Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the making-a-big-splash dept.

Chinese government news service Xinhua reports that a newly built aircraft carrier was floated in the sea at Dalian (also known as Port Arthur). The ship must "undergo equipment debugging, outfitting and mooring trials." As yet, the Soviet-built Liaoning is China's only operating aircraft carrier.

According to Shanghaiist and Voice of America (U.S. government outlet), the carrier is named Shandong. Some other reports said that it is unnamed.

Additional coverage:

Previously on SoylentNews: China Moving Full Speed Ahead in Construction of Aircraft Carriers
Chinese State Media Boasts About its New Electronic Reconnaissance Ship


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:13AM (17 children)

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:13AM (#500511) Journal

    just as well as the USA. In an era of mach 10 missiles and drones you can just spam carriers are about as useful on a modern battlefield as a fleet of P-47s, probably less as at least the P-47s make decent ground attackers and can loiter on the battlefield for hours.

    Any country you can face that has tech advanced enough that you could use a carrier instead of just flying planes from a base will have weapons that will completely slaughter a carrier. They are huge, slow, take ages to turn, easy to track, cost around 6 million a day to run, they are just an idea from a bygone age.

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:18AM (9 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:18AM (#500513) Journal

    I wonder if we will see an unmanned drone nuke an aircraft carrier in our lifetimes.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:17AM

      by butthurt (6141) on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:17AM (#500580) Journal

      Would a nuclear cruise missile do? France, Russia, the United States, Pakistan and possibly other countries have them.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile#Nuclear_warhead_versions [wikipedia.org]

      I was surprised to learn that cruise missiles were first built in 1916.

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:39AM (7 children)

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:39AM (#500603) Journal

      You wouldn't even need a nuke, just look at the number of ships crippled or killed by Japanese Kamikaze in WWII and they had nothing better than untrained rookies to throw at the USA. Imagine hundreds of drones coming from every direction, each one essentially a 5 ton armor piercing bomb flying at mach 2, they could quickly overwhelm the carrier defense and if they lose all of the drones in return for the carrier and some of its escorts so what? They can be cranked off an assembly line and doesn't cost the country deploying them any pilots so why care? Just spam them until the defenses fall and then have a field day sinking the carrier fleet.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:16PM (#500623)

        It is an arms race, of course:
        Bombing planes beat ground forces.
        Fighter planes beat bomber planes.
        Carriers with fast/maneuverable fighter planes beat other AA capability.
        Unmanned drone and/or missile barrage beats carrier.
        Navy Laser beats unmanned drone and missile barrage (http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1675509-navy-to-fire-150kw-ship-laser-weapon).
        ...

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:05PM (4 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:05PM (#500748)

        You wouldn't even need a nuke, just look at the number of ships crippled or killed by Japanese Kamikaze in WWII

        Not really that many? I think you're overselling here.

        Australian journalists Denis and Peggy Warner, in a 1982 book with Japanese naval historian Sadao Seno (The Sacred Warriors: Japan’s Suicide Legions), arrived at a total of 57 ships sunk by kamikazes. Bill Gordon, an American Japanologist who specialises in kamikazes, lists in a 2007 article 47 ships known to have been sunk by kamikaze aircraft. Gordon says that the Warners and Seno included ten ships that did not sink. He lists:

        three escort carriers: USS St. Lo, USS Ommaney Bay, and USS Bismarck Sea
        14 destroyers, including the last ship to be sunk, USS Callaghan (DD-792) on 29 July 1945, off Okinawa
        three high-speed transport ships
        five Landing Ship, Tank
        four Landing Ship Medium
        three Landing Ship Medium (Rocket)
        one auxiliary tanker
        three Canadian Victory ships
        three Liberty ships
        two high-speed minesweepers
        one Auk class minesweeper
        one submarine chaser
        two PT boats
        two Landing Craft Support

        Note that these are all piddly-ass or not really combat ships. Escort carriers were not exactly built to take hits, as they sailed in task forces with other stuff to protect them. Also there was a war on and they were designed to be cheap--the real money was spent on the smaller number of fleet carriers.

        And this was before armored flight decks. With an armored flight deck, a kamikaze who hit it was basically just a nuisance inasmuch as they have to scrape him off the deck before resuming flight operations.

        U.S. carriers, with their wooden flight decks, appeared to suffer more damage from kamikaze hits than the reinforced steel-decked carriers from the British Pacific Fleet. US carriers also suffered considerably heavier casualties from kamikaze strikes; for instance, 389 men were killed in one attack on USS Bunker Hill, greater than the combined number of fatalities suffered on all six Royal Navy armoured carriers from all forms of attack during the entire war (Bunker Hill and Franklin were both hit while conducting operations with fully fueled and armed aircraft spotted on deck for takeoff, an extremely vulnerable state for any carrier). Eight kamikaze hits on five British carriers resulted in only 20 deaths while a combined total of 15 bomb hits, most of 500 kg weight or greater, and one torpedo hit on four carriers caused 193 fatal casualties earlier in the war – striking proof of the protective value of the armoured flight deck.[37][38]

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 28 2017, @02:17AM (3 children)

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday April 28 2017, @02:17AM (#501011) Journal

          You missed the point and kinda just proved mine, thanks. Just look at how long that list was and then note that was done with untrained pilots in obsolete airplanes now imagine that those were replaced with mach 2 aircraft flown by expert pilots...still think it wouldn't be a threat?

          With a drone they could easily make it into a flying bomb, picture a cruise missile that can turn with the agility of a fighter...the carrier fleet would be royally fucked.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 28 2017, @02:41PM (2 children)

            by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 28 2017, @02:41PM (#501171)

            I don't think I'm missing your point. I'm just disagreeing on its validity.

            In an era of mach 10 missiles and drones you can just spam carriers

            Considering a U.S. military drone costs $12 million, spamming hundreds of them at a single carrier would get pretty expensive. $1.2b compared to a $8b Gerald Ford carrier is a pretty good ROI I suppose.

            During World War II, about 3,862 kamikaze pilots died, and about 19% of kamikaze attacks managed to hit a ship.[1]

            [definition of the term]; accuracy was much better than a conventional attack, the payload and explosion larger, although a negative aspect to this tactic was that only 11% of kamikaze attacks were successful.

            And like I said, this was back when the U.S. wasn't armoring its carrier decks, and literally all the ships sunk were soft targets. I have my doubts whether these hypothetical drone strikes would do much unless they were targetted at the command island. And there's such a thing as CIWS now. How many miles out would standard CAP see them coming?

            With a drone they could easily make it into a flying bomb, picture a cruise missile that can turn with the agility of a fighter

            Who is this hypothetical army? China or Russia? Because I have a hard time imagining anyone else burning all the money to try what you're talking about.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 28 2017, @02:46PM (1 child)

              by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 28 2017, @02:46PM (#501174)

              There's also this, to specifically defend against what you're talking about:

              The carrier will be armed with the Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly maneuverable anti-ship missiles.

              The wiki page says "2" of them in the armament, which I assume means two batteries, not two individual missiles.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday April 28 2017, @09:53PM

                by purple_cobra (1435) on Friday April 28 2017, @09:53PM (#501321)

                Two missiles would be pretty funny. "Shit, they have *three* anti-ship missiles!"

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 28 2017, @02:57PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 28 2017, @02:57PM (#501180)

        Imagine hundreds of drones coming from every direction, each one essentially a 5 ton armor piercing bomb flying at mach 2

        Where are you getting this number from?

        A typical MQ-9 system consists of multiple aircraft, ground control station, communications equipment, maintenance spares, and personnel. A military crew comprises a pilot, sensor operator, and Mission Intelligence Coordinator.[7] The aircraft is powered by a 950 horsepower (710 kW) turboprop, with a maximum speed of about 260 knots (480 km/h; 300 mph) and a cruising speed of 150–170 knots (170–200 mph; 280–310 km/h). With a 66 ft (20 m) wingspan, and a maximum payload of 3,800 lb (1,700 kg), the MQ-9 can be armed with a variety of weaponry, including Hellfire missiles and 500-lb laser-guided bomb units.[33]

        AP ordinance also has a lower percentage of the overall weight being the actual explosive power than general-purpose munitions.

        Fuel capacity: 4,000 lb (1,800 kg)
        Payload: 3,800 lb (1,700 kg)
        Internal: 800 lb (360 kg)
        External: 3,000 lb (1,400 kg)

        Or are you including the fuel weight in the "5 tons"?

        Maximum speed: 300 mph; 260 kn (482 km/h)
        Cruise speed: 194 mph; 169 kn (313 km/h) [161]

        Yep, definitely Mach 2. Mach 1 at 1 atmosphere is 761 mph.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:17AM

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:17AM (#500526)

    > Any country you can face that has tech advanced enough that you could use a carrier instead of just flying planes from a base

    Since the Chinese don't spam bases all over the world USA/USSR-style, but need to occasionally protect their African assets and "their" South China Sea islands, it does make sense to have a carrier or four (or six).

    The Chinese are not interested in a direct confrontation with any Nuclear power. They are winning the long game already.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:45AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:45AM (#500562)

    An aircraft carrier is a big target, yes, but it is also well-protected.

    It travels with attack subs and numerous missile-equipped ships. It has anti-missile machine guns that fire automatically. There is surely more that is secret, and adding an anti-ICBM system is at least doable.

    Most anti-ship weapons can't even do more than punch a minor hole in one or two of the internal compartments. There is a benefit to being huge. Aside from a nuke or maybe something like the MOAB, it's hard to damage a significant portion of something that big.

    Weapons that could hurt an aircraft carrier also fail if they don't survive long enough to be used. They may well turn to powder/vapor/plasma, along with the entire land base at which they are located. They can also be sabotaged, jammed, and so on. Aircraft carrier protection extends across the world; it isn't limited to the ships.

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:02PM (1 child)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:02PM (#500681) Homepage

      I'm going to assume that the anti-ICBM system is missiles fired from the Arleigh Burkes with assistance from their AEGIS system, possibly receiving data from not only each other but shore-based X-band radars.

      Maybe even a THAAD, if it is positioned such that it can intercept before the ballistics.

      It would be much more difficult to directly target the ship radars unless you have overwhelmed the carrier strike group. The thing about phased-array radars is that they can degrade gracefully and proportionately to how many elements (T/R modules, waveguide slots, etc.) you can take out.

      • (Score: 2) by akinliat on Friday April 28 2017, @12:17AM

        by akinliat (1898) <{akinliat} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday April 28 2017, @12:17AM (#500968)

        The Burkes use the SM-3 in the the theater defense role. These are basically long-range(900+ nm) variants of the SM-2, which is the current standard anti-air missile in the Navy's inventory. They also have upgraded electronics for engaging ballistic missiles.

        Note that these are intended for theater defense -- I don't think anyone has ever seriously considered shooting a ballistic missile at an moving target. The idea behind the SM-3 was that it would allow Aegis ships to protect cities and bases, which are after all more valuable than any ship or collection of ships.

  • (Score: 2) by driverless on Friday April 28 2017, @04:13AM (2 children)

    by driverless (4770) on Friday April 28 2017, @04:13AM (#501023)

    Either that or a damn clever tactic, buy a direlect, rusting Soviet-era hulk and turn it into something that looks like a carrier, then watch the US spend a hundred or a thousand times more building actual carriers in a panicked response to prove that their penis is bigger. The DF-26 has (apparently) recently become operational, either that or the DF-21D "carrier killer", and you've got a pretty good ROI in terms of how much money you've convinced the US to waste.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @06:19PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @06:19PM (#501251)

      Doubt it. The carriers are planned decades in advance. They are not in any response to anything China or any other country has been doing.

      • (Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday April 29 2017, @02:13AM

        by driverless (4770) on Saturday April 29 2017, @02:13AM (#501382)

        Check the history of the Liaoning/Shandong/Yu-shiang Whole Fish/Varyag/Riga, that thing's been on the books since the early 1980s, with construction starting in the mid-80s. That's easily "decades in advance".

        In any case, have you ever known the Navy to not go running to Washington in response to just about anything naval in any other country demanding moar carriers, moar jets, moar subs, moar littoral combat ships, but above all MOAR MONEY? I actually have no idea whether China is doing this on purpose, but if they are it's a damn effective tactic.