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.

 

Beriev Design Bureau Patents Carrier Based AEW Aircraft

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That picture is not a shipyard, it's a navy base. Having worked at a shipyard before, a shipyard is where ships are built, undergo heavy maintenance, or modification - so there's typically large fabrication buildings, workshops, cranes, and dry-docks. Naval bases on the other hand, tend to support operational activities, training, and lighter maintenance, though there is some overlap.

Pictured is Naval Station Norfolk, the biggest shipyard in the US is probably Newport News Shipbuilding which is a short distance away.

This is an important distinction because ships are in-commission much longer than they are under construction and even considering 1/3 to 2/3 of commissioned ships will be at alongside at any given time, the number of ships at naval bases will likely be much greater than those at shipyards. And the US fleet is stagnating whereas the Chinese fleet is rapidly expanding.
edit on 17/1/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

a reply to: C0bzz

Blah Blah, I said show me the Chinese equivalent to all those carriers. But you won't.

Because you can't. The rest of the world knows how obsolete carrier tech is in a modern shoot-back war. The only bully country left that still throws its weigh around the world is the Us, (NATO).

edit on 17-1-2018 by intrptr because: reply



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You asked for shipyard pix:

www.scmp.com...

china-defense.blogspot.com...

china-defense.blogspot.com...

The Shandong (above) was recently completed:

www.scmp.com...

(she starts sea trials next month)

The older Liaoning (ex Varyag):

news.usni.org...

No photos have arisen (yet) on the third carrier, but...

www.scmp.com...

China has made it plain it wants 10 carriers. That would be a direct contradiction of your thesis.

India has stated they want at least three. if not more.

There will come a day when carriers are obsolete. But not yet. Not today. Not for at least ten to twenty years.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha


China has made it plain it wants 10 carriers. That would be a direct contradiction of your thesis.

"Would be" but it isn't. They have two carriers, half the tonnage of one Nimitz class US carrier.

Fledgling efforts, but sure to make the uS go broke countering them, lol. The only reason China meeds them is to counter US aggressive posturing in the South CHINA Sea.

I bet they build 20 subs for every carrier too.

I would. Much more of a threat...

it only takes one submarine



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Wouldn't our preexisting fast-attack sub forces provide a counter to their carriers with no additional budgetary authority?

Because as you say, it only takes one.

I don't see how you are furthering this discussion.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: The one?


Wouldn't our preexisting fast-attack sub forces provide a counter to their carriers with no additional budgetary authority?


The carrier strike groups are attended by submarines to protect from enemy subs. They also have patrol helicopters.

Because sub tactics remain the same, just as deadly as they ever were.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

They have two and have started building another. And at least one jeep carrier (Type 075).

You stated no one would recapitulate the American strategy of using carriers as force projection tools and no one was building the carriers. That is simply NOT true. The Chinese want an American sized carrier fleet. They will have it.

As for building 10x the subs as carriers, guess what? The US is pretty much doing that now, too. In the time frame above, we'll have built at least twelve, if not more, Virginia class SSNs.

The assertions you are making are not born out by the evidence. Carriers have a certain role (power projection, tbh) and subs have a different one (sea denial). They are not the same by any stretch: just as a hammer and a saw are not the same. Both are needed though.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha


You stated no one would recapitulate the American strategy of using carriers as force projection tools and no one was building the carriers. That is simply NOT true.

You want there to be twelve carriers, that is simply NOT true.

They have two, one refurbished from Ukraine and one in trials.

Big damn deal.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No. I didn't say that. I said they want *TEN* carriers. The US has 10. That's parity.

They have the refurb Soviet carrier and their first one they built themselves. They started another, their third. They have said so. They are NOT stopping there.

I MIGHT have given what you are stating some credence: the carriers are meant to push the American Navy back from the coast and be deeper defense. However! The Chinese are rapidly building all the replenishment ships they need to take the People's Liberation Army Navy's warships around the world.

Again, subs cannot do the job the carrier does. It's just not possible. Not even the massive SSGNs.

You can assert all you like, but, again, the evidence does not bare you out.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Were absolutely cranking out Virginia’s right now, plus the new Columbia class is going to start construction soon. The new ford class carriers have some cool stuff that will help deal with missiles. Also as has been mentioned, every time we go out we have a solid sub escort. Whenever I go on deployment on my carrier, I’m not nervous, but it is helpful that people underestimate exactly what the US Navy is capable of.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join