efficacy will be nearly nothing. They would need to actually commit to becoming a carrier Navy in order to make these ships perform as power projection platforms.

There's more to it then cool looking ships. There's a whole infrastructure that goes along with it. Training bases. Schools that train just the proper way to do things...'cause if you don't do it right, every single time, you're going to kill a lot of ship mates, right along with yourself. Dry docks to fix 'em. Building 'em, and fixing 'em, aren't quite the same thing.

My bet is they are rusted and docked 5 years after they launch.

My guess is they'll change their minds somewhere along the line, and sell if for scrap.

a reply to: 727Sky

Love me some China Uncensored. SF

and when it's complete they will officially have 1/10th of the operational US carrier fleet....

a reply to: SteeBoo

You might want to take a bit closer look at that supposition, 'boo.

Yes, certain aspects of the Chinese military is lacking. Others, not so much.

In the past decade, or so, the PLA has improved dramatically in all aspects of war fighting ability. Are they a match for the U.S./NATO? In most ways, no. But twenty years? Poppycock. A few years, if that much. To assume otherwise is to fall into the same trap we did concerning the Japanese prior to WWII. Remember what happened then?

They've some stealth aircraft coming on line over the next few years that are, at worst, only slightly inferior to the Raptor, or Lightning. ...and by the time development is through, who knows.

Armour (tanks) development is on a par with anything NATO has, or damned close.

Their navy is improving, too. Not up to U.S. standards, but few are. But to imply that they're decades behind is a fallacy that could prove costly in the event of a shooting conflict.

a reply to: seagull

It would go faster if they had help. But which country is going to?

Russia.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

With what? Russia has no CATOBAR carriers, and has only really operated one carrier. Yes they have some doctrine they can pass along, but not as much as China needs.