China adds first homemade aircraft carrier to its fleet.

[caervek]

Also US Nimitz and Ford class CATOBAR carriers have 4 catapults (2 bow, 2 angle deck), that allow for a high rate of launches, compared to STOBAR, which has two launch points at the bow.

(Chinese carrier flight deck with two aircraft ready to launch)
(Nimitz class carrier, 3 F/A-18s launching)

The Chinese carriers can actually launch three planes at once (one after the other, not all three at the same time), IIRC the Russian aviation cruiser can too.

[Skroe]

The Chinese carriers can actually launch three planes at once (one after the other, not all three at the same time), IIRC the Russian aviation cruiser can too.

No. It's one at a time, one after another. They can have two positioned for take off and two waiting in line behind them. They have to wait for the first to clear the jump. So it's 1->2, then two move up, then 1->2.

With the Nimitz's class, four are connected to the catapults (with more in line behind) and it launches them in series... i.e. 3->1->4->2, and every-time one is clear, another moves up.



This video shows 3 Tomcats taking off within 15 seconds (starting at 0:36)


The quoted overall rate of launch for a Nimitz class is one every 20 seconds.

Another angle (different launch)

[caervek]

No. It's one at a time, one after another.

That's what I said, one after the other. Front left launches, then front right, then mid left.

I was just pointing out the Chinese carriers (and maybe the Russian cruiser) can launch three not two.

[Puupi]

This video shows 3 Tomcats taking off within 15 seconds (starting at 0:36)

What is the guy doing the Superman yoga moves called?

[caervek]

What is the guy doing the Superman yoga moves called?

Landing Signal Officer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Signal_Officer

[MonsieuRoberts]

What do most countries do with their aircraft carriers anyway? Has it been mostly for take-offs toward the Middle East from sea this past decade?

[Macaquerie]

What do most countries do with their aircraft carriers anyway? Has it been mostly for take-offs toward the Middle East from sea this past decade?

Carriers mostly exist for propaganda value these days. The Chinese don't really care that this ship couldn't possibly match up against an American supercarrier, it makes their citizens feel safer and more confident, and that's all that matters to their leadership.

[Puupi]

Landing Signal Officer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Signal_Officer

And this is their arm patch:



"Anally virgin"?

[Deleted]

I worry about China increasing their military strength because they're ultimately pretty irresponsible. I mean the US is arrogant as fuck, but we don't have a system of public suppression in place. We allow journalist to print things critical of the administration, we don't have nearly as many human rights violations, nor as many environmental violations.

I worry about a country this irresponsible towards their own people projecting power anywhere.

Likewise. Countries like China and Russia increasing their power is always a danger not only to freedom, but to humanity itself, and a contribution towards a dystopian future where totalitarism reigns. Muslim countries would be even worse, but thankfully most of them are technologically too primitive. Even the wealthier countries have bought all their tech from abroad with oil money, or by fraternizing with Russia.

[Skroe]

Carriers mostly exist for propaganda value these days. The Chinese don't really care that this ship couldn't possibly match up against an American supercarrier, it makes their citizens feel safer and more confident, and that's all that matters to their leadership.

Not true.

These first carriers are essentially training ship / proof of concept ships. The Russian design is a flawed one.

The eventual Chinese goal is believed to be for at least six flat-top follow up domestic design (with catapults) 100,000 ton carriers (comparable to the nimitz) to allow China to project power to the third Island chain(the red one)




China's long term strategic ambition is to drive the US back to Hawaii and allow China to have hegemony over East-Asia, where most of the human population and over half of global trade is. This will give China unrivaled international power. It will need carriers to do that.

Longer term, China will want to have standing Battle groups in the Indian Ocean / Persian Gulf, and one day the Atlantic Ocean, to protect the far side of the "New Silk Road" and Chinese hegemony over Eurasia.



This is how China plans to draw a line under the US-lead International Order: gradually push the US out of Eurasia and back into North America. It is also a direct assault on the cornerstone of US Geostrategy since World War I: Prevent the rise of hegemonic powers in Eurasia. This is why the US and China are on a collision course.



Militarily, carriers are extremely useful, especially since in coming years they'll be equipped with long range / high endurance drones.

[caervek]

What do most countries do with their aircraft carriers anyway?

The USA sail theirs around projecting power.

Thailand use theirs to carry their harriers around wondering "why did we buy all this?".

Italy keeps theirs in a dock wondering if it was a good idea to scrap the harriers years before the F-35Bs were ready.

India sails theirs around and writes angry letters to Putin every time their shiny new MiG-29Ks fall off it (often).

France uses theirs to carry their Rafales around while trying to figure out why it goes faster in reverse and only flies white flags.

The Chinese sail theirs around to protect their artificial islands from artificial sharks.

The British use ours in construction, after they were melted them down and sold them back to us.

Other countries are either planning to build carriers, building carriers, or wondering why people spend so much on ships they never use.

- - - Updated - - -

These first carriers are essentially training ship / proof of concept ships. The Russian design is a flawed one.

Ignoring the fact the Chinese design actually differs quite substantially from the Russian one, what about it do you consider flawed (apart from only being able to launch three planes at a time).

[Skroe]

Ignoring the fact the Chinese design actually differs quite substantially from the Russian one, what about it do you consider flawed (apart from only being able to launch three planes at a time).

The ski-jump intrinsically imposes a significant payload/fuel cost. That's the core problem. It's not just the rate of launch. It's what their aircraft are able to fly with and their endurance.

Furthermore not being nuclear powered limits the ship's endurance at sea and expandability as new types of weapons and sensors are introduced. The Ford class only uses a third of it's total energy production.

[Tierbook]

The ski-jump intrinsically imposes a significant payload/fuel cost. That's the core problem. It's not just the rate of launch. It's what their aircraft are able to fly with and their endurance.

Furthermore not being nuclear powered limits the ship's endurance at sea and expandability as new types of weapons and sensors are introduced. The Ford class only uses a third of it's total energy production.

Weren't there plans to put railguns/lasers on the Ford carriers? A bit like what the Zumwalt was initially proposed to do?

[prwraith]

This is how China plans to draw a line under the US-lead International Order: gradually push the US out of Eurasia and back into North America. It is also a direct assault on the cornerstone of US Geostrategy since World War I: Prevent the rise of hegemonic powers in Eurasia. This is why the US and China are on a collision course.

This is a kind of plan we can't allow.

China has proven, as has Russia. That the lives of their people are less important than their countries ability to dominate people militaristically. This will be the cause of the next great war, and so be it. We can't allow countries that imprison people for so much as being critical of them to become a dominate world power.

Whatever it takes, needs to be done.

[caervek]

The ski-jump intrinsically imposes a significant payload/fuel cost. That's the core problem. It's not just the rate of launch. It's what their aircraft are able to fly with and their endurance.

Well, that only applies to the Chinese ships not the Russian one, but as far as ski-jump carriers go we managed to send one down to south America and bitchslap the Argentinian air force. They're may not be as good as nuclear/CATOBAR depending on your uses, but depending on your uses they're just as good.

[Skroe]

Weren't there plans to put railguns/lasers on the Ford carriers? A bit like what the Zumwalt was initially proposed to do?

The Zumwalts will have them. Specifically the third Zumwalt.

The Ford class carriers will get them... eventually. Probably a mature design. But thing more long term. The Ford class, with modifications, is going to be the US's carrier for most of the 21st century. The last Ford class carrier, which will have modifications of course, will enter service around 2055 and exit service around 2110. If there is a follow on class of carrier at all (the concept could change mid century), it will serve along side a significant number of Ford class ships (the first, the USS Gerald R Ford, will be in service until around 2065-2070).

Think about how long that is. The electrical production capacity anticipates future energy-intensive sensors, computers and weapons. But also consider another possibility: electrically powered drones mid-century that utilize battery power (charged from the reactor) rather than jet fuel. Right now, purely conceptual, but it could further enhance a carrier's endurance and cut it's logistic needs.

The electrification of the US Navy has been a multi-decade plan that will continue for decades to come. Even new versions of older classes are featuring design changes that are increasing their electrical generating capacity.

[Kellhound]

Isn't one argument for a STOBAR design also that it reduces the cost of launching aircraft? I.e. a steam catapult causes more wear on an airframe so the aircraft have to be retired earlier?

I heard something about this also being one of the reasons for developing the electromagnetic catapult system?

STOBAR actually increases the wear and tear because more aircraft are needed for the same effect because of the significantly reduced payloads STOBAR requires.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought Aircraft Carrier was invented and used in World War 2, 70 years ago.

Why is big news now?
fake news?

While fleet carriers predate WWII, the ability to produce a CATOBAR carrier for jets is actually a very exclusive club. For most of the 20th century only the US, France, and UK were capable of building them.

- - - Updated - - -

Landing Signal Officer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Signal_Officer

Wrong end of the deck, the video shows the cat officer (aka the shooter).

[Puupi]

Wrong end of the deck, the video shows the cat officer (aka the shooter).

Googled cat officer. Wasn't disappointed.

[Kellhound]

The USA sail theirs around projecting power.

Thailand use theirs to carry their harriers around wondering "why did we buy all this?".

Italy keeps theirs in a dock wondering if it was a good idea to scrap the harriers years before the F-35Bs were ready.

India sails theirs around and writes angry letters to Putin every time their shiny new MiG-29Ks fall off it (often).

France uses theirs to carry their Rafales around while trying to figure out why it goes faster in reverse and only flies white flags.

The Chinese sail theirs around to protect their artificial islands from artificial sharks.

The British use ours in construction, after they were melted them down and sold them back to us.

Other countries are either planning to build carriers, building carriers, or wondering why people spend so much on ships they never use.

- - - Updated - - -


Ignoring the fact the Chinese design actually differs quite substantially from the Russian one, what about it do you consider flawed (apart from only being able to launch three planes at a time).

The design was a compromise between a cruiser and an aircraft carrier, thus failing at both. It is capable of carrying about the same number of aircraft as the Clemenceau-class French carriers that are 1/2 the displacement and have catapults.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that only applies to the Chinese ships not the Russian one, but as far as ski-jump carriers go we managed to send one down to south America and bitchslap the Argentinian air force. They're may not be as good as nuclear/CATOBAR depending on your uses, but depending on your uses they're just as good.

If the RN had a CATOBAR carrier for the Falklands it is unlikely they would have lost any ships to air attack, as you would have had a more effective CAP and AEW.

[Tierbook]

The design was a compromise between a cruiser and an aircraft carrier, thus failing at both. It is capable of carrying about the same number of aircraft as the Clemenceau-class French carriers that are 1/2 the displacement and have catapults.

- - - Updated - - -



If the RN had a CATOBAR carrier for the Falklands it is unlikely they would have lost any ships to air attack, as you would have had a more effective CAP and AEW.

Figured I'd look up the Falklands war to see how Britain did because I don't remember doing that poorly in it..... I'm surprised they lost 1/3 as many as the Argentinians did and as many ships/planes as they did......