China's 3rd aircraft carrier has been spotted by a satetllite

China has a very active aircraft carrier program. They have the original Varyag: the Ukrainian/Soviet aircraft carrier that is a sister ship to the Russian Kuznetsov. That ship was bought from the Ukrainians and refurbished into the Liaoning. It is an active part of the Chinese navy, the People Liberation Army Navy. The improved version of that ship built in Chinese yards has been undergoing sea trials and is expected to join the fleet this year. That ship has been called the "Shandong" online, but the PLAN hasn't officially named it. The Liaoning and the Shandong were worked on at the Dalian shipyards. It is debated whether or not a another carrier is being built there, but it will be years before we know for sure. However, that a third carrier was being built outside of Shanghai up north in the Jiangnan shipyard.

It's really no secret that the Chinese have been working on their third carrier. They've not said much officially, but it's not something they have been hiding. Now, however, the aircraft carrier modules are being assembled and the process of doing so has been caught by an imagery satellite.



This carrier is a big ship. CSIS estimates a beam of 41 meters at the water line. The Liaoning has a measurement of 35 meters. The Nimitz class has a beam of... 41 meters. The Tin Lizzies (Queen Elizabeth class) has a beam of 39 meters. That was what was expected, tbh. It is also a preliminary estimate, so it could be revised downwards. If the CSIS estimate is correct this is a massive ship. Far, far bigger than anticipated.

It is likely to be a CATOBAR (use catapults for launching aircraft) and will probably enter the fleet in 2022, according to Pentagon estimates. The Chinese have stated multiple times they intend on building a ten carrier fleet to match the US. For those that are claiming the carrier is a dead technology, it looks like the Chinese rather disagree.

www.reuters.com... alysts-idUSKCN1SD0CP

media.defense.gov...

a reply to: anzha

So funny that people say that carriers are just easy targets but look at china.

Stealth doesnt work either but every other country has a stealth aircraft program...

Hmmm

It's an expensive way to beat up on countries who cannot defend themselves. But China wants into the game. A carrier isn't "just" a target or "useless". It is simply a massive investment for limited return.

Also, the battleships were entering obsolescence with the Taranto raid in 1940, but all combatants were still funding "super-battleships" like the Iowa's, Montana's, Lion's, KGV's, Yammato's, Bismark's, H-classes, etc. Just because people continue to build and operate them does not make them a wise investment of resources.

a reply to: anzha

China does most of the World's manufacturing. They have the most money. They have the best engineers and the largest number of engineers. It's just a matter of time before they are the most powerful nation on Earth.

The US has no manufacturing jobs so there's no tax base to pay for all the military spending. Please we have to many resources going into foreign military bases. And we do not have enough engineers and scientists graduating from college because there's no money in honest labor.

It's okay, the US had a good run.

I feel the carriers fleets are a stop gap to force projection until the "Aerospace" fighters technology (i.e. fighters that can fly into space and orbit the Earth) are operational.

double posts

originally posted by: RadioRobert
It's an expensive way to beat up on countries who cannot defend themselves. But China wants into the game. A carrier isn't "just" a target or "useless". It is simply a massive investment for limited return.

Also, the battleships were entering obsolescence with the Taranto raid in 1940, but all combatants were still funding "super-battleships" like the Iowa's, Montana's, Lion's, KGV's, Yammato's, Bismark's, H-classes, etc. Just because people continue to build and operate them does not make them a wise investment of resources.

Battleships performed lots of important duties in ww2. Several even served in Korea and Vietnam.
One served in the gulf war.
So not totally obsolete.

a reply to: dfnj2015

LOL what? The US doesnt have the tax base to afford our military spending? Well where the hell does our three quarters of a TRILLION dollar defense budget come from every year?

a reply to: joemoeYep, Air is where future war will be fought from.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: anzha

China does most of the World's manufacturing. They have the most money. They have the best engineers and the largest number of engineers. It's just a matter of time before they are the most powerful nation on Earth.

The US has no manufacturing jobs so there's no tax base to pay for all the military spending. Please we have to many resources going into foreign military bases. And we do not have enough engineers and scientists graduating from college because there's no money in honest labor.

It's okay, the US had a good run.

Great, so when you moving there?

More info:

chinapower.csis.org...

a reply to: Bluntone22

Sure. A BB still isn't completely obsolete. A battleship would still be most welcome by the Marines, for example. Nothing beats heavy artillery for putting sustained fire down on a target. We don't use them. Not because they do not still have utility, but because they represent an enormous sink of resources for limited utility.

Carriers will never be "totally obsolete" either. They will always have a very real, if limited, utility in sea control and in regional conflicts.

Neither case of "not totally obsolete" makes a great case for that utility justifying the giant investment in resources (material, manpower, etc) necessary to wield them as weapons. At least not as the force is currently structured.

Thanks.
Are these all conventional carriers, or are any nuclear?

I also believe it was Zaphod who said it's not just the physical building of the carriers as much as the doctrine on how to operate them. While they may be able to build 10 carriers, being able to operate them efficiently is a whole different story, and where the US literally has decades of experience.

a reply to: peter_kandra

These are all conventional. So far, the US and France are the only ones with CVNs.

That said, the Chinese have been practicing replenishment at sea with the Liaoning.

a reply to: anzha

i seems to have missed the evidence that this is a carrier build

can someone enlighten me ????????????

precisley why should i accept the assertion " this is a carrier " - not a merchant man or cruise liner ????????????????

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: dfnj2015

LOL what? The US doesnt have the tax base to afford our military spending? Well where the hell does our three quarters of a TRILLION dollar defense budget come from every year?

As opposed to our $3T+ domestic spending. It's humorous when people think our military spending is what's costing us so much money. Our military spending is actually in line with what other industrialized nations spend, 2-4% of GDP. Some countries spend even more than us as a percentage of GDP. You just won't see that on the news because they like to make it sound like we spend way more than is reasonable, and they only show our outright spending compared to other countries, which doesn't take into account differences in the size of the economies of those countries.

There's still people that think military spending is over 50% of our budget because of a meme that went around social media years ago.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The simple acquisition (not development, support, etc) cost of a single Ford class carrier is ~$13 billion. For the same money I could purchase three Virginia class attack subs, three P-8 ASW aircraft, and seven B-21 bombers.

That doesn't count the cost of supporting the carrier, buying planes for the carrier, the massive amount of manpower crewing the carrier, or very critically, the massive battlegroup of AA-cruisers, ASW escorts/submarines, tankers, etc that have to be purchased and deployed to operate and utilize each carrier. The rest of the carrier battlegroup multiplies the costs. Manpower investment, maintenance, fueling for the CVBG is much higher than the alternative costs.

How many tasks does the carrier perform that could not be performed by three Virginias, 3 P-8's and seven B-21's?

I can get 18 KC-46 and 46 B-21's for the cost of two (empty) Ford class carriers. Doesn't include the carrier airwing or escorts' costs. Doesn't include higher operating costs or manpower investment. Which provides greater utility in force projection or national defense?

Carriers will never be "useless" . But that doesn't mean maintaining a large fleet of them is a sound investment of our defense budget. The opportunity costs are very, very high.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So funny that people say that carriers are just easy targets but look at china.

The building of the Chinese navy is part of the longer term aspiration to be a military superpower. However, chances are these carriers will just sit in the South China Sea intimidating the neighbours, or circle Taiwan being a pain to navigation.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I would agree with you but I think that company Elon Musk created called Neurallink or what ever it is called will make having not enough Engineers obsolete. If anybody could become a engineer then it takes their edge and throws it out the window. In like 10 years it won't matter how many Chinese there are because I think Elon is going to change the world by making college a thing that won't be needed anymore.

That will be cool but I may just be dreaming.

a reply to: anzha

I say we allow them a port of call (visit) to San Fran or something. Just to see if they have the logistics available to support such a feat.

It would let us know where their carrier groups are in the area of readiness.

I wonder what is the farthest away from home any of them have ever gone.