Survivalist Forum banner
41 - 60 of 72 Posts

·
Member
Joined
·
4,701 Posts
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.
US carriers haven't used steam in a long time, they've been electro magnetic, the chicoms have been trying to copy it, it's taken them several years without good results. We'll see if they've actually got the bug worked out.... You're behind on your info, that was in print several years ago.
 

·
Live Secret, Live Happy
Joined
·
17,666 Posts
US carriers haven't used steam in a long time, they've been electro magnetic, the chicoms have been trying to copy it, it's taken them several years without good results. We'll see if they've actually got the bug worked out.... You're behind on your info, that was in print several years ago.
The Ford class introduced the EM catapult system. The ten (10) older Nimitz class all still use steam. Since the last Nimitz class ship was built in 2006, they will continue to use steam for another 50 yrs.

List of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and completion date

Nimitz CVN-68 May 1972
Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 October 1975
Carl Vinson CVN-70 March 1980
Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 October 1984
Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 February 1988
George Washington CVN-73 July 1990
John C. Stennis CVN-74 November 1993
Harry S. Truman CVN-75 September 1996
Ronald Reagan CVN-76 March 2001
George H.W. Bush CVN-77 October 2006
 

·
Member
Joined
·
4,701 Posts
The Ford class introduced the EM catapult system. The ten (10) older Nimitz class all still use steam. Since the last Nimitz class ship was built in 2006, they will continue to use steam for another 50 yrs.

List of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and completion date

Nimitz CVN-68 May 1972
Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 October 1975
Carl Vinson CVN-70 March 1980
Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 October 1984
Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 February 1988
George Washington CVN-73 July 1990
John C. Stennis CVN-74 November 1993
Harry S. Truman CVN-75 September 1996
Ronald Reagan CVN-76 March 2001
George H.W. Bush CVN-77 October 2006
Looks like the Navy has decided to replace all the Nimitz with the Ford class.

The Gerald R. Ford class is a class of nuclear powered aircraft carriers currently being constructed for the United States Navy. The class, with a planned total of ten ships, will replace the Navy's current carriers on a one-for-one basis, starting with the lead ship, Gerald R. Ford replacing Enterprise (CVN-65), and then eventually taking the place of the existing Nimitz-class carriers.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
4,701 Posts
Absolutely, but notice the completion dates. It took 34 yrs to complete all ten Nimitz class ships, and the Ford class will not be built any faster.
But they won't be building any more steam catapults. And it won't take as long to compete new Ford Class carriers since they worked out the problems using the Ford as the test bed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 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
None of your business.
Joined
·
3,644 Posts
I personally believe Aircraft Carriers are antiquities from WWII...They served a very good purpose then, but now with Space-Age technology, its doesn't make sense anymore to keep spending money on the past vs on future technology.
In keeping things on the same level and CONVENTIONAL for warfare, it might make sense...but not when several super-powers are going at it..Those wars will be FAR from conventional...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rigel

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 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.
 

·
Bug-In Prepper
Joined
·
2,099 Posts
Lets us know when Pak contributes anything to any area of engineering.
To be fair, the Pakistani Al-Khalid tank development program demonstrated that they know how to run a military engineering project, and they didn't sabotage themselves out of pride like the Indians did with their Arjun project.

They hired foreign experts who knew what they were doing to work with their domestic engineering team to implement Al-Khalid, which means they have a practical, modern tank in production right now, and their engineers have some solid experience with tank technology. They did it on time and on budget, setting modest, achievable goals and adhering to them.

That's good engineering. It might not be as glamorous as if they'd invented everything from scratch, but sometimes good engineering is boring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
To be fair, the Pakistani Al-Khalid tank development program demonstrated that they know how to run a military engineering project, and they didn't sabotage themselves out of pride like the Indians did with their Arjun project.

They hired foreign experts who knew what they were doing to work with their domestic engineering team to implement Al-Khalid, which means they have a practical, modern tank in production right now, and their engineers have some solid experience with tank technology. They did it on time and on budget, setting modest, achievable goals and adhering to them.

That's good engineering. It might not be as glamorous as if they'd invented everything from scratch, but sometimes good engineering is boring.
They also have Chinese VT-4 tanks and are in China’s pocket. Pakistan is in full compliance with Chinese policies in exchange for Chinese investments in poorly developed Pakistan. This Paki love of communist economics has brought about serious internal stability issues from separatists groups. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for countries loyal to China.

The question is has China put Pakistan into a debt trap? Hard to tell at this stage as CPEC moves forward but having the Chinese run your facilities and keep the lions share of revenue isn’t a partnership… sounds more like an ownership.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 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
·
801 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
·
107 Posts
Four Jap carriers were sunk (last one was scuttled) by some ballsy pilots in prop planes in one battle in WW II. Sure, not the same class as current ones, but all it takes is a few good/lucky hits or nukes and pop goes the weasel.

Better to have smaller, more nimble ships with less of a signature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M.O.A.

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
Kinda hard to have smaller ships when you need to transport and support aircraft, and you need a fair number of aircraft to keep some up at all times. China has the home-field advantage and they have land based airstrips in the region. Provided they can actually fight (which is a wild card since they don't have a good track record) they could pretty quickly take more including the Philippines which would definitely put us at an even larger disadvantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 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.
 
41 - 60 of 72 Posts
Top