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.

 

China's Airborne Aircraft Carrier?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SadButTrue
 

To me, the Chinese are acting a lot like we were in the 1950s and '60s when drawings for wild new machines of all descriptions would fill the pages of magazines like Popular Science.

The willingness of the leadership there to let them "modernize" has created a flurry of creative engineering activity.

Meanwhile, we over here in the West are beginning to realize that having cool technologies ain't all it's cracked up to be. You also "gotta have heart," as one of our more perceptive songsters once wrote.

I hope China has a better, and saner, grasp of where it's going with its innovations than we did.




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
China hacks other nations for the majority of their research and development. It saves them a ton of $$
I'd say th is is just junk.
edit on 1-7-2011 by ShogunAssassins because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by Aggie Man
China can't even build an ocean-faring aircraft carrier...


Yes they could, if they wanted to. They make everything else.

Maybe they see ocean carriers as obsolete?


Perhaps they can; however, they purchased a Soviet-era vessel and retrofitted it to be an aircraft carrier. Maybe they are just being frugal, but I would think that they would want to build their own so they can show their superiority.

www.defencetalk.com...

And yes, China can build anything....just so long as they already have a working device to back engineer.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I completely forgot about the arkbird. Its true with its size it could have viable defense systems. But if they want it to survive it needs to cave the cuttin edge of tech. I am curious to see exactly how much one of those costs when us sea farring carriers cost around 6 billion dollars



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SadButTrue
 


the time,energy,money, and technology going into that would be ridiculous

and if the US doesnt have one then you better bet neither does China

i mean look at it, it would be slow and cumbersome and it would make for a nice big target for anyone who spots it

China would be waisting, im guessing billions of dollars on it,this also goes along with them refurbishing their first aircraft carrier which really nobody knows wtf it is



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellforge
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I completely forgot about the arkbird. Its true with its size it could have viable defense systems. But if they want it to survive it needs to cave the cuttin edge of tech. I am curious to see exactly how much one of those costs when us sea farring carriers cost around 6 billion dollars


Yes, you are quite right. Such a project would cost too much money for one nation alone. Just like the Arkbird in the game, such a space megaproject would have to be an international effort, especially involvement money, labour, resources, technology and money. This is something that could be created between maybe Russia, US, China and the EU if they cooperated.

In fact, I did write a paper on the constrution of a space elevator as a united international effort once. It's a pretty feasable idea if we pooled resources into developing mass-produced carbon nanotube material for the 44,000km tether to the relay station at geosyncronous orbit (our greatest challenge for the project). But I digress.

Point is, we would enter a new era of science and development if we were able to freely enter and exit our planet's atmosphere, which could probably lead to better technology to build an aerial carrier (Navy would expand to space warships at this time anyways)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
We have outgrown our little planet when we need flying aircraft carriers which look like the OP.

But Airborne aircraft carriers are not a crazy concept, we have Air launched cruise missiles, BVRAAM and UAVs, I imagine some large conventional aircraft, probably the next reincarnation of the B52 or B2 stealth type glider, v.high endurance, kitted out with these inside it, perhaps UAVs will be able to re attach themselves to the aircraft to refuel.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Such big carrier would be impossible to build under current technology and even if they managed to build it it is nothing more than a huge target.. A couple of Novator K-100 AWACS killer would be more than enough to bring down this beast from 200km away



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MisterBurns
 


The only flying carriers we need are those deployed in space. Equipped with antigrav drives, mass drivers and zero-point energy generators. ETA 22nd Century.

Flying carriers in the sky is not economically feasible. But a space carrier is a great way to project force on many levels -- planetary or interplanetary. Imagine being the first nation to have a fleet of space fighters based on some space station, moon base, or carrier. This would indeed be a first strike weapon. Deploy first 1/3rd of your fighters to knock out enemy satellites. Second 1/3rd of fighters patrol low orbit and knock down any ballistics. Third wave of fighters left on stand by, rearming and refueling. Then you can use the base/carrier to launch KE weapons or fling rocks with a mass driver against any ground targets. With no one able to touch your space assets, you'd dominate the world.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by guppy
 


Now this is an interesting concept and one that sould not be wholly debunked, because technology as we know it is advancing rapidly and who knows what is being developed as we speak.

The anti-gravity idea, is I imagine still in the ideas stage, but remeber folks there were a lot of rumours of the Nazis experimenting with this technology in world war 2, maybe the chinese have made a breakthrough, and if they had of course they would keep it secret from the rest of the world because it would give them an incredible advantage over the rest of the world.

I responded to this post because it made me think about something someone had written about in another post, the one where they have recorded strange sounds in the sky like electrical pulses. Could this possibly have been the sound anti-gravity would make?

After all, if the craft was truly stealth, it would be invisible to radar.

Very interesting post this one and rather scary.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Just FYI, the Chinese under the picture of the fighter says something along the lines of "Fifth-level Chinese Black Dragon Airplane"...whatever that means

Under the picture of the flying aircraft carrier, it only says that the picture is from Gan Su Province...not very revealing.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Space carriers would be awesome. An ultimate weapon to that nation who first deploys one. Many nations have the technology. What is keeping them from doing so is Return On Investment (ROI) and that stupid "No Weapons In Space" Treaty.

You know those "No Weapons In Space" Treaty Members have at least one unofficial space weapon in orbit. Kinda like if all nukes were completely banned, each nation would keep one in secret -- just in case.


Originally posted by mobiusmale
"Fifth-level Chinese Black Dragon Airplane"


Engrish for Fifth Generation Fighter Jet, like the F-22 or upcoming PAK FA and J-20.


Originally posted by Bramstone
reply to post by guppy
 

The anti-gravity idea, is I imagine still in the ideas stage, but remeber folks there were a lot of rumours of the Nazis experimenting with this technology in world war 2, maybe the chinese have made a breakthrough, and if they had of course they would keep it secret from the rest of the world because it would give them an incredible advantage over the rest of the world.


Ya, the Nazi's were experimenting on technologies others didn't. Makes you wonder if Germany had their own Roswell event before WW2. And what better website to discuss it but on ATS?

As for what technology China, Russia or US has, its general knowledge that military/gov't have technology 10 to 20 years ahead of what the public has. Makes you wonder what is out there. I bet US has anti-grav vehicles 10 years or more ago. Problem with anti-grav being available for public use is the worst thing any gov't would want. With anti-grav, borders would be non-existent, warfare would be on a new level, and terrorists would be more scary.


Originally posted by Bramstone
reply to post by guppy
 

After all, if the craft was truly stealth, it would be invisible to radar.


It would be very challenging to make a carrier-size object truly stealth. Not impossible, but costly. Besides radar, you have to account for other factors to make it truly stealth, like heat, sound, and visibility. Visibility included because its pretty easy to spot object in the sky, unlike surface objects that are beyond horizon (25 miles). Problem is they do need to make a flying carrier as stealth as impossible. Bigger the target, the more it'll get shot at.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
just something on the defense of an aircraft of this size, has anyone considered a rail gun/coil gun style defense system. These guns could probably shoot a missile down before it hit the craft, secondly isn't the US planning on integrating rail guns into there battleships sometime around 2013 when there are all electric battleships around, they divert power from propulsion to charge the rail gun and then put it back to the motor. This is a little different but still the same methods.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Marine Jim Webb, whos a Senator now is just trying to rally support for a new war.

China has NO flying aircraft carrier. They can't even make a regular aircraft carrier.

The former Russian aircraft carrier they bought which was only a floating hull.....they've been working on that for years and it still hasn't driven itself 10 feet in the ocean.


ohhh sooooo scary.... Next they'll be saying Iran's Navy is a threat to the world.....ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

IRan can't even turn their own crude oil into gasoline......ohh they scare me tooo.......

Their 4 1950's era fighter planes really scare me too and I can't sleep at night......come on people.

China....really?



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Here's the largest image of the 'carrier' I can find..



and who says it would be "defenceless"?

We have lasers that can take out warheads mid flight,
why could this not have similar lasers?
Threat on the ground? Laser on them.. Toast. lol

edit on 18-7-2011 by Ahmose because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dominikas
just something on the defense of an aircraft of this size, has anyone considered a rail gun/coil gun style defense system... they divert power from propulsion to charge the rail gun and then put it back to the motor.


Railguns would be nice when they mature, reduce in power consumption, and greatly in size. Current railgun that fits on a battleship would be too unwieldy to use as an anti-air system. Best thing to use for now instead of a railgun is the Phalanx defense system that is currently being used on surface carriers. But no defense should rely on just one system. You want layers upon layers of defense systems to protect your assets. Also, a flying carrier would require to defend against far more angles than a surface carrier -- above and below. That would mean many more defense points on itself and from its escorts.


Originally posted by Pervius
ohhh sooooo scary.... China....really?


You say that now. But give China a decade or two and no one will be laughing. I've been keeping an eye on China since the turn of the century. They are long-term thinkers, unlike most Western powers. Back in the mid-90s, there was a Taiwan scare when China was threatening to invade Taiwan. The invasion was fake. Just the same cat-and-mouse game US and Russian used to play against each other during the Cold War. China's real reason for the fake invasion was to see how will US respond to a Taiwan invasion. China's military leaders were surprised. They thought US, being the first to respond, would only send 3 carrier groups. China was surprised when US sent 6 carrier groups. Ever since then, China has been researching technology and acquiring hardware to combat against US's carriers.

Don't be afraid of what condition China's military is in today. Be afraid of how fast they are progressing.


Originally posted by Ahmose
We have lasers that can take out warheads mid flight, why could this not have similar lasers?


I have a friend who is a Laser Optics Engineer working on specific defense contracts. Right now, those anti-missile lasers are not 100% reliable. You'd be scared how many times they miss compared to how many they hit. But when they get this laser system to somewhere in the +90% accuracy range, look out missiles.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by Aggie Man
China can't even build an ocean-faring aircraft carrier...


Yes they could, if they wanted to. They make everything else.

Maybe they see ocean carriers as obsolete?


Obsolete?? Hardly. A Carrier Task force ends up off the coast of a country......they take notice. It's all about force projection, Nimitz Class Carriers do that very well. Nothing really can match them for force projection halfway round the world. If you are going to be a world wide military, you need that and tons of alliances and bases around the world.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Amen, pavil. Carriers are the best force projection a country can have. What's better than a carrier? Supercarriers. There's a big difference between the two -- carrier and supercarrier. And only the US can afford deploying supercarriers, while all other countries have 1 or 3 jumpcarriers. Jumpcarriers are great force projection (Falklands War) but they can never compete against a supercarrier, who has 3 times as many aircraft.

Flying carriers will require specialized escorts. These escorts can't just be constant flights of fighters and AWACS. That wouldn't be efficient. The only thing I can think of are flying equivalent of current seagoing escorts, like frigates and cruisers. Carriers rely on layers of defenses and these escorts do a great job. I would be interested in seeing concept art of such flying vessels.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by guppy
 


I'm telling you, just wait until the US engages a real enemy force. American forces will fight well with coordinated interoperable battle systems, but the regular force capability will fall dramatically with losses off carriers and AWACS aircraft. Catching it all on video would result in a HUGE propaganda boost for opposing forces.

And what will American taxpayers and old senators think when they see their $4 billion dollar carriers sink into the abyss with thousands of crewmen?

The bigger the target, the harder it falls.
edit on 20-7-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Hang on, arent they US F15 Eagles flying off the deck of that carrier?

And space based carriers - come on, imagine a pilot, weakened by a tour of duty in weightless space put into a fighter and sent into 6g turns. And since when is a moon base a good idea, any fighter taking off from there would take what, 4 or 5 days to travel to Earth, a Nimitz could get there sooner.

Funny but sooooo far off the mark for at least the next 100 years.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join