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.

 

Chinese Aircraft Carrier Capability Unlikely Before 2015, Says US Report

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Chinese Aircraft Carrier Capability Unlikely Before 2015, Says US Report


www.janes.com

Jane’s Navy International reported, “According to a report by the U.S. government, China's ambitions to build an aircraft carrier force are unlikely to be realised before 2015. China is continuing work to reactivate the ex-Russian carrier Varyag and interest remains in the purchase of Su-33 aircraft from Moscow.”...

...commented that the refurbishment of the ex- Varyag continues "and it is likely that the ship will emerge from Dalian in the next few years to perform, initially, a training role.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.upi.com
www.upi.com
www.asahi.com




posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Just when you hear all the fear-mongering about China undermining this, China developing that; a refreshingly honest appraisal of China's military standpoint comes out of the woodwork.

They're not even close to developing blue-water Naval capabilities anywhere near America's.

For those of you unaware of the development of China's proposed aircraft carrier fleet it revolves around a former Russian aircraft carrier, the Varyag:


Completed just as the Soviet Union broke up, it was lacking a fully-integrated electronics suite.
It went to Ukraine, who stripped it, removed the engines and anything valuable and put it up for auction.

China bought it in 1998 who has since been using it simply for familiarisation and benchmarking purposes, as well as training the Chinese airforce on carrier take-off and landing.

A complete refit is underway currently but is expected to take years to complete if they want to make the ship 100% operational, which is uncertain.
Currently it's a "dead ship", moved around by a fleet of tugboats.

China seems to content to simply model their future carriers, of which construction will start in the coming years, on the former Russian ones. It looks like they're set to develop an Su-33 carrying indigenous carrier sometime in the future considering how many Su-33s have been purchased from Russia. (Which are explicitly Naval-based aircraft and optimised for such operations).

China also possesses the retired Minsk and Kiev from Russia, which are not true aircraft carriers, but simply helicopter & VTOL carrying cruisers.
These are fully operational but mothballed for the current time.

www.janes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I retract my previous statement on the other thread. I guess I got caught up in all the MSM hype that China was a serious threat. I didn't know they only had one major aircraft carrier, which has to be moved by tugs.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I disagree

China remains a thread and thier military is growing in leaps and bounds.
The fact that they are going in this direction is a threat.

This is a testbed and I would expect that once operational you will see them develop thier own carrier probably the size similar to the French CDG class.

The Ninitz class represents the work of decades and the Chicoms are getting a head start. Also they can simply steal specs and designs as well. They are going about this smart however. Retrofit an existing carrier, buy carrier airframes and then move on with what you learned.

Now where is the 'Chicom Carrier battle group doomed by undeveloped secret US Weapons"



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
An aircraft carrier is not the be all end all of naval supremacy it once was. Just like the era of the battleship, there are some who speculate that the day of the carrier may be over. Asymmetric warfare is the name of the game. Cheap, plentiful and fast missiles, with satellite guidance and terminal maneuvering are the bane of the fleet carriers existence. There is currently no counter to a massed missile attack against a carrier. Submarines, as always, area serious threat to any carrier group.

That said, a large fleet action has not been fought by a carrier since WW2. No one really knows how they would perform in a modern high threat environment. That is not to say China's naval force is in any way comparable to that of the USA, just that there are methods available to the PLA to counter any carrier actions by the USA. If China wishes to project her power, carriers are a must, but to say China stands no chance against a US carrier groups is overly optimistic.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 




China remains a thread and thier military is growing in leaps and bounds.
The fact that they are going in this direction is a threat.


Are you seriously going to give me the "only America can have X, Y, and Z" argument?

So they want carriers. If that makes conservative, megalomaniacs in Washington upset, I couldn't care less.

The days are fast disappearing when America can dictate to the world where it can take a dump and how.

And for good reason too, HYPOCRISY. Expecting people to listen to you when you're asking them disarm themselves, and you're not reciprocating is a laughable logic.

The Chinese are not stupid friend. If they want Naval deterrent capabilities, they can have them. There's no treaty, convention or stipulation preventing that.

You don't like that? Well take it up with you're government.
China responds to stimuli, like every other nation in the world. America spends (far more mind you), China spends. Welcome to the real world.


This is a testbed and I would expect that once operational you will see them develop thier own carrier probably the size similar to the French CDG class.


As stated already. The Varyag will in all probability not be made fully operational. It's simply too old and battered and far too costly.
It's cheaper to build a new one from scratch.


the Chicoms are getting a head start. Also they can simply steal specs and designs as well.


Because America would never dream of doing such things.


Except for their entire space programme which would have never gotten off the ground if it weren't for about 50 Nazi rocket scientists and their V-2 designs.

Or the B-2 bomber, which all assume to be the work of recent American engineering but was really envisioned decades ago, again by the Nazis who pioneered the first proof-of-concept flying wing design, the Horten Ho 229, which actually included what were the first stealth characteristics.

Time to loose the high horse my friend. Since when is war fair?
America is hardly an innocent party here.


They are going about this smart however. Retrofit an existing carrier, buy carrier airframes and then move on with what you learned.


Yes they certainly are. It took China a mere 10 years to accomplish an equivalent 50 years of Industrialisation America went through to become the world's largest producer.


Now where is the 'Chicom Carrier battle group doomed by undeveloped secret US Weapons"


Even in 50 years the Chinese Navy won't be able to stand up, toe-to-toe with the US.

Try the decaf, you're a long way away from worrying about such prospects.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Or the B-2 bomber, which all assume to be the work of recent American engineering but was really envisioned decades ago, again by the Nazis who pioneered the first proof-of-concept flying wing design, the Horten Ho 229, which actually included what were the first stealth characteristics.


Try again Bob.

The Ho229 first flew in 1944. Jack Northrop flew the N-1M in 1940-41. The first flying wing was the Horton H-1 which flew as a glider with partial success in 1933, followed by the H-2 which flew as a glider and powered. At the same time in the US, the Freel flying wing glider flew in 1937, followed by the N-1M in 1940-41, the British Baynes Bat glider, and finally the Ho 229.

The N-1 was followed by the N-9 in 1942, which led to the YB-35 program. The N-9M was a scale model being developed for the YB-35, which first flew in 1946. They were already working on the XB-35 in 1942-43 before the Ho 229 ever flew.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 




The N-1 was followed by the N-9 in 1942, which led to the YB-35 program. The N-9M was a scale model being developed for the YB-35, which first flew in 1946. They were already working on the XB-35 in 1942-43 before the Ho 229 ever flew.


1. The YB-35 was a turboprop, the Ho 229 was a transsonic jet bomber. The YB-35 had half the maximum speed of the Horten Ho 229. Compounding that, it was a spectacular failure. The contra-rotating engines malfunctioned, the airframe was very susceptible to wind stress and had a very short angle of attack.

2. It's widely known America took all the Horten Ho 229 prototypes after the war and handed them over to Jack Northrop. Suddenly in the post-war years, he began churning out flying wing designs that were jet-powered and actually worked, like the Northrop YB-49 in 1947. Coincidental?

3. Northrop never incorporated stealth characteristics into their early designs. The Horten brother specifically chose a carbon-impregnated surface for the 229 because it would render it invisible to radars of the day.

Case Closed. Northrop was born of Nazi innovations.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


So what. They used similar technologies to design them, and Northrop ALREADY had a lot of experience building flying wings. The Ho 229 flew for TWO HOURS before crashing, and never flew again before the end of the war. It may have been a transonic design but that doesn't mean anything, because it never flew long enough to see just WHAT it could do.

And they don't know WHY the Horton brothers put carbon in. They don't know if it was for stealth, or lack of materials. So you can't say that they deliberately did it for stealth, without knowing for sure. Germany was desperately short of materials at the time.

According to your logic, Northrop couldn't have learned anything from previous designs, they only learned what they were doing by stealing the technology. You really should do better research Bob. The YB-49 WAS the YB-35, reengined with jet engines.

The YB-35 range was roughly 8,150 miles (yeah, short ranged), it was shorter than the Army WANTED, but that was still a respectable range at the time. After the exhaust and engine problems were found, they replaced the engines on 2 of the 13 with J49 jet engines. The other 11 were undergoing conversion. One was converted to run on 6 jet engines, the others on 8.

Once they converted them to jet engines, the range went up to 9.978 miles.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 4/12/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


I have to agree, although I have an extremely limited knowledge which results in a perhaps naive assumption. Would it not be correct to assume though the China clearly presents a great threat in terms in military dominance, due relatively simply to the extreme amount of finances they are building all of the time.

If the United States is in such a poor financial position as many suggests, they have ultimately built the dominant military force during a time of comparative peace. Which leaves me concerned (for lack of a better expression) that the United States ultimately produced a huge force that will one day soon be rendered outdated and due to financial restraints near impossible to modernise too current volumes.

Yes the United States will unquestionably remain the dominant force technologically for the next 25 years, perhaps more. But will their investments have been wasted money due to if war was too commence other countries would begin development of military hardware with increase budgets, the large majority of which will be relatively easily reproduced to the United States technological standards.

Rendering the United States in a position of holding a large military which is outdated in comparison to freshly developed technologies by other nations. If the United States cannot conquer any opponent extremely quickly will allow any opponent to develop weapons possibly superior to that of their own. As the United States hold no technologies that are by no means beyond the capabilities of any other nations, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Perhaps the time I mention is today, as should any other nation in the world today devote half the amount of money into development as the United States, the United States has already given them many ideas of what they need to match. The United States is now perhaps not as capable as funding military development in comparison nations such as China.

I could go into that deeper but through my lack of understanding I think what I have written already hard for myself to portray in a way which is easily understandable, but if you do understand what I mean, am I wrong?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


Well Godfather your reply is highly confrontational all he did was state an opinion. Why don't you give the America "Slamming" A rest for a day.

Do you always slam posters who disagree with you? Is there never any open and frank discussion or is everything an Evil American plot?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MrAnonUK
 


STAR!

Very good point. Will the US be able to maintain and modernize it's forces while bankrupt?

I have always felt that the US should maintain and modernize a fighting force that if threatened at home would be able to knock them on their rear, but I'm not a big supporter of having our forces sticking it's nose into every nook and cranny around the world.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


At least I'd view your position as currently positive, at least your not part of a formerly massively powerful nation trying to throw our weight around with the modern day big boys purely due to an un-relentless pride of past conquests. I'll always be confident we (the UK) and the United States each have a populace capable of producing great innovations, as in my humblest opinion (due to potential lack of understanding) history has almost proved as an undeniable fact, but by heck we need to be careful in this day and age.

The powers that be are (perhaps) changing, I just worry we are leaving ourselves through our recent actions with too many enemies to handle should the Western grasp on dominance fall as our empire once did. I love you Yanks with all my heart, but in my perhaps naive view us Brits need to possibly think of our future rather than our loyalty for once, steady our seeming integration into the United States military. We're simply getting pulled into too much that isn't any of our concern and potentially producing enemies that we cannot possibly comprehend the future power of.

Side Note; I wouldn't for a moment contemplate Europe would be at our side should the world enter into war in which we do not hold superiority, but that may be because the only nations I feel loyalty to personally are Australia, Canada, The U.S. and any former or current British protectorate. Europe would divide on the day War becomes a possibility.



[edit on 12-4-2009 by MrAnonUK]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Wait, people are getting all worked up over the Chinese basing a Carrier off of a twenty year old Soviet model? Cool your jets people. The only area the Soviets were ever close with the US, in naval power, was their Subs. That Soviet carrier was outclassed by US carriers 10 years older and is a dinosaur compared to modern carriers.

In addition, as someone above me said, the days of Carriers being the end all of Naval fleets are numbered. They can make an impression sailing into a port, but tactically, satellite guided missiles from smaller ships are becoming the new way naval battles will be fought.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


I can't speak for Slayer69 but I think we're speaking hypothetically of what could occur in the distant future. We realize no immediate threat is posed by this development alone.

You're definitely correct though, procurement of dated Soviet technologies pose no immediate threat worthy of getting "all worked up over."



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Wow a breeze of rationalism flows into port finally (excuse the ship-related pun).

Aircraft carriers and large, behemoth cruisers for that matter are facing a serious challenge now and in the near-future from cheap, hypersonic, anti-shipping missiles that can be launched from fast-moving gunboats and can potentially cripple multi-billion hardware pieces for a fraction of their price.

US Naval simulations have shown most American carriers cannot survive a multiple-ASM strike from airborne targets without additional ABM measures or a very large Carrier complement, that includes a wide-range aerial patrol to take out airborne cruise missile carriers before they get into range.

Another thing that is currently an insurmountable threat to any carrier are submarines, and particularly those armed with super-cavitating torpedoes like Russia's VA-111 "Shkval".
Basically underwater rockets travelling at over 400km/h with nuclear warheads.
There's no current defensive measure against these.

Aircraft carriers are far from the centerpieces of Naval warfare they used to be.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


They won't need it, the Chinese will either steal ours (after they launch neutron bombs) or they will just use Russia's aircraft carriers. I say, let them eat fish.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


Little historical perspective is needed. Jack Northrop was looking at it as early as 1929 and his 1929 Model Flying Wing did have booms in the rear. By 1937 he was testing all wing designs in the wind tunner (aka Model 25)

First flight for the Northrop N-1M was in July 1941

This takes nothing away from the Horton Brothers but the design was not unique to the nazi's



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

Except for their entire space programme which would have never gotten off the ground if it weren't for about 50 Nazi rocket scientists and their V-2 designs.



I would agree that Von Braun was a major contributor but he was not the father of American Rocketry. Leave some credit for the others in the field.



Robert Goddard



Robert Hutchings Goddard (1882-1945)
Personal information
Name Robert H. Goddard
Nationality American
Birth date October 5, 1882(1882-10-05)
Birth place Worcester, Massachusetts
Date of death August 10, 1945 (aged 62)
Place of death Baltimore, Maryland
Work
Significant advance controlled, liquid-fueled rocketry

Robert Hutchings Goddard (October 5, 1882 – August 10, 1945), U.S. professor of physics and scientist, was a pioneer of controlled, liquid-fueled rocketry. He launched the world's first liquid-fueled rocket on March 16, 1926. From 1930 to 1935, he launched rockets that attained speeds of up to 885 km/h (550 mph). Though his work in the field was revolutionary, he was sometimes ridiculed for his theories. He received little support during his lifetime, but would eventually be recognized as one of the fathers of modern rocketry.[1][2]



[edit on 12-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Are you seriously going to give me the "only America can have X, Y, and Z" argument?

So they want carriers. If that makes conservative, megalomaniacs in Washington upset, I couldn't care less.


Please show me where I said the Chicoms could NOT have a carrier?


The Chinese are not stupid friend. If they want Naval deterrent capabilities, they can have them. There's no treaty, convention or stipulation preventing that.


Again please point out where exactly I said that they cannot have a carrier?



You don't like that? Well take it up with you're government.
China responds to stimuli, like every other nation in the world. America spends (far more mind you), China spends. Welcome to the real world.


Please point out where I said they cannot have a carrier



Because America would never dream of doing such things.


Except for their entire space programme which would have never gotten off the ground if it weren't for about 50 Nazi rocket scientists and their V-2 designs.


Never said they didnt but the fact remains China steals technology. I thought this was about a future ChiCom carrier and not about the B-2 or the American Space program




Even in 50 years the Chinese Navy won't be able to stand up, toe-to-toe with the US.

Try the decaf, you're a long way away from worrying about such prospects.


*knock knock* Nevil Chamerlain? are you posting from beyond the grave here at ATS?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join