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.

 

It Appears I was WRONG: 2nd Chinese Indigenous Aircraft Carrier to Have EMALS Catapults

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: hawkguy

]

Iran's dirty trick would more likely be to mine the strait of hormuz, preserving their missiles for later.


If the fleets become bottled up by mine fields, its open season.

The Houthis showed what can be accomplished, with one missile.




posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Every time someone comes up with a new cap gun the have-nots wail "carriers are obsolete!" And yet....

Everyone who can is building more, and everyone who can't is trying to buy them. But you all know so much more than the experts.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

The problem with hypersonics is their range. The DF-21 is the longest range system out there. The Brahmos II range is less than 400 miles. The biggest problem with stopping them is the reaction time, but newer ER missiles are proving pretty good in testing against high speed targets.

The materials science can catch up but that doesn't mean it suddenly becomes easier. There are so many things that can and do go wrong in testing.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If memory serves the V-2 precursors to today's modern ICBM also shared the same range limitations.

73 years later however and look at the reach such vehicles of destruction have at there disposal?

Take into account how fast technological progress is moving these days and one can pretty much envisage the Hypersonic missile technology of tomorrow or 10-20 years down the line.
edit on 19-11-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Hypersonic technology has been under development for 50+ years. Yes, things are accelerating now, but that doesn't mean that development is suddenly only going to take 5 years, instead of 10. That only really means that there's a better chance of seeing them out there, not that they're going to develop them faster.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As far as i can decern, hypersonic flight is the future of our modern warfare missile capability and/or unmanned drone capabilities.

As to development, well you definitively know more in that dept given your field of employment.

I fix PCs whilst you actually do proper work in the field.

Still im interested all the same.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Depending on what you're talking about, speed can be the difference between life and death. The ones that control speed, control the battlefield. The only thing is that while tech is accelerating, so is complexity.

The LRASM is a good example of that. The Harpoon has been the US Navy antiship missile since the 1970s. It's a pretty straightforward system. The launch platform locks onto the target ship, fires the missile, and that's that. In a test last year with a simulated LRASM (using a business jet surrogate), an F-22 passed targeting data to a U-2, which relayed it to a ground station, that changed the target of the "missile". The U-2 also was able to pass data between an F-18 and the F-22, which would allow the F-22 to target a ship, and the F-18 to fire a missile at it, without having to get close to the ship.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   
"See first, understand first, shoot first"

It doesn't matter if you have the fastest spear if you've had your arms chopped off before you try and throw it!



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
alert5.com...

The Brits appear to have been nontrivial helpers for the Chinese emals tech.

Just when I was getting used to hmming Blame Canada!



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

For all those thinking "but we did hypersonics waaaaay back with the X-15!"

Here's what happened when an X-15 flew at Mach 6.7:

theaviationist.com... /

It nearly melted.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Go ahead build them!

Use lots of resources to build and deploy carriers but also all the required escorts ships and submarines to go along with a carrier battle group.

However keep in mind it's last major wars super naval weapon just as battleships were in the one before that.

Even with advanced ASW and attack subs defending we've had some embarrassing exercises - is your ASW up to task?

Just one torpedo cavitating under keel can really ruin your day.

Soviets purportedly has strategy of overwhelming anti-missile defense - is your missile defense up to task?

A missle hit or two deep into the bowels is quite nasty unless damage control is down to a science.

And that's just the old tech stuff,

Who knows what new tech lurks, drone swarms, space based stuff were not privy about, airborne platforms beyond any black programs but rumored.

I think one and only reason a U.S. carrier has not been struck is threat of nuclear umbrella that would come into play for any nation doing so.

I'd wager that just as we build them well, we can sink others just as well were need arise.

Not warmongering or anything, just think it's folly to follow and build tech that's old in tooth for any strategic future potentials.

I'd be more inclined to think small, fast with big punch in really large numbers as counter to carriers but what do I know?

Go ahead build them.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Why do you answer them!!!

Use your moderator privedges to edit their posts with the single word 'wibble'.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Zaphod58

Next 10-20 years though and that might change somewhat.

Think China alleged to have 10 new carriers in the pipeline.

Personally, i see hypersonic and railgun weapons systems doing to carrier fleets the same thing carriers done to the battlewagons of old, that being making them very open to attack from the air hence susceptible.

Then again for every offensive technology Humanities apt to design a defensive measure, how do we protect against such new weaponry through?

I imagine that's the ticket really.





Let's hope China has ten carriers in the pipeline. They are expensive to build and maintain. Ten carriers should set them back quite a bit.

Sitting ducks. Note that video inptr linked was of a former US ship that was sold the Saudis. I read about that attack, but never knew they made a propaganda video.

The US Navy is pretty much a jobs program these days. Submarines are still useful in some parts of the world.

Getting back to China, they want to project power in the Sea of China, the Spratly Islands, etc. A navy isn't as much of a waste of money for them as it is for the US. Oh I suppose the US Navy can project power around Catalina.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
When I read things like this and imagining the money and tech the US has and is still not deploying emals, I can't but think from the Chinese it is made of an unhealthy amount of very risky oversized capacitors crammed into a vessel floating on water is a death trap which is why both US and U.K. Could have delivered it on their new carriers if they didn't have a responsibility to ensure safety regulations are met.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Zaphod58

As our material science progresses so will our ability to make these new weapons systems do what they says on the tin though.

Do we have anything in our arsenals at present that can stop a hypersonic missile?

I mean in theory it could be shot down using another hypersonic missile system or even a projectile from railgun, but targeting such a fast-moving incoming missile and actually being able to respond and react in time to prevent impact seems to be beyond our ability to accomplish.



The missile defence agency is doing a little better than 50% in tests. When Trump says 97%, that assumes four ABMs against one target. The figure is based on pure math since we never tested four ABMs at a time.

As much as I rolled my eyes at the though on another laser plane project, we might as well try again. But IIRC, that is for boost phase destruction. I don't know if there is a laser project for hypersonic targets.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

And what's conveniently left out of that video and the analysis that "proves" modern ships are sitting ducks is that they didn't even have CIWS mounted, let alone Aegis or VLS tubes. That ship was always meant to be a technology demonstrator and was completely unarmed, other than 4 Browning M2 mounts.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

And what's conveniently left out of that video and the analysis that "proves" modern ships are sitting ducks is that they didn't even have CIWS mounted, let alone Aegis or VLS tubes. That ship was always meant to be a technology demonstrator and was completely unarmed, other than 4 Browning M2 mounts.


Brownings wouldn't be much use in that attack. Further the seawiz can't handle simultaneous incoming.

The only thing keeping nation states from taking out US Navy assets is they don't want to be on the receiving end of a very angry US military. I suppose Iran keeps the Houthi at bay because they don't want to be on the receiving end of a US volley either. Whacking Saudi assets...hey, no problem.

With Sadam gone, Iran has more opportunities to project power in the region.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Which is why modern defenses are built around SeaRAM and Standards, not CIWS.

I realize Brownings would be useless, which was my point. The attack on the HSV-2 is being held up as proof that modern ships are defenseless against missiles, but Swift didn't have a single useful defense it could have used against an inbound missile. It wasn't originally commissioned to be in a war zone, it was commissioned as a demonstrator for the US Navy.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Having read the article that is presented and the various posts the following can be stated:

To start, the first thing is that the Chinese have figured out a means to get the most out of its power production. An air craft carrier requires a lot of power for all of the systems that is required to run the ship in its basic operations. Things like radar, sonar, and propulsion, along with communications, launching, and landing aircraft, along with just power for the ship itself.

What an aircraft carrier is, in short is a floating airport for military aircraft. Its main weapons are the aircraft, used in controlling airspace in an armed conflict. While it is an impressive ship, the one downside, is that once all of the aircraft have been launched, it is vulnerable to attack, as said aircraft is it is main defense and offense. Hence the battle group that usually goes along with an aircraft carrier. And apart from things like water, ammo, food the biggest item that requires a lot of space happens to be fuel to run the engines and to refuel the aircraft that it carries.

This announcement, pretty much states that China now has figured out a means to use an electromagnetic catapult, to balance the energy requirements for operating it successfully is a game changer. This system of balancing the energy to make it that efficient can be used in other systems both for its civilian population but also to further give its military a tech advantage and make it more cutting edge.

The ability to make a rapid delivery of key weapons and systems, could make all of the difference between victory and defeat.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

What do you mean by balance the energy? Be specific.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join