>An October 27, 2015, press report states: Chinese military watchers everywhere have another clear sign that China is building its first indigenous aircraft carrier, the Type 001A [aircraft carrier with hull number] "17". The hull in the Dalian Shipyard, with its high number of watertight bulkheads and compartments, has long been the subject of speculation due to its resilient construction and the prominent "no photography" signs around its drydock.
>In photos that appeared on Oct 24, the shipyard installed a module on top of the hull, with a clear 7.5 meter high, 27 meter across room, which is almost certainly a hangar for aircraft. [See Figure 6.] The new photos provide further visual evidence in the open source domain that leave little to debate that China's aircraft carrier program is moving forward. Aircraft carrier number "17" is likely to be 65,000 to 70,000 tons in displacement, have forward located ski-jump to launch fighters, and carry about 36-48 aircraft, a combination of J-15 Flying Shark fighters and Z-8/Z-18 helicopters.
>That's similar in size to [aircraft carrier hull number] "16"[, the] Liaoning, China's Soviet designed and built aircraft carrier or newer programs like Britain's HMS Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier presently under construction. "17" will feature automation to reduce crew size, increased fuel and ammunition storage, and a smaller island superstructure, making it far more capable than the Liaoning.
>>28680014
>If all goes to plan, "17" will be launched in the second half of 2016. At this stage, it would receive its name, most likely the name of a Chinese province or national level municipality. It would likely to be commissioned in 2019, thus doubling China's aircraft carrier capacity for theaters from the First Island Chain all the away to Africa and Latin America. As the PLAN gains more naval aviation experience from the Liaoning and "17", its fleet will then move on to more capable future aircraft carriers, like the planned catapult-equipped Type 002 and nuclear power Type 003.7
Source:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
I honestly didn't think they would be this far ahead any guesses how congress and the navy will react?
Also Chinese military general I guess.
>>28680014
>>28680041
>The Liaoning is shit and their next ship is slightly less shit, maybe their future vessels won't be shit
What an amazing read.
Once they have a decent carrier fleet there is no doubt they will be capable of taking on the US conventionally.
>>28680041
>Far ahead.
Hardly. This brings China to the bare minimum of a respectable contemporary carrier. Congress and the Navy don't need to do anything they're not already doing. The Ford-class will be more than enough to ensure a continued overmatch.
>>28680065
Spotted the retard.
>>28680106
He is not wrong tho, aircraft carriers are the bread and butter of the U.S., park one of those mean bad boys near one of your enemies and throw a whole lot fuck you their way.
>>28680169
But actually he is still wrong because having 2 aircraft carriers does not even come close to threatening the US
That sinodefence board got pretty defensive when I stated that building another aircraft carrier based on a design from the 80s would be pretty sad some months ago.
>>28680242
I mean, I'm sure the Japanese and Koreans aren't happy about this, but to say that the US is worried about it is laughable.
>>28680476
The USA is worried. There is no need for knee-jerk reactions.
Two aircraft carriers with suddenly 50 J-15 is a gamechanger in the region.
>>28680065
>once they have a decent carrier
So how many years do you think it will take for them to use these for a while, learn their lessons, and design, order and build a decent class of carrier?
>>28680669
the chinks won't be projecting very hard w/ 2 1980s model ACCs
we can still roll on dem niggas if we wanted to
truuuuuu
>>28680014
Is it nuclear?
>>28680669
Nimitz and Ford-class carriers have 85-90 airframes each. Two ski-jump carriers with 50 airframes may change the levels of attrition, but it won't change the balance of power. Two US CBGs will reliably kill their Chinese counterparts.
>>28680848
One will. No fixed wing AWACS and gimped combat loads due to skiramp mean a single US air wing would easily handle both of the chinese carriers
>>28680669
What do you expect from /k/? Reasonable posts?
>>28680861
This is next level US delusion
I'll get called a chinkaboo for saying it, but come on man.
>>28680896
What did I say that was incorrect my friend
>>28680906
That a single US air wing could defeat two ski jump carriers.
Its ridiculous.
>>28680861
Maybe a reenforced CBG. Two carriers means two sets of escorts. A lone CBG wouldn't be able to win consistently.
>>28680957
Yeah I was speaking from an air only perspective, obviously escorts would easily tip the scales
>>28680942
Why is it ridiculous? The chinese only have a small numerical advantage, and the lack of AWACS means they will be seen long before they see the US aircraft, not to even mention their gimped range and/or smaller missile loads due to having to take off light from a skiramp carrier. Thats without even comparing the quality of the aircraft engaging, which should favor the US again
>>28680986
A small numerical advantage and far more than double the sortie rate.
But sure, more of that it would be done "easily" than at all.
>>28680986
It's still a workable scenario. The USN could pad out a CBG with spare Burke and Ticos, or Zumwalt, or both. Or subs. You're right that it's a winnable fight with one air wing.
>>28680065
So, in about a century?
>>28681090
Try 20 years
>>28680242
Nimitz is a 1972 design.
>>28681274
Remind me when the US started construction on new Nimitz class?
Or are they in fact building Fords
>>28681294
Last nimitz was commisioned in 2009.
First Ford will be in a couple months.
First Nimitz in 2020 (estimated).
Second Ford commisioned in 2020.
Ford's are honestly pretty similar in overall design to the 2009 Nimitz. Just move the island back and upgrade the reactors and electronics.
>>28681274
Only that there are three Nimitz sub classes.
Remember when China intentionally leaked footage of their fighter but some nerd at the CIA realized it was just edited footage from Top Gun?
No one takes the chinks seriously
So if an aircraft carrier is hit wouldn't it cause a nuclear meltdown? or would it sinking not cause it to go critical yet obviously poisoning the surrounding water?
>>28681366
>some nerd at the CIA realized it was just edited footage from Top Gun?
>some nerd
You're saying you don't recognize every frame of Top Gun?
>>28681468
I'm saying the analysts at the CIA are nerds.
>>28681363
Do you think a Chinese built carrier is not going to be its own subclass?
>>28681366
No. Could I have a source?
"China" could mean a lot of things nowadays.
>>28681546
Just google "China top gun" and tons of articles will pop up. Story came out about 4 years ago
>>28681366
CIA black propaganda
>>28681555
http://www.wsj.com/video/cctv-tries-to-pass-off-top-gun-clip-as-real/43EC0FC2-A440-4522-8E81-437EC747D30A.html
Hahahahah
Still, that's not "intentionally leaking." That's just them fucking up and showing a J-10 shooting a missile and then obviously the Top Gun scene. Very similar to when CNN reported Navy Seal's killing Obama for about 10 minutes.
It's not like CCTV is known for accuracy either. They aren't the Chinese military.
>>28681526
not based on the super sinodefence board.
>copying a 30 years old design is super smart and playing it safe!
>>28681366
>it was just edited footage from Top Gun
Holy shit, really?
>>28681644
So the Reagan subclass was based off of a 30 year old design.
What is your point? The design works. They are just upgrading it with newer equipment.
>>28680014
They call that a ramp?
>>28681707
Yeah, like I said China is a joke
The USA has one carrier in Japan.
Two chinese aircraft carriers changes the entire powerdynamics in the region even more.
So either the USA will send a second carrier to Japan, which will lead to the fact that three or 30% of the aircraft carriers are tie to one region.
>>28681957
The single carrier can easily handle both chink carriers. The escorts are more worrying.
>>28682044
>The single carrier can easily handle both chink carriers.
no
>>28682072
>this chinaman denial
a fucking RAMP
>>28681620
>Navy Seal's killing Obama
wat?
>>28682075
>I have no fucking idea what I'm talking
>But I play Call of Duty
>>28682139
>doesnt realize the crippling disadvantages of ramped carriers
>talks shit anyway
classic 4chan
Ramped carriers are great as low cost power projection options, but the second those gimped STOL aircraft are pitted against actual aircraft launched from a CATOBAR carrier they are dead meat. They will get picked off long before they have the opportunity to do anything because they have NO AWACs support. They cant even reach the enemy carrier because they will be seen long before hand, and they have shitty short legs because they cant take off heavy
So what kind of ships do China have in their carrier group?
>>28682162
dude su-33 or whatever the chinese copy is called would rape f/a-18 any day, awacs support or not.
might be a different story against f-35 but that's far in future
>>28682288
Maybe if the SU-33 takes off conventionally. However, in this case they are taking off from a ramp carrier, meaning they are going to be carrying a light fuel load/missile load
>thats far in the future
F-35C's will most likely be deployed on carriers by the time this second chinese carrier is operational
>>28682305
Su-33
>Max takeoff weight 33,000 kg
>Max carrier takeoff weight 30,000 kg
sauce: Jane's
>>28682341
That is less than half a super hornet
>>28682349
disregard this post i suck cocks and cant read
thats pretty impressive, but we will see if it can live up to that when they actually start operating them
>>28680014
If they now are so damn seccretive about this, then why dont they just build it under a roof?
>>28681016
>far more than double the sortie rate.
Source other than CMANO, please.
>>28680216
Not in conventional warfare, no. You could however use it as a big hammer for intervention and protection of your nation's assets and interest.
Force-on-force conflicts are rare, but the ability to put a carrier on the scene is damn useful.
>>28682386
>Doubting two carriers using a method known for higher sortie generation would have a higher sortie rate than a single CATOBAR carrier
Even if you doubt the efficiency of the Kuznetsov-class design and Chinese crew (which is probably less than optimal, putting it lightly) its launching 6 aircraft at a time compared to the Nimitz's 2.
>>28682541
You don't really understand how carrier ops work, do you?
See pic related. The Liaoning can SITE 3 aircraft for launch simultaneously, but it can only launch one at a time, all over the bow as the pic clearly shows. A Nimitz, meanwhile, can site 4 aircraft for launch full up and ready to go and launch two at a time, one each over bow and waist.
But that's not the real limitation on sortie rate. Sortie rate is primarily determined by how efficiently the aviation facilities and munitions supply system within the carrier can recover the bird, get it fueled and rearmed, inspected and back in the air. That's the real bottleneck. The Nimitz has 4 elevators, three of which are in constant use during flight ops, each one transporting two fighter aircraft at a time, with refuel and rearm ops refined from the design phase to be as efficient as possible ever since jets first landed on Midway class ships four carrier generations ago. The Liaoning, meanwhile, only possesses 2 elevators, both of which are too small to lift two Su-33s simultaneously.
While I have no doubt that two Liaoning style aircraft carriers might be able to generate sorties slightly faster than a single Nimitz if crew training and experience were on the same level (will never be, but whatever), there is no physical way for those carriers to generate sorties at twice the rate of a Nimitz. At best, it would be marginal.
In the real world, it'll be roughly equal sorties at a 2:1 hull ratio, if not slightly worse for the Chinese because they lack carrier native in air refueling capability, which is a sortie rate multiplier.
>>28682695
forgot pic
>>28682695
>>28682712
Not to mention that during full up simultaneous recover/launch deck state, the Nimitz can land aircraft while still being able to site two aircraft for launch over the bow, whereas a Liaoning can only site one aircraft for launch during trap operations. Also, there's way more real estate to move aircraft around on the Nimitz during trap/cat state.
>>28682712
>See pic related. The Liaoning can SITE 3 aircraft for launch simultaneously, but it can only launch one at a time
I'm failing to see the real difference between launching two at a time and launching one then pausing for a few moments before launching the second.
>>28682766
Because the Nimitz can still site 4 aircraft for launch, and shoot two at a time.
You cannot just shoot the aircraft, wait one second and immediately shoot the next. It takes 20-30 seconds to do the final send check on each.
Furthermore, and this is where reading comprehension might have done you some good, aircraft siting and launch speed is NOT what limits sortie rate in any full-up recover/rearm/refuel/relaunch max rate scenario. It is by far the least restrictive bottleneck in the process, as I already noted. If you want to talk about sortie rate, talk about how the aircraft move around the deck, where they're sited for refuel and rearm and inspection and how many launch points are open for business during recovery. In all of these, the Nimitz design is far, far more efficient. The simple fact of more real estate makes this possible, even ignoring the better situated elevators (and more of them, carrying more aircraft simultaneously) and more launch sites open during recover ops.
