China adds first homemade aircraft carrier to its fleet.

[Exeris]

They are late to the party, yes.
But they never had the knowhow, the financial means nor the ambitions before recent times.

There was a time where the US had a laughable military and navy too, lagging way behind that of world power, now a 100 years later they are the main power themselves.

Really? I thought if they wanted to do something they just did it, f.. the consequences?

[caervek]

The design was a compromise between a cruiser and an aircraft carrier

Technically aviation cruisers predate both aircraft carriers and guided missile destroyers so that's not really true, though you could say that of the Chinese Liaoning aircraft carrier which was based on the hull of a Kuznetsov-class aviation cruiser.

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.

Well of the four ships we lost due to air strikes, one was taken out by an Exocet so having CATOBAR carriers would have made zero difference, two were lost to free fall bombs after their air defence systems malfunctioned, and the fourth was lost after damage control crews accidentally detonated a bomb they were trying to diffuse.

Now it can be argued (and I believe that's exactly what you are doing?) that the sky-hawks that dropped the bombs wouldn't have gotten close enough to drop them if there was a brand new Nimitz in the area and F-14's flying around and I don;t dispute that, however there were ~50 harriers in the theatre they just weren't able to hold off the entire Argentinian air force with the issues the RN and army were experiencing.

NB: One point that may be of interest, is that the larger/older of the two carriers sent to the Falklands was originally CATOBAR prior to it's conversion for Harrier use, and had played host to USN F-4Bs. Also that carrier (which began construction during WW2) was eventually sold to India where it served until it's decommissioning last month. What a life it had lol.

[ItachiZaku]

It'd be funny as fuck if Kim blew that fucker up 40 minutes after it's unveiling ceremony.

[caervek]

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......

Defending an island halfway round the planet from invasion by a hostile force armed with high end French equipment without any assistance from the UN or NATO simply wasn't something the UK expected to be doing in the 1980's. We had (and actually still have) the mentality that we will either always be fighting alongside the USA or France or both, and as such it was woefully ill prepared for it.

To give a couple of examples, the bombers we sent were in a winding down phase ready for decommissioning and it took two days to find a vital part of their refuelling probes (being used as ashtrays), some of the ships were getting ready for decommissioning too (and were sold not long after the war), and due to time constraints some of the harriers/helicopters had to be sent out on a commercial container ship (which ironically worked quite well as a VTOL aircraft carrier) which the Argentinians then blew up (not that well :P).

[Puupi]

It'd be funny as fuck if Kim blew that fucker up 40 minutes after it's unveiling ceremony.

Well the thing is not even remotely ready yet.

It's set to start real military testing in 2020. It's just a floating construction site currently as I mentioned earlier.

[Tierbook]

Well the thing is not even remotely ready yet.

It's set to start real military testing in 2020. It's just a floating construction site currently as I mentioned earlier.

So it'll start testing around the same time the US commissions its 2nd Gerald R. Ford class Carrier the JFK

[ItachiZaku]

Well the thing is not even remotely ready yet.

It's set to start real military testing in 2020. It's just a floating construction site currently as I mentioned earlier.

Yeah, but it's be so like Kim to get all excite about it anyways.

[Kellhound]

Technically aviation cruisers predate both aircraft carriers and guided missile destroyers so that's not really true, though you could say that of the Chinese Liaoning aircraft carrier which was based on the hull of a Kuznetsov-class aviation cruiser.



Well of the four ships we lost due to air strikes, one was taken out by an Exocet so having CATOBAR carriers would have made zero difference, two were lost to free fall bombs after their air defence systems malfunctioned, and the fourth was lost after damage control crews accidentally detonated a bomb they were trying to diffuse.

Now it can be argued (and I believe that's exactly what you are doing?) that the sky-hawks that dropped the bombs wouldn't have gotten close enough to drop them if there was a brand new Nimitz in the area and F-14's flying around and I don;t dispute that, however there were ~50 harriers in the theatre they just weren't able to hold off the entire Argentinian air force with the issues the RN and army were experiencing.

NB: One point that may be of interest, is that the larger/older of the two carriers sent to the Falklands was originally CATOBAR prior to it's conversion for Harrier use, and had played host to USN F-4Bs. Also that carrier (which began construction during WW2) was eventually sold to India where it served until it's decommissioning last month. What a life it had lol.

No, it is true, an aviation cruiser cannot function as well as either a guided missile cruiser or an aircraft carrier unless one function or the other is implemented in a minimal manner.

Only the 28 Sea Harriers were equipped with radar, and they were limited to carrying short range Sidewinder missiles. The Sea Harrier, while far better than nothing, was significantly less able to provide fleet defense than the F-4Ks the Ark Royal carried (slower, shorter legged, and lacking BVR and look down/shoot down capacity over land and rough water) prior to her decom in 1978. A CATOBAR carrier would also have allowed fixed wing AEW coverage 24/7, preventing the Argentinians the ability to close to weapons range undetected or with insufficient warning to allow the slow Harriers to intercept reliably.

- - - Updated - - -

Defending an island halfway round the planet from invasion by a hostile force armed with high end French equipment without any assistance from the UN or NATO simply wasn't something the UK expected to be doing in the 1980's. We had (and actually still have) the mentality that we will either always be fighting alongside the USA or France or both, and as such it was woefully ill prepared for it.

To give a couple of examples, the bombers we sent were in a winding down phase ready for decommissioning and it took two days to find a vital part of their refuelling probes (being used as ashtrays), some of the ships were getting ready for decommissioning too (and were sold not long after the war), and due to time constraints some of the harriers/helicopters had to be sent out on a commercial container ship (which ironically worked quite well as a VTOL aircraft carrier) which the Argentinians then blew up (not that well :P).

The RN sold its soul to become an ASW destroyer/frigate force, sold the Argentinians copies of their primary fleet defense destroyer so all of the flaws of the Sea Dart were well known and easily exploited, only a couple of frigates had modern PDMS, the list goes on. Basically, the UK was very luck it wasnt defeated, and in many ways the saviour was HMS Conqueror.

[Deleted]

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.

why does it matter how they treat their own citizens? all countries who flex their military kill foreigners just the same. US, russia, israel, china, doesn't matter.

The only minor differences between them is a sliding scale in how much they wanna consider themselves the good guys/care about PR. But when nobody is watching, don't have the means or they otherwise have no choice? all the same.

[Z-Man]

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......

That war could have gone much differently had the Argentinian bomb fuses worked properly. There were a number of British ships running around with unexploded bombs and missiles stuck in them. The British Admiral was close to calling off the invasion because of the air strikes as it was - another half dozen ships sunk could have made for a much different war. The land war was a given once the Marines made it ashore, but the naval battle could have turned into a mess had the Argentines spent more time on maintenance.

[caervek]

No, it is true

It really isn't and I explained why :P

an aviation cruiser cannot function as well as either a guided missile cruiser or an aircraft carrier

Well yes, but it's not supposed too. That's like complaining the cannons on the Arleigh Burke aren't as good as the ones on the Iowa for engaging battleships...

[Tennis]

With every year that goes by, China closes the gap.

[Kellhound]

It really isn't and I explained why :P



Well yes, but it's not supposed too. That's like complaining the cannons on the Arleigh Burke aren't as good as the ones on the Iowa for engaging battleships...

In this case, it very much is true if you follow the evolution of Soviet aviation cruisers from the Moskva to the Kiev to the Kuznetsov.

If it sucks as a cruiser, and it sucks as an aircraft carrier, and the merger is not greater than the sum or its parts, that is pretty much a failure. If the Burkes were supposed to function at an ASuW platform as a primary or secondary mission (its more like the 5th), that would actually be a viable complaint (though it is funny considering one of the complaints about modern US warships is the inadequate performance of the 5" M45 and the small number installed in light of the retirement of the Iowas).

- - - Updated - - -

With every year that goes by, China closes the gap.

Yes, they are on foot closer. Only 5279 feet left to go to reach parity.....

[Zeth Hawkins]

I know nothing of aircraft carriers, but judging from the size of the people standing on it in the picture, this one seems a tad small in comparison to various U.S. ones that I have seen.

[Kellhound]

I know nothing of aircraft carriers, but judging from the size of the people standing on it in the picture, this one seems a tad small in comparison to various U.S. ones that I have seen.

Its about 2/3s the size and about 1/4 the capabilities (or less).

[Noomz]

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.

[caervek]

In this case, it very much is true

No.

If it sucks as a cruiser, and it sucks as an aircraft carrier, and the merger is not greater than the sum or its parts, that is pretty much a failure.

I think this is where you're making the mistake, it's not supposed to function as a missile cruiser or as an aircraft carrier, it's supposed to function as an aviation cruiser. It isn't a merger of the two, it's a separate design. With an aircraft carrier group you normally have one or more carriers and then other ships to protect it/them, an aviation cruiser is different, it isn't the centrepiece of a group it's just an escort ship. It's purpose is to provide air defence (via the deployment of armed air supremacy fighters instead of SAMs) for the ships/subs it's protecting as well as surface to surface missiles.

I don't know the reason why Russia chose to use aviation cruisers (or cruiser as they only have one left) instead of aircraft carriers like every other country, but I do know there is a big functional difference in the way the types of ship are designed to be operated and deployed.

[Adam Jensen]

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

Why is big news now?
fake news?

Who said they invented the aircraft carrier? They made their first aircraft carrier (not counting any that they've bought from other countries.)

[Kellhound]

No.



I think this is where you're making the mistake, it's not supposed to function as a missile cruiser or as an aircraft carrier, it's supposed to function as an aviation cruiser. It isn't a merger of the two, it's a separate design. With an aircraft carrier group you normally have one or more carriers and then other ships to protect it/them, an aviation cruiser is different, it isn't the centrepiece of a group it's just an escort ship. It's purpose is to provide air defence (via the deployment of armed air supremacy fighters instead of SAMs) for the ships/subs it's protecting as well as surface to surface missiles.

I don't know the reason why Russia chose to use aviation cruisers (or cruiser as they only have one left) instead of aircraft carriers like every other country, but I do know there is a big functional difference in the way the types of ship are designed to be operated and deployed.

Except Russia has, and continues to, use them as the center of a (usually totally pathetic) battle group. By putting SSMs (or ASW rockets in the case of the Moskvas) in them, they reduce the effectiveness of the ship to provide air defense via fighters. By allocating as much space to aviation they reduce its ability to carry SSMs and SAMs given its increased size. They do not provide good air defense, they do not provide good ASuW for their size, they are failures. There is a reason the Indians removed almost all the weapons on the Kiev they rebuilt and the Chinese didnt bother with ASuW weapons with the Varyag. As for the Japanese, they call their light carriers destroyers for political reasons. Its a failed, ridiculed, and wasteful merger of ship functions.

[Aaronioslo]

why does it matter how they treat their own citizens? all countries who flex their military kill foreigners just the same. US, russia, israel, china, doesn't matter.

The only minor differences between them is a sliding scale in how much they wanna consider themselves the good guys/care about PR. But when nobody is watching, don't have the means or they otherwise have no choice? all the same.

who do you think you are to even 'allow', haven't america create enough problems for the world yet?

Your mentality is the reason why they are militarizing