test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
China's newest Carrier (very NEW concept the way Carriers would look like)
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
:eek:
this carrier is so huge.
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/Chinas-New-Concept-Aircraft-Carrier-07-2011.jpg
the new carrier of future. :eek:
this carrier is so huge.
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/Chinas-New-Concept-Aircraft-Carrier-07-2011.jpg
the new carrier of future. :eek:
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Then there's the issue of where do you drydock this beast? How do you slip a vessel that large past Taiwan, Japan, or the Philippines--none of whom are particularly fond of China.
Or the giant bullseye that would be painted on a carrier that large, and the enormous battlegroup that would be needed to protect it.
You could build and drydock the parts individually.
But you'Re right, there's are reason catamaran shapes are not used everywhere.
As I recall they tend to capsize when forces affect them from the side...
So yes, it looks OK on paper... but they can't even get a more primitive one, with many of the parts already in place, running. They have a very, very, very, very long ways to go to even get a taste of the might American carriers currently posses.
To be honest, I'd say a Trimaran design is better than a caterman design, its more stable and also allows for heat sources to be kept in the center of the ship to reduce the heat signiture, as well as providing a more stable flight deck. You also have to consider the ships draft as well. It's not good have a huge ship with a large draft if very few harbours can accomadate it, you also have to take into account there are certain sea passages that have fairly low depths, making a 'super ship' may sound cool, but operationally its not always the best approach.
Remember that the Varyag was not a complete ship and China has only been working on it for a few years. I believe most American carriers take about 10 years to put into an operational state. (and they have the expertise in place already).
The next generation of carriers will be submersibles, that launch drones.
But if they want to spend 25 years on it before it even hits sea trials go for it.. It takes us at least 3 years of computer design before the dry dock even starts production, 8-9 years of actual construction, and another year of sea trials..
And we already have the expertise, equipment, and shipbuilding ability in place. China would be starting from scratch. Let um waste 30 billion dollars to get a giant target moving.. Since they lack the proper deep sea fleet to properly protect such a vessel.. /shrug
Someone already tried.
Dust old jacket and hat off... Salute fore aft...
the CVN 78
Isn't Jerry Ford great!
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027809.gif
ADM Rickover would be proud of that Nuclear Navy..
[Admiral, Hyman Rickover, the Father of the Nuclear Navy, was born in Moscow, Russia (which is now Poland) on January 27, 1900] !!
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027809.gif
yeah they also tried an carrier made from an iceberg so i will discount any ww2 bs experiments.
But seriously: Drones are already well set to replace conventional aircraft in many roles. The tech is only going to get better.
With submersible i do not even mean really deep. but deep enough to foil any radar lock. Just imagine having a drone platform anywhere you need it without the other side knowing about it. let alone be able to attack it.
I think this would be great supplement to current carriers.
EDIT: What I mean is, I don't think you'll actually be seeing these things floating around anytime soon.
I suppose it is possable, you'd have to operate it in a similar way to how SSBN's operate though, since it wouldn't be able to have a support fleet like moedern carriers (since this would give its position away). It's also worth noting that it would still be vulnerable to sonar and satilite tracking and would obviously still be vulnerable to radar when it's on the surface launching and recovering the drones.
It would still be vulnerable to SSN's as well, and without a support fleet to protect it, it would be 'alot' more vulnerable than a carrier. Personally, I like the idea that is been proposed on future ship designs, where ships have a helicopter and a drone. If smaller ships did carry drones you could actually have a fairly decent sized strike airforce without a centralised command post.
I'm actually curious how Electronic Warfare is coming along in regards to drone warfare (and the ability to block the signal used to control them). A breakthough in that technology could destroy a military force that is reliant on drones.
Also, as the resident Submariner, they're called Submarines! not submersables!
So a new carrier based on the old Varyag would theoretically be satiscaftory and possibly the combination of the two would also be less expensive than a swimming island.
American does not take 10 years to build a carrier we only take 2 to 3 years HW bush was built in about 2 years times nimitz class 6.2 billion. supper carrier class over 100,000 tons displacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H.W._Bush_%28CVN-77%29
Chinas newest carrier is only 50,000 tons. its a small step to show they can do great things as well. I commend them for going bold and modern.
Lets not try and compare the two as america builds its ship from the ground up while this new chinese ship is bought and then repaired and put into active service.
For a star trek analogy the federation is the US and china are the bajorians
The only way you can hit a carrier with this sort of missle is if it comes from outside the atmosphere. Any where else it can be shot down as a carrier has a wide area of control and electronic warefare equipment. not to mention several interceptor platform guns and missles. anything is possible but training gives it better odds.
Nmitz class carrier does have a, how to say it "defect". When fully loaded it tends to lean over to one side.
Every carrier is a bulls-eye target since it is the ship that projects most power, hence the battlegroup that is escorting it. Battlegroup does not only have escort ships but supply ships as well. :P
All that a side, the carrier should be built to do what is required of it. No matter the design
Building an aircraft carrier is one thing, but outfitting it and getting it fully operational and into service takes many years, in your link it states that ship was laid down in 2001 and was completed in 2009, thats not exactly 2-3 years...... She also didn't enter service until 2011, so yeah, thats 1o years to build and put a super carrier into service.
Although the Chinese didn't build this ship from the ground up (it was only 70% complete when they bought it), they do have expertise in ship building. What they lack is the expertise of fixed wing carrier operations, this is what will cause issues for them, as it will take a lot longer to get the ship into operational status because of this.
I think that is a somewhat poor anology. The Federation is a group of many countries, in real world terms it would most likely be NATO. It's also a bit insulting to infer China is small force with little clout, they certainly shouldn't be underestimated.
I'd be curious to actually know how well all these layers of defence work. it wasn't until the Falklands war that many of the British systems that we thought were sufficient were shown to be ineffective against an actual attack (rather than a drill). Although I do agree, carrier groups have a pretty think layer of defences that arn't exactly a walk in the palk to avoid. it's more likely a carrier would be taken out by a submarine using conventional weapons, or failing that, using nuclear missiles.
Well it would be interesting to see how effective it is from an academic point of view not to see how many people it would kill.
Anyway it seems current defenses are not really sufficient to shoot down a mach 10 missile with an unpredictable flight path
http://www.military.com/news/article/April-2009/new-concerns-over-chinese-carrier-killer.html
time will tell...
They're never going to go to war with us... their economy depends on us buying their exported goods.
I don't understand why our military is so concerned about a possible war with any first world nation... it will never happen. The economy is global now, there won't ever be another war between superpowers because we are all interconnected and depend upon eachother to a large degree for survival.
Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the future of warfare. Very limited fought in urban areas with small teams of men. What good is a $50mil plane when it can be brought down by a shoulder fired missile built 30 years ago? What good is a tank when it can be disabled by a crude IED? What good are huge ships when they can be damaged in harbor by suicide attackers?
21st century warfare is going to be far removed from what we saw in the 20th century. Airstrikes by piloted planes are going to be replaced by drones and long range cruise missiles. On the ground it's going to be street fighting with tactics at the squad level. On the high seas there will be very few large carriers or C&C ships. Most of the Navy is going to move to smaller, faster more stealthy ships that are better able to respond to a variety of threats.
dude.. you're derailing my thread.. it's not about those, it's about carriers.
Well, that's the case in ideal drills and exercises, but in the real world things don't always work as intended, and a force of bombers launching cruise missiles would be able to throw a lot of them into the mix, and you wouldn't need many to get through to cripple a carrier. I'm not sure if China purchased TU22Ms from the Russians, but that's one of their mission profiles, to take out carrier groups by firing cruise missiles, being vectored in to their targets by Bears running passive equipment and satelite surveilance.
The book "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy has a very good part in it where the Soviets attack a carrier group and bait them into shooting their wad at target drones, it is just a book though and shouldn't be taken as "what would happen" IRL, but as somebody else mentioned, conventional ideas on what was sufficient air defence at sea is/was were challenged in the Falklands, although there were different circumstances in play there, such as a Navy weakened by rampaging Tory cutbacks, and opperating thousands of miles from home in the enemy's proverbial backyard. Then again, it also proved how a single SSN can sneak into a flotilla and sink it's capital ship with seeming impunity.
Second is engineering. Catamarans work well on small vessels. On capital ships however the torsion stresses and supports would rip the ship apart. Reinforcements needed to counter that would quickly negate any advantages you would see in a catamaran hull.
Third once again relates to size. That thing would be worse than a Galaxy in a turn. It would be even more vulnerable than our current carriers to air or submarine strike.
Fourth is experience. There is more to building heavy ships than making a 3d model on a computer. You need the shipyards. You need the experienced work crews. You need the engineering experience. You need the officers and crew who know how to operate such vessels. China doesn't have these things. While they can develop them, such experience is hard won.
Fifth is support. That monster would gobble down spare parts. And then comes the issue of drydocking. Even in the course of normal duties it becomes necessary to drydock a ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_class_battleship_proposals#H-42_through_H-44
Yeah, the support thing is why the only time the Tirpitz fired it's guns in anger was in a shore bombardment. The only dry dock in western Europe that would take it was St Nazaire, and some commandos kind of blew it up a bit leaving the Tirpitz based in Norway.
Ha ha ha!
:cool:
Indeed, many people forget that ships need to go into drydock for maintenance, which can take extended periods of time (Hence why many countries try to have atleast 2 carriers. so that whilst one is in drydock, the other is in service, this is also the reason why the US has so many carriers as well).
When building a ship, you have to take into account the facilities you have at your disposal, for example the UK has had to create a new drydock for the maintenance of the new QE aircraft carriers in Plymouth. It's also worth noting many naval bases are in esturies or other protected coastal areas (for easier defence), if a ship is too large it simply wouldn't be able to get into port, for example, Portsmouth is one of the main Naval bases in the UK, American Aircraft carriers are actually to big to be able to get into the port to dock there, they have to anchor out at sea and use liberty boats to get ashore :-P
The St Nazaire raid was an amazing operation, I was fortunate enough whilst serving in the navy to meet the survivors of the raid in St Nazaire at a memorial event, I don't think the Germans saw it coming when the HMS Campbletown rammed into the drydock gates, I actually talked to one of the commandos that saw the ship explode as he was been driven away as a PoW, they really didn't see that coming either! I highly recommend touring the harbour if you are a naval buff, there were still U-boats in the subpens when I was last there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov
Is now envious ..AS-1 'Kennel'
loading wait we need a new missle that ships too big..
Hugs Janes Navies of the World,,, Order of Battle and RDF.. what if data..