Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

When is China going to build a Aircraft Carrier?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
You know I've been thinking a bit about the PLAN and its attempts to modernize and work twords a blue water navy. They have a ways to go yet but dont turn your back on them to far or for very long.
If my limited grasp of history has any validity at all....Nations which want to go global in influence want to do so to secure resources primarily to feed thier industries. This means the ability to ship/tranship...and protect their sea lanes. This also means at some time they will come into dispute with other nations seeking to do the same.
While all this particular sea power is of intrest to me..as is the aircraft industry ..I think there is one area not mentioned much on this forum but it will have a great impact on how the military equipment is used ..particularly a navy.
This area is the Chinese intrest in outer space. This means sattelite coverage of weather and also communication/navigation. GPS ability. GPS ability has changed much about the way our military works. Especially in the arena of global strategy and tactics. This will represent a huge leap in ability for a Navy or land army.
Just something for you folks to keep a eye on especially concerning the PLAN.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   
this is a better picture of the new paint


[/U RL]

img455.imageshack.us...


Thanks to ImageShack for [URL=http://imageshack.us]Free Image Hosting

[edit on 24-10-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SectorGaza
lol what a bunch of bull, everyone copies from another


Well the U.S rarely copies anyone.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Well the U.S rarely copies anyone.


Anymore. There was a time when the British were complaining loudly about those bloody colonials stealing all of their inventions and making them their own lol. Just about every empire on the planet climbed it's way to the top on the backs of others, it's just how the game of Geopolitics are played.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
The reason to acquire and/or copy another nations fighter, tank, ship, etc is to have something needed or lacking. One would think that if a nation was going go to the trouble to acquire or copy something of need, that it be improved or added to.

The Chinese are in need of items of power projection, hence the aircraft carrier. The inherent problem here is a number of things: the Chinese lack of experience with the operation and general upkeep of an aircraft carrier, the lack of overall Naval design experience with an aircraft carrier, and definately the lack of flight and sea operational experience with an aircraft carrier.

This Chinese carrier will represent a step forward for China, while aiding and/or contributing to China's overall naval power projection capabilities in the region, etc.






seekerof



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83

Originally posted by SectorGaza
lol what a bunch of bull, everyone copies from another


Well the U.S rarely copies anyone.


and pigs can fly

the US has copied loads of designs in its time ( most from Nazi's )



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
the US has copied loads of designs in its time ( most from Nazi's )


Yeah in a few cases back in the 40's and 50's. But just remember that Jack Northrup was building his first flying wing the same time the Horten brothers were.


[edit on 25-10-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   
as did the Russians. However one thing the US did not copy from the Nazis is Aircraft Carrier design. Nor aircraft design to go on a aircraft carrier.
Nor did we copy how to install a nuclear reactor into a hull design submarine or aircraft carrier.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I think it's worth noting that a lot of stuff that seems like copying is actually just the natural progression of the research done by the same scientists who made deals at the end of the war, most were just desperate not to get caught by the USSR so defected westwards.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I just thought that I'd try and answer a couple of points raised, and some way back stuff that was inaccurate, or daft:

1. Someone asked about the HrMS Karel Doorman. No, it was NOT the first RN carrier. It was, in fact, the ex-HMS Venerable. It was sold in 1968 to Argentina, and, as the 25e de Mayo, was to have played a part in the Falklands War, but when HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano, it was withdrawn, lest the ARA lose even more face. It has since been broken up. (In, wouldn't ya know, India)

2. Someone wondered whether the HMAS Melbourne still existed as an aid to the PLAN. I believe the hulk has since been broken up, but the flight deck is rumoured to still exist (or to have survived) for use by the PLAN and PLAAF.

3. A number of guys have said that diesel subs are obsolete, or words to that effect. May I remind you of the Upholder class, possibly one of the most advanced classes of subs in the world, are conventional. They were only disposed of by the RN after the 1993 "Front Line First" cuts.

4. Someone has claimed that the USA "went it alone" in the Pacific (As opposed to South East Asia), but, in the landings at Okinawa, the British Pacific Fleet (including Commonwealth units) provided crucial AA support to the south. One of (if not the) last VCs awarded in WWII was to Hammy Gray, RCNVR, in an attack on a Japanese escort vessel off Honshu.

5. The first proper aircraft carrier (not just an a/c flying-off platform, or a seaplane vessel) was the HMS Argus. The first purpose built aircraft carrier ordered was the Hermes, whose successor is now in Indian hands (kinda related- Hermes, ex-Elephant, was renamed in 1945 after its less advanced sister Hermes was cancelled- but it isn't the same as the one here!)- ironically, it was sunk along with the HMAS Vampire by Japanese aircraft in 1942.

Finally, I think that the Chinese WILL build an aircraft carrier, but it may be, in actuality, a rotary-wing (!!!) aircraft carrier, although they may turn out with a really good surprise!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll retreat to my nuclear-proof MoD bunker and put my little tin hat on...

[edit on 25-10-2005 by cig1705]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cig1705
I just thought that I'd try and answer a couple of points raised, and some way back stuff that was inaccurate, or daft:

1. Someone asked about the HrMS Karel Doorman. No, it was NOT the first RN carrier. It was, in fact, the ex-HMS Venerable. It was sold in 1968 to Argentina, and, as the 25e de Mayo, was to have played a part in the Falklands War, but when HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano, it was withdrawn, lest the ARA lose even more face. It has since been broken up. (In, wouldn't ya know, India)

[edit on 25-10-2005 by cig1705]

India has one of the largest Naval demolition sites. It's not suprising that many ships go to India to be taken apart. Actually, I think that India does have the world's largest scrap yard for naval ships.

The only difference between the Indian scrap yards and American scrap yards, is that the Indian scrap yards are no where near as advanced as the American ones, the workers at the Indian scrap yards all work without the necessary protective gear and to use a good analogy, their basically cutting down the steel hull of a ship with a hatchet and pick.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Ya must be talking about Alang...

Ships are beached, an army of workers arrive, and by teatime some of the ship has disappeared.

Was sad to see the HMS Vengeance broken up there. (Sniff!)

Anyhoo, China also has a lot of shipbreakers- after all, the Melbourne was broken up in China!

Dinnae forget the advanced breaking that was supposed to be going on at Hartlepool.

[edit on 25-10-2005 by cig1705]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
well, I think that the problem should be how big carrier china will build not when.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

This area is the Chinese intrest in outer space. This means sattelite coverage of weather and also communication/navigation. GPS ability. GPS ability has changed much about the way our military works. Especially in the arena of global strategy and tactics. This will represent a huge leap in ability for a Navy or land army.
Just something for you folks to keep a eye on especially concerning the PLAN.

Thanks,
Orangetom



My thoughts exactly...

China is actively pursing IMHO manned weaponisation if orbital and deep space and that is the true long run goal of the chinese space program..
Indian remote sensing satellite tech is not crappy, but in terms of sheer assets in orbit, china beats india..
This is the very reason India is NOT pusuing a manned program because we feel that since we are already lagging this space race if it were, we need to concentrate purely on imaging tech and payload deployment..
(INSAT and GSLV respectively)
Along with that India has been trying to develop soft kill MW tech which IMO will be deployed if India gets some hard evidence on chinese weaponisation of space..
As for now, in terms of pure "imaging" and "remote sensing" tech which you mentioned as a chinese trump, India is at par if not ahead of china.India is actively participating in GLONASS and Galileo, though it doesn't have its own n/w for GPS.
India lags behind in re-entry tech, payload:thrust ratio,and of course we have no manned program(Although the US has recently offered India its manned program services. Don't know much about that)

We have a lunar orbital probe scheduled for 07-08 (around the same time china is sending their orbital lunar probe, though unlike china(2012-14) india had not stated whether it intends to land anything on the moon.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
well, I think that the problem should be how big carrier china will build not when.


Can you give us a time frame for this carrier if you don't think its a problem?
I really am not too confident of of this carrier business because i don't know where the PLAN will be able to deploy such an asset.
As of now it seems like more of a liability/meat shield rather than asset.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Me thinks the money for a PLAN carrier would be better spend on anti-carrier measure eg Diesel subs,supersonic anti-ship missiles etc.There is a whole world of carrier operation knowledge that needs to be learned by them that other carrier nations have learned for years.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
600 hundreds years ago, mean 1405, at the orders of the then emperor, a vast fleet set sail in July, 1405 from Liujia Harbour near Suzhou on a distant voyage. The man who was given charge of the fleet was Zheng He.
The flagship had a length of 440 Chinese feet and a width of 180, almost same size as a modern light carrier.
Stupid would think Chinese don't have the capability to make a new toy 600 hundreds years later. They are smarter than you. It's the truth.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Its not just the smartness of building a Aircraft Carrier. It is a huge undertaking involving training of crew to run and maintain the ship. Crews to run and maintain the air wing...etc etc etc...
It is a whole concept far beyond the aircraft carrier itself. All of this while maintaining the rest of ones militarys.
Is China up to it...I think so ...not without huge difficulties to overcome..but like any nation which has done so ..they will have to work it out by trial and error from the bottom to the top.
It is a huge and I mean huge integration process to properly mix this in with the rest of thier military forces.

Daedalus,
I am somewhat surprised that the Indian space program has so far to go in outer space. I know that there are or were alot of Indian Nationals working here closely with NASA. I live a few miles up the road from the NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia. There is a substantial Indian population here in this town most of them working with NASA.
Its just that with NASA help I would have thought they had overcome many of those problems by now. Curious about this .

Thanks to both of you for your posts,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Daedalus,
I am somewhat surprised that the Indian space program has so far to go in outer space. I know that there are or were alot of Indian Nationals working here closely with NASA. I live a few miles up the road from the NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia. There is a substantial Indian population here in this town most of them working with NASA.
Its just that with NASA help I would have thought they had overcome many of those problems by now. Curious about this .

Thanks to both of you for your posts,
Orangetom


Thats what we call a 'brain drain'..

All those 'indian assets at NASA ' (I think about 25 to 30% of the NASA pop is of indian origin) have not been able to contribute anything to the Indian space program civil/military..
Whatever we've achieved until now is completely on our own w/o espionage I might add since sucha massive resource at NASA would be any spy agency's delight in probing for info.
Only now after recent thaw in relations may India benefit from its i/p to NASA.

EDIT:Are you sure they were "Indian NATIONALS" ?? I would presume that ALL of them would be naturalised US citizens of Indian origin.

Iamairforce,
I don't even doubt china's abilty to build a carrier,train a carrier crew and have one operational by say 2010..
All I'm saying is that a carrier would be a burden rather than an asset in today's scenario where the US has almost total control of the pacific..

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I think about 25 to 30% of the NASA pop is of indian origin


hey Daedalus, i have sen this figure a few times. how do you come to this figure?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join