Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

China's own designed carrier. Notice it does not have one of those stupid "ski jumps". Those limited the amount of weapons and fuel their fighters could carry.

No, this one has three electromagnetic catapults. And unlike the Gerald Ford's catapults.. which run on AC power... the Type 003 uses HVDC (high voltage DC).

The catapults are covered in the pics.

Water Infrastructure Land lot Urban design Neighbourhood




Even their Close in Weapon Systems have AESA radars!
Product Engineering Gas Naval architecture Machine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
hat boat looks strangely familiar......

I'm guessing it was designed with stolen American technology no doubt!
It's a carrier, dude. Of course it will look like other carriers.

And as I pointed out, it has some tech that US carriers don't have.

The next one... Type 004... will probably be nuclear powered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Is there anything the ChiComs WON'T copy?
At the level of an aircraft carrier, copying will actually be counter-productive. It's much better to make your own.

China's first carrier is a modified Russian heavy cruiser turned into a carrier. Their second is an improvement on that but still derived from that design. They are not happy with those carriers because they don't have a catapult.

That means their planes can only take off with half their weapons and half the fuel. The J-15 is the largest plane to be a used on a carrier anyway... it's big and heavy.

It was a no brainier to make a carrier WITH catapults. And they did not copy the US Navy's steam catapults. These are electric.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
And is existing Russo/Chinese technology
There is no Russo/Chinese hypersonic tech. There is either Chinese or Russian. They are not sharing.

Chinese missiles are more advanced than American ones generally and for sure more advanced than any Russian garbage.
Train Vehicle Green Motor vehicle Rolling stock


BTW, Russia has said that American hypersonic missile tech is also advanced. America is just pretending at failing.

Can a hypersonic missile be defeated by a layered defense system?
Not yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
so in your considered opinion are aircraft carriers now just expensive targets or still viable?
Depends on who is using them and against whom.

USA was giving us a giant cruiser size ship, very cheap. We could've put our own choice of weapons on it and made it awesome. But we declined the offer. Because that would've been our largest boat and if something happened to it during war, the whole navy would be demoralized.

So according to our navy, big boats.. specially carriers, are expensive targets.

In all our wars with India, they hide their carrier in Bombay harbor so we can't use our subs to torpedo it.

So in the view of the Indian navy also, a carrier is an expensive target.

I don't even know what stupidity they are suffering from, sailing carriers when they and their enemy (us) share a long land border. :ROFLMAO:

On the other hand, US Navy and Chinese Navy are obsessed with carriers. These are large navies with lots of money and they sail "carrier flotillas". Like the Americans have like 2 attack submarines, a cruiser or two, etc with their carrier. That is a lethal combination.

The Chinese carriers... at least the ones before this one... are next to useless when compared to American super-carriers. However, they have Renhai Class cruisers and Type 52 destroyers escorting those carriers. That is also a lethal combination.

Consider a scenario where USA needs to teach Iran a lesson. And nobody gives you a base to operate from.

Well, two carrier groups can finish Iran with plenty of firepower left over. So, they give you many options. And the side with more options is the one that wins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
The J-15 is currently the only fighter aircraft they're operating off their carriers
It's a Flanker with folding wings. And Flankers are huge.... not suitable for carriers at all.

but the J-20 is supposed to be able to
J-20 will never be on a carrier. It's the other stealth jet you mean... J-31 "Gyrfalcon".



The Soviet designed but Chinese built engines on their aircraft are maintenance intensive.
Which is why they have started dumping those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
I know they have been working on new engines
They have installed them.

Nobody on earth wants to deal with Russian hardware if they can avoid it.

Our own planes are getting Chinese engines. On average they last half as long before they need an overhaul compared to American engines but then it's the same story with Russian engines.

However, the Chinese engines have higher thrust and they are improving with every iteration... unlike Russian ones.

I thought they'd announced the J-20 was going to be adapted for use on the new larger carriers since it was already in production while they worked on a carrier based J-31?
I'm not sure about that. The J-20 is a huge jet. But the J-31 is perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
Also reminds me of the Buran… the entire world wants to imitate us… but imitations are cheap
Buran was actually more functional in design than the American shuttle... which proved itself to be nothing more than an expensive death trap.

Because you need a big speed bump before going nuclear.
So they are giving themselves the same options. And it seems you don't like them doing that. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
US carriers haven't used steam in a long time, they've been electro magnetic
US carriers use steam catapults.

The first carrier to use electric catapults is the Ford. And it's not as reliable as the steam catapult... it glitches after every few dozen launches.

The difference between American catapults and Chinese ones is that the American system is based on AC while the Chinese use HVDC. Chinese say, their system is better and is more reliable.

There is no way to tell right now if they are better. We will know the answer after it is deployed and info leaks. Maybe in a year or two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
I personally believe Aircraft Carriers are antiquities from WWII
To some extent I agree with you. I hope my navy never goes for a carrier... NEVER. It would be stupid.

So why are USA and China...? Simple answer.... one of them wants to run the world, the other one doesn't want the first one to run the world. :unsure:

We, on the other hand, have no desire to be any kind of World Cop. Even if we had the power and money... no. Nothing good comes out of it. I think most normal countries realize that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 · (Edited)
To be fair, the
There is a missing post number and it seems you are talking to someone I have put on ignore.... ??? The only one I've done that to in this thread was some annoyed chap calling himself MOOOA or something...

their engineers have some solid experience with tank technology.
And aircraft, and ships, and submarines, and long range missiles. and nukes, and....

They did it on time and on budget,
Always. We can't waste money.

That's good engineering.
Thank you.

good engineering is boring.
Almost always. That's how you can tell it's good engineering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #55 · (Edited)
and are in China’s pocket
Bakwaas

has brought about serious internal stability issues from separatists groups.
Mega Bakwaas....

having the Chinese run your facilities
We run our own facilities, thank you.

and keep the lions share of revenue
Some more choice bakwaas.....

Bakwaas.... sanskrit for hogwash....

And I just noticed... you've got just 14 posts here. Which means you are using me to boost your post count by wiping your hands on my towel.

Putting you on permanent ignore as well. Thanks for playing, mate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter · #60 ·
Better to have smaller, more nimble ships with less of a signature.
Exactly what our navy thinks.

We just inducted a new class of carrier-killer boats. This was the first one... it's sister ship sailed yesterday. More to come:

Put me on a Cigarette Craft with a nuke and I'll drive right into that Chinese aircraft carrier while it is at the dock.
But then not only you will be toast, you will be glowing-toast.

You do have the right idea... we figure small heavily armed boats make good carrier killers. Submarines and aircraft work even better.


Chinese seem to have a different idea.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top