Satellite photos analyzed by IHS Janes show China has dramatically ramped up efforts to construct a second aircraft carrier—the first to be built indigenously there. While the new ship will likely not be a match for US aircraft carriers, it is important for a number of reasons, and representative of China's ambitions to be a naval superpower. The ship is in "advanced state of construction" in a Dailan shipyard, according to analysis of commercial satellite images by IHS Jane's. And China's goal is reportedly to launch the new carrier by this December (in time for Mao Zedong's 122nd birthday), and outfit it by the end of next year.
China's plans to build new carriers have not exactly been a secret. Construction of the ship started in March, and was confirmed to be a carrier by Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) officials speaking to Hong Kong Commercial Daily. The new carrier, called the Type 001A, will include technology currently only used aboard US carriers, according to PLA Navy senior officers: an electromagnetic catapult that will allow aircraft to be launched with greater fuel and weapons loads. That would put China into a very exclusive club.
Related Stories
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:
- New York Times
- Washington Post
- CNN
- livemint.com (editorial)
- Reuters
- BBC News
- Time
- Business Insider
- Bloomberg
- SBS (has additional photos; Javascript required to view them all)
- Irish Times
Previously on SoylentNews: China Moving Full Speed Ahead in Construction of Aircraft Carriers
Chinese State Media Boasts About its New Electronic Reconnaissance Ship
China's first home-built carrier sets out for sea trials
China's first domestically developed aircraft carrier left its northeastern port to begin sea trials on Sunday, state media said, the latest milestone in the country's efforts to modernise its military.
The still-unnamed carrier was launched this time last year but since then has been undergoing fitting of weapons and other systems and has not yet entered service.
[...] "Our country's second aircraft carrier set sail from its dock in the Dalian shipyard for relevant waters to conduct a sea trial mission, mainly to inspect and verify the reliability and stability of mechanical systems and other equipment," Xinhua said.
"A sea trial is the testing phase of a watercraft (including boats, ships, and submarines). It is also referred to as a "shakedown cruise" by many naval personnel. It is usually the last phase of construction and takes place on open water, and it can last from a few hours to many days."
Also at CNN.
Previously: China Moving Full Speed Ahead in Construction of Aircraft Carriers
China Launches Aircraft Carrier
(Score: 5, Funny) by VLM on Monday October 05 2015, @09:36PM
Is this a gray market one where they run an extra copy off the assembly line and slap a different mfgr sticker on it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday October 05 2015, @10:00PM
China has cyberstolen plenty of military secrets. They can build their own hardware now.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/chinas-j20-stealth-fighters-currently.html [nextbigfuture.com]
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/china-reveals-updated-j-31-gyrfalcon.html [nextbigfuture.com]
Jokes about counterfeiting and quality will become stale eventually. Until then, they will copy "intellectual property", buy up U.S. bonds, begin to project military power overseas, etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 06 2015, @01:55AM
So we pay for China's military R&D with money that... we borrowed from China.
I'm confused.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2015, @06:55AM
no you payed for endless amounts of cheap junk... whitegoods, electronics, furniture, clothing, etc
the US greed for cheap garbage is what has made China the most wealthy country on earth
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2015, @02:49AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @09:59PM
A few cruise missiles will sink them, along with all the aircraft. Let them spend all the money they want.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @10:17PM
China's immediate use for carriers is to project power across East and South China Seas. It just might prompt us to sell cruise missiles to our SE Asian allies.
This seems reminiscent of 1930's, when we are warning the Japanese to knock it off. Now it's the Chinese pulling the same stunt.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday October 05 2015, @11:41PM
AC's comment is true, but my question is "Why does the United States need to project power across South East Asia"?
I guess making lots of money selling arms to allies in the region probably answers that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @11:47PM
Nah. The reason we meddle in Asia/Pacific is not all that different from almost a century ago. We face both Pacific and Atlantic. Weapons sales is a negligible, if relevant at all, part.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday October 05 2015, @10:22PM
Who will fire the cruise missiles?
These aircraft carriers will help them project air power against weak targets from far off shore. Something the U.S. does all the time.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Aichon on Monday October 05 2015, @10:27PM
Granted, none of them are perfect, and new systems are always being developed to circumvent defensive measure, but isn't that exactly what defense systems like Phalanx [wikipedia.org] and Goalkeeper [wikipedia.org] are intended to prevent? And that's just ship-based systems off the top of my head. There's also the Aegis Combat System [wikipedia.org], which has been expanded into the multi-platform Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System [wikipedia.org], which has demonstrated an ability to shoot down anti-ship missiles.
While I haven't heard of the Chinese doing anything like Aegis, a quick search revealed that they do have a close-in weapons system (CIWS) like Phalanx or Goalkeeper called the Type 730 [wikipedia.org], which has already been deployed on their other carrier.
The US has been engaging in the development of hypersonic missiles, presumably because even if you do blow them up, they'll still slam into their target, causing an immense amount of damage. Not to mention that their speed makes them harder to successfully target while also decreasing the window during which the defender can even attempt to shoot it down. So, you may be right, but as far as we all know, hypersonic missiles don't really work yet.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Monday October 05 2015, @11:22PM
Actually, a hypersonic missile shot down a mile away won't make a lot of damage to proper armor. it's mostly small pieces to keep weight down. Air friction will melt most of it and most non-aerodynamic shrapnel will land in the water.
That's why the US is working on dumb hypersonic slugs fired with electromag cannons. Once fired, the only way to survive those is to not be where it lands (and they're cheap and safe to store, to boot)
Funny how we got from dumb shells to smart missiles and back to simple metal rods, so we can keep up with passive then active armor...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2015, @01:05AM
The most devastating weapon modern physics allows is a metal rods moving very very fast. If it moves at near-light speed, anything is a hadron plasma bomb.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday October 06 2015, @04:23AM
If nothing else, consider a rod of depleted uranium about the size of a telephone pole coming in at MACH-20 ( ~7 kM/sec). So hot it is glowing like a big light bulb. No warhead. Its a purely kinetic weapon.
You do not want to be anywhere around its destination when it arrives.
These can be dropped from orbit. Guided ( until they get so hot they vaporize the guidance unit - then they are purely ballistic ). These are known as "Rods from God". [armaghplanet.com]
The article ( five years old now ) suggests this is a proposed weapon. I have quite a few other sources that indicate these are now a reality. Google for them if you want. I just gave you the keywords to look for.
I do not think any aircraft carrier, bunker, or anything else will hold up to something like that.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Tuesday October 06 2015, @08:50AM
Wow. Did you read that link about orbital kinetic weapons? The entire article is about why orbital kinetic weapons are infeasible and stupid.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday October 07 2015, @12:49AM
Mea Culpa on me!
I knew what I had in mind, googled a few, and cut/paste the wrong URL. I skimmed several, and thought I had the right one.
Anyway, that article is about five years old.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2015, @01:08AM
Same goes the other way, and then Mr Yankee? I can guess who will be howling tears and murder...
The big question is how did they leapfrog so quickly ... OPM leak is the tip of the iceberg. All the IP was suctioned out of the USA years over the 2000's.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday October 06 2015, @02:31AM
Same can be said of US aircraft carriers too. But the more stuff you have, the more options you have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2015, @05:49PM
Not if they build a Chinese JLENS.
/article.pl?sid=15/09/25/0517215 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @10:29PM
it will be as shitty as everything else made in China. If it kills anything it will be purely coincidental or an accident.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @11:36PM
Like iphones?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zeigerpuppy on Monday October 05 2015, @11:42PM
There's been a long running myth proglumated by the US military establishment that US tech is superior to the rest of the world.
The facts, however, do not bear this out.
For instance, Russian fighter jets are superior in many aspects and about a tenth of the cost of their US equivalents. When it comes to ground based tanks and antitank tech, the US offering also are more expensive and with less range.
I mostly think the whole thing is a colossal waste of money but it's worth noting that China benefits heavily from its relationship with Russia and its home grown electronics industry. It would be a vast mistake to underestimate their ability to patrol and control their sphere of influence.
This is probably a positive thing in the longer term, military adventurism by the US has brought little benefit to its people.
The best thing would be to move warfare to a virtual platform.
Repurpose soldiers to fight in a virtual battlefield against their foes so we can get them all in a violent orgy pit and when everyone is covered in blood and cum maybe we can have a rational diplomatic discourse.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Tuesday October 06 2015, @02:56AM
"Virtual battlefield" is a fancy way to say training that costs a lot less. It isn't the tech that pushes the US to do well in combat. It's adapting equipment for a specific fight and then mass producing it to a high and exact quality. It seems like every fight the US gets into there are failures of some major platform. This causes a very fast research and deploy cycle that ends with a platform that excels in that particular environment. The people in those platforms typically worship the machine spirits and praise the new platform until the next conflict. Where the cycle begins again.
The ships, jets, trucks, and tanks that currently exist are plenty good enough. Platforms that are created to "replace aging equipment" almost always ends up as a failure. Platforms that are created to fulfill a specific combat need because US troops are dying are almost always excellent.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday October 06 2015, @09:44AM
By virtual battlefield, I mean literally war in a game.
None of that messy boots on ground stuff.
Of course this would require agreed rules
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday October 06 2015, @02:34AM
But they will be able to afford 100 of them.
(Score: 1) by darkengine on Tuesday October 06 2015, @04:03AM
China's manufacturing forces are not incapable of producing quality products. Pay the premium and you can get more precise tolerances, better materials, etc. They just have an uncontested supply of laborers and factories willing to churn out a massive volume of cheap stuff, more than any other nation.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @11:01PM
Here's China's newest super secret aircraft carrier loaded with aircraft ready to torment anything the U.S. has...
http://www.funny-city.com/photos/aircraft-carrier.jpg [funny-city.com]
(Score: 2) by EQ on Tuesday October 06 2015, @01:04AM
Building a carrier is not the same as operating one. The latter is far more difficult to do, much less to do well. The US Navy has done so for more than half a century, and developed the personnel, organization, structure and expertise to do so. Developing that will be difficult for the Chinese to do. The Soviet Union failed, and most other naval powers have scaled back or abandoned such operations due to the expense and difficulty of sustaining such efforts in a fashion more than a token force.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Tuesday October 06 2015, @02:38AM
You're making the mistake of assuming that other people are stupid. Japan certainly managed to figure it out all by itself. Gave the US quite a shock there for a while. Of course the US had more of them, and US aircraft were much faster and tougher than their Japanese counterparts, so it didn't take long to start sinking Japanese carriers. But I don't believe China to be any less capable than Japan, and certainly it now has the industrial might to match the US if not to exceed it. Moreover China's system of government allows it to be much more focused than the US. Underestimating others can be a fatal mistake.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EQ on Tuesday October 06 2015, @02:59AM
No I didnt make the mistake of assuming other were stupid. Re: the japanese - the us Operational Doctrine was superior and resulted in the demise of the Imperial Navy's carrier force. And that was part of the development to which I was referring. Furthermore, modern carrier operations are far more complex than those of WW2. Modern carriers have far more to contend with. And you missed my point entirely: Operating a carrier force (as opposed to hybrids, or 1-2 carriers alone) successfully is far more difficult than building one - and to date, not one modern nation has done so successfully for any extended period of time, other than the US. Its difficult, expensive and uncharted territory for any nations attempting to do so which is one of the big reasons why nobody else has done so, and most have abandoned the efforts. There is an old sayin that goes something like this: the only thing more expensive than a first-rate navy is a second- rate navy. China is about to find out that the most expensive part of a carrier force is not building them, its operating them at a level of expertise where they are something other than targets for their opposition - large numbers are not all that helpfule when it comes to this sort of naval force - quality is necessary. The PLA has yet to prove they are capable of such operational excellence, and will likely find the path quite difficult, if not impossible..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by quacking duck on Tuesday October 06 2015, @02:59AM
And China can lift not just the design for carriers, but the crew operating procedures for carrier ops too. Both were, as you say, developed over decades of experience. Neither can be implemented at the drop of the hat, and there will be mistakes, even fatalities, as they to learn it all and start practicing it, but I see this no different from them trying to land a person on the moon... yes, it was already done decades ago, but it's kind of like how many parts of Africa leapfrogged landline home phone systems and jumped straight to cell phones. Right now China seems keen to do a massive military buildup that won't be actively opposed by the US... yet. And the irony is that unlike the USSR, it's American companies and American consumers pumping money into China that started this Chinese chain reaction. And I doubt their their now-slowing economy is going to hinder that in any meaningful way.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday October 06 2015, @11:47AM
Hmmm... Out-spend the enemy. No shots fired, enemy's country collapses, bankrupt. I think Ronnie came up with that plan in the 80s.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2015, @05:45PM
(Score: 1) by turgid on Tuesday October 06 2015, @06:47PM
Ah yes, The President's Brain is Missing.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].