It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Chinese are talking about a ten carrier fleet

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Did the F-14's that were sold to Iran have the carrier landing and arrest or gear? What about F-4 carrier versions, could China have their hands on one?

Just wonder how they will retrofit or design a carrier aircraft strong enough to handle a cat launch?




posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

The J-15s were designed to be fairly easily refit. They were already designed to fly off a STOBAR hull, so they had reinforced landing gear to begin with. It's just a matter of adding the hold back bar, and a few other mods.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I wonder, what country the Chinese are planning to invade and conquer that they need to keep increasing their Ships, don't they know that they will never make it anywhere too far to even be able to cause any damage?



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Chinese goal, global supremecy and dominion of all lands, at the very least, replace the US.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

The Chinese are a regional power, that wants to be more. They need the carriers and a true blue water Navy to do that.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Just like battleships in the last century, aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete as a projection of force power given there distinct susceptibility/vulnerability to attack via cruise missile and/or submarine forces.

There just to large a target and require numerous other high maintenance vessels to ensure there protection.

Any future conflict will be fought using hyper sonic cruise missiles/ICBMs and possibly rail guns all of which are very proficient at destroying carrier forces at sea.


edit on 14-5-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Perhaps they Chinese doesn't have anything better to do with their money.

I find hilarious that they want global domination when in reality right now they are in lowest position within all those other countries that are already ahead of them on that same wish for domination.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Well, except for the fact that there are very few hypersonic weapons in service, and not many copies of those built. And people that have a lot better information than we do seem to think they're still a good idea.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: anzha

Any future conflict will be fought using hyper sonic cruise missiles/ICBMs and possibly rail guns all of which are very proficient at destroying carrier forces at sea.



You have data to support that?



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I did say future conflict and its not like China are going to be able to knock out 10 modern day aircraft carriers at the drop of a hat, never mind be able to wield them adequately until there crews and weapons systems are tried and tested.

So imagine 10-20 years down the line surface aircraft carrier groups will indeed be open to attack with little defense against such hyper-sonic weapons which will grow in number in the next few decades never mind sophistication and ability.

Same with the rail gun technologies being pioneered just now, 10-20 years time they will do what it says on the tin, as long as a viable power source is to be had, don't really see any defense against attack by those things much.

I agree that carriers are a good idea and a great way to project force around the globe but only as long as they can be protected which in the future might be a lot harder to achieve.
edit on 14-5-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

War changes, plenty of data to support that theory over the last 100 years alone.

If the new weapons systems that are beginning to enter service are able to do as claimed i imagine that data may materialize soon after.

But no, no conclusive data yet, for that to happen someone would need to use such weaponry to attack a carrier group, personally i hope that never happens.
edit on 14-5-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Proficient at destroying carriers? Wow, you make it sound like they already have...

There are a whole lot of folks out there who know quite a bit more than we do who would disagree with you, and the others who agree with you.

Did you know that people have been criticizing aircraft carriers and their usefulness since virtually day one? Here in the United States Gen. Billy Mitchell came out against them saying that large long range bombers would render the aircraft carrier helpless close in to shore against prepared defenders equipped with bombers.

Didn't quite turn out that way...ever. Close calls a couple of times in the Med, during WWII, for the Brits with the Illustrious and Victorious, but they survived. Look up the stories, epic! Then the US in WWII against navel bases such as Truk, and Rabaul in the South Pacific by lone, or paired, aircraft carriers... Lexington during the opening days of the war, Saratoga and Illustrious later in '43, as well. Neither was damaged.

Lexington, Yorktown, and Hornet were sunk by aircraft from other aircraft carriers. Wasp was, indeed, sunk by submarine, but that was more a bit of serendipitous luck on the part of the Japanese submarine commander than any plan on his part. I mean, blunder right in between an aircraft carrier (Wasp), and a battleship (North Carolina), and get torpedos into both is luck, enhanced by skill.

Then later, Adm. Spruance lead a total suppression of said Truk by, you guessed it, aircraft carriers. Rabaul was the same result. Formosa. Even Japan itself. ...and only one large carrier was lost--Princeton, in the entirety of those actions. Princeton wasn't even one of the Essex-class, it was a light carrier built on a light cruiser hull. Several carriers, over the course were damaged, 'tis true, some badly...but the end result was total destruction of the enemy air forces.

Other than kamikaze attacks that got through, I can only think of two other instance that a large US Navy carrier was even struck by aircraft bombs or torpedoes...Lexington II by torpedo once, and Intrepid twice by torpedo.

USS Langley was, indeed, sunk by land based bombers in the early days of WWII, but she wasn't an aircraft carrier anymore, she had been down classed to a aircraft ferry ship.

The British Royal Navy lost Glorious to surface fire when she blundered into two German Battle cruisers. Ark Royal was sunk by submarine. Eagle by submarine, as well... Illustrious and Victorious were pounded to a fair thee well by the German Luftwaffe but survived, if only barely, to fight again...

Several escort carriers, very small carriers, were sunk by German U-boats in the Atlantic, but they were actively hunting for Uboats, not trying to stay away from 'em...very occasionally the hunter does become the hunted.

Now the tech for attacking 'em has improved over the past sixty years since then. Obviously. But so, too, have the aircraft carriers and their defenses. Do you honestly believe that the folks running the show for the various navies that have them, or will have them, aren't aware of these super-duper carrier killers? Now I'm sure they don't discount them entirely, as that would indeed be foolish, but it's obvious that many really smart folks feel there are still many places where a carrier, or ten, might prove extremely useful--like most everywhere.

I'm doing this off the cuff, from memory, so some of the facts may be a bit wrong... Sorry.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

They're after a global reach militarily. Whether to conquer, or just saying "look what we can do", remains to be seen. They've a long way to go.

Carrier ops aren't easy. The United States has been practicing the art of carrier ops for almost a century, as has the Royal Navy, actually they've been doing it for just about a century--I think it was in 1917 that they launched Sopwith Camels equipped with bombs off of HMS Furious against Zeppelin bases... I think. Doing this from memory...

Anyway, even the US and Britain have on-going issues with accidents involving launching and landing aircraft on runways that are moving up and down, and side to side, sometimes at the same time...

A friend of mine who retired as a carrier aviator (don't call 'em pilots, they're aviators--as they'll remind you--the Air Force has pilots, the navy has aviators.
)

He once told me that landing on an aircraft carrier is a lesson in reverse optics...the closer you get to the deck, the smaller it seems to get...

It's bloody dangerous.

China is going to discover, as will India, and everyone else building 'em for the first time, that it's not just equipment. It's pilots, navigators, mechanics, a mental makeup at an institutional level that is instilled from the first day the men and women aviators strap on that jet.

It'll be interesting to see how quickly they pick it up.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

"Proficient at destroying carriers? Wow, you make it sound like they already have."

Well the weapons systems are designed for the specific purpose of destroying carriers, and there support vessels.

It's not like they are lightly to launch/fire such weaponry against the odd fishing boat. Not very cost effective.

So, if they do what they say on the tin, which they probobly will 10-20 years down the line. One has to wonder why China would be in the game of launching 10, immensely costly, both to design, construct, crew and maintain, potently easy targets for such weapons to take out.

I mean say China managed to build the carriers, get them in the water, crewed, armed and ready to go in the next 10 years. Another 10 years later, possibly a lot sooner, hyper-sonic cruise missiles, rail gun and sub launched missiles will make new carriers rather large and easy targets to destroy, thus hardly worth constructing in the first place.

As to Aircraft Carriers in general i have the greatest respect for both the men who serve/have served on them and will do in the future.

My own grandfather served aboard the HMS Searcher(an Escort Carrier/converted merchant ship) as a radio operator during the second world war, both in the Atlantic and Pacific theaters of war.

edit on 14-5-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Apparently you think that while offensive weaponry is advancing at leaps and bounds, defensive weaponry is going to be sitting still. Defenses are moving forward almost as fast as offensive systems. Defensive missiles, and lasers will be two generations ahead by the time that future conflict comes about. SeaRAM is already capable of stopping missiles at Mach 2.5, and that will improve as time goes on. They'll improve EW, and other systems as well. There is no such thing as an unstoppable weapon system. Not even a rail gun.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Yorktown was sunk by US torpedoes. She survived two attacks at Midway, and was being towed in to Pearl Harbor, with a destroyer alongside, when they were hit by torpedoes fired by a Japanese sub. The destroyer broke in half and sank immediately. Out of fear of other subs being in the area, the decision was made to scuttle Yorky.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

And stealth will be rendered obsolete too, right? These are the same arguments heard every single time a new weapon system comes along. It's going to be unstoppable, and will easily destroy any targets. And then a counter comes along, and suddenly the weapons system isn't nearly as fearful as originally thought. Or it turns out to not be as effective as people thought it was, or any number of other things.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

True. I neglected that part of the story. She might very well have survived if not for the submarine attack.




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   
China has Rail guns and Lasers?They are ahead in hypersonics and missile tech but not by much..



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Stealth will only improve i imagine as new meta materials and technologies manifest and are incorporated in to any future designs.

War changes as do the arguments that surround the subject.

But stealth or not, it's going to be kind of hard to shoot or down or evade a projectile, missile or warhead, traveling at speeds of around or even in excess of mach 5-10.

As to a counter technology coming along, well we still don't really have any kind of counter technologies that address the problem of nuclear weapons, other than more nuclear weapons. Some thing we simply don't have the tech to shield against.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join