SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Who's is bigger? Russia or the good old US of A? Do we need to get out the measuring tape? Maybe we do, after China completes what looks to be the latest generation naval defense: the Type 002 aircraft carrier that is currently under construction in a floodable dry dock. Tinfoil hatters among us will be glad to hear that updates of the progress for the construction of this mighty vessel come from satellite imagery. Now that battleships are pretty much obsolete with maybe carriers to follow this latest addition to China's growing fleet may just be an expensive showboat.
Entry for the carrier on Wikipedia.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
China Builds New Type 002 Mega Carrier as the Age of Sea Power Wanes
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 36 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @07:23AM (18 children)
If the reports are true then new weapons developed by US Russia and China would render a carrier next to useless due to the range and speed. Any place on land could hit any place on the water ala Red Alert 2
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday May 15 2019, @07:26AM (2 children)
Still good for projecting power in Africa or something.
You could also see countermeasures. On-ship lasers, etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @03:08PM (1 child)
There are two types of ships, submarines and targets.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:44PM
The targets will work just fine until two major powers go to war.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @11:56AM (13 children)
They still need to know where the carrier is and as takyon already noted, they still need those new weapon systems to be better than the countermeasures the carrier will have in the future.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday May 15 2019, @12:55PM (12 children)
"countermeasures"
There aren't many effective countermeasures against hypersonic missiles. Particularly true for ships, which have space and weight limits.
Not, of course, to say that countermeasures won't eventually develop. But what's available now just isn't going to be very reliable. Point defenses? Sure, they exist, they do have a chance of success, but you're talking about trying to shoot down a missile that's coming in way faster than the bullets from your point defense guns go out. In order to intercept, you have to open fire while that missile is still way outside of your range, and time it just right so that the missile runs chin-first into your cannon rounds. There's a very tiny fraction of a second where that all has to line up and maybe you hit it and if you don't then it's hit you. Oh, and don't forget, the missiles make small random course changes just to frustrate this.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @01:13PM
And yet, you still have to find them in order to shoot them. Every significant national military that got into a fight with the US had considerable trouble finding those things.
You don't need many, you just need one.
Hence, my use of the word "future".
I suspect the approach will be to use lasers which go out five or so orders of magnitude faster than the hypersonic missiles come in and which could eventually target missiles hundreds of miles out.
The real problem is that such concentration of force as in an aircraft carrier has increasingly limited economies of scale. The increasing ability of small objects like hypersonic missiles to do few or even one-hit kills on an aircraft carrier (say by flying through an internal fuel storage tank) means that you are increasingly restricted in the use of that aircraft carrier, particularly, when the planned defenses can't be properly rigged up along with the risks of using ships that take years to replace.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:05PM (10 children)
Rail guns sound like they can meet that challenge. Especially rail gun rounds that correct their flight, on the way to the target. If they work as advertised. If they can match or exceed the rate of fire that existing guns can maintain. Of course, both the offense and the defense from those offensive weapons depend on satellite imagery. And, the satellites can be destroyed, easily enough. Whoever decides first that he has the most to lose because the enemy can see what he is doing, will start the turkey shoot, then the other side will join in. At which point, traditional sea power will re-establish itself.
As for a Chinese carrier group facing off against a US carrier group - this squid ain't making no bets. Whoever is seen first, probably dies, unless the guy who had the jump makes a mistake. Then he dies, instead. The US has one advantage, in that the US/UK share a long naval tradition. Perhaps there are no longer any real war campaigners among our commanders, but our commanders were taught by combat commanders. China lacks that tradition, at sea. But, maybe some of China's other characteristics will balance that tradition.
Sounds exciting, doesn't it? I would ask what odds Vegas is giving. But, Vegas probably doesn't care, at this point in time. No point in making odds unless there's an event on the horizon.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:33PM (8 children)
Other than the fact that the U.S. has 20 aircraft carriers, and China is just starting to build its second?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:57PM (6 children)
Twenty? Would you care to name them? And, those in mothballs don't count - all you have to start with is the keel and the deck - and they may scrap the deck.
Heh - my own search offers a near hit at the top of the list: "There are 20 active aircraft carriers, 11 of which are American . . . "
Now, if you're counting marine landing craft with helos, you'll get closer to 20, but you don't launch fighters and bombers off those decks. Wasp size decks can't accomodate today's aircraft, unless you go with VTOL.
https://www.businessinsider.com/dod-chinas-constructing-a-new-more-capable-third-aircraft-carrier-2019-5 [businessinsider.com]
That second ship is finished, undergoing shakedown cruises. The third ship has been laid down, and construction progresses. Don't be surprised if ship number four is laid down in the next year or so. And, remember - China has a helluva lot of cheap labor!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @03:17PM (3 children)
The whole point of the F-35B, and the AV-8B Harrier II before it.
It might not be legit to say that there are 20 active aircraft carriers in the world. That disqualifies small American ones, while counting foreign ones of the same size. Nearly all of the foreign ones are about the size of those little things that the Marines fly off of.
If we are fair, there are either more than 20 (by counting the small ones) or far less than 20 (counting only the big ones). Either there are only a few foreign ones, or the USA has about another dozen.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 15 2019, @03:27PM (2 children)
Good point. I didn't bother to compare the sizes and capabilities of the carriers.
As for the VTOL, isn't the UK the only nation actually doing VTOL? That was my impression, at any rate.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @04:14PM
With UAVs like the X-47B, it should be possible to operate from smaller decks with higher G forces.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 16 2019, @12:02AM
STOVL ... You are responding to a post mentioning the US marines and F-35B.
Any ship carrying those guys should qualify as an "aircraft carrier".
Well, technically, any ship carrying a helicopter is an aircraft carrier (and so is my car when the neighbor's kid has her drone). But we only count the one whose primary design goal is to launch aircraft. Flattops, essentially. The US has quite a few more than the 10 (11?) supercarriers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 15 2019, @07:26PM
Guess it's my own fault for trusting a website by the name of "foreignpolicy.com" (the last non-Wikipedia link in the summary) when they made a big graphic with "20" in it. There was a vague whiff of contempt towards China that I detected in the article, which I guess should've been a tip-off.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] lists 24, including the Wasp class of "landing helicopter docks."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 15 2019, @07:33PM
"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 Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 15 2019, @03:08PM
Sorry, forgot to give you the link to the list of active US aircraft carriers - https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/03/15/the-usa-only-has-11-active-aircraft-carriers/ [247wallst.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:54PM
OK, so you've got all that stuff, you're ready to shoot them down, right? But you've only got so many defenses. Ships have weight and size limits and most of the space is already used for something critical. So you just have a few nova guns. All the enemy has to do is shoot enough missiles to overwhelm your mounts and you are toast.
Offense and defense have fought back and forth over the centuries, defense has had it's day many times, but it's usually fairly short. Offense is definitely king in terms of sea warfare, for now and the foreseeable future. Ships are targets. Very expensive targets. Naval ships carry tremendous firepower - but they need all of it, and more, to be able to defend themselves.
"Of course, both the offense and the defense from those offensive weapons depend on satellite imagery. And, the satellites can be destroyed, easily enough."
Well, yes, imagery will be important, and satellites taken out, but I don't think it's correct to say that these *depend* on satellite imagery, nor does it all disappear when you blow up the satellite.
"Whoever decides first that he has the most to lose because the enemy can see what he is doing, will start the turkey shoot, then the other side will join in. At which point, traditional sea power will re-establish itself."
Far from significant landbases, sure.
In the South China Sea? Nah. Taking out their satellites would set them back but they'd still have no problem at all finding a carrier there.
Sea power can be effective, either going head to head with an enemy navy in relatively neutral waters, or just bullying small nations around the globe (that's called 'force projection' among other sexy euphemisms.) But if you're putting your carriers in their home waters, it's not just going to fight their navy. It's going to be going up against their ground-based air force and missiles, and that tilts the balance heavily against the side using sea power alone.
"As for a Chinese carrier group facing off against a US carrier group - this squid ain't making no bets. Whoever is seen first, probably dies, unless the guy who had the jump makes a mistake. Then he dies, instead."
I think you're drastically overestimating the Chinese carrier group or drastically understimating the US one, or both. In neutral water, in the middle of the Pacific say, the US would probably see them first, and almost certainly win even if they failed (though that failure might be costly.)
However they've given no sign they'd even think about trying to meet us there. If there's a confrontation it will be right on their doorstep. Within range of many of their air force bases.
"Sounds exciting, doesn't it?"
No, it sounds like a tragic and tremendous waste of resources and people.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @01:03PM
Let's wait and see if this thing floats, long range weapons might not be necessary if it sinks all by itself. Isn't there some history of this problem with Chinese-built warships?