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
Related Stories
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.
Amid continuing tensions in the South China Sea, the People's Liberation Army Navy is showing off its new electronic reconnaissance ship:
China's Navy has launched a new electronic reconnaissance ship, state media said on Thursday, the latest addition to an expanding fleet and as Beijing's new assertiveness to territorial claims in the South China Sea fuels tensions. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) now operates six electronic reconnaissance vessels, the official English-language China Daily newspaper said, noting that the PLA "has never made public so many details about its intelligence collection ships".
Last year, the PLA Navy commissioned 18 ships, including missile destroyers, corvettes and guided missile frigates, the paper said. China has also said it is building a second aircraft carrier. China's only carrier is the second-hand, Soviet-built Liaoning, which this week unsettled neighbors with drills in the disputed South China Sea.
Previously: China's South China Sea Claims Rejected By "Binding" but Unenforceable Tribunal Ruling
Piracy on the Open Sea?
China's devious move under cover of virus
As outbreaks debilitate the US navy, there are fears China may be using the coronavirus pandemic as cover for asserting control over the South China Sea.
A Vietnamese fishing boat has been rammed and sunk. Military aircraft have landed at its artificial-island fortresses. And large-scale naval exercises has let everyone know China's navy is still pushing the boundaries, hard.
Meanwhile, the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier strike group has retreated from the contested waterway in an unscheduled return to Guam – with hundreds of cases of COVID-19 on board.
China's Peoples Liberation Army knows this presents an opportunity.
"The outbreak of COVID-19 has significantly lowered the US Navy's warship deployment capability in the Asia-Pacific region," an article on its official website declares.
The website insists not a single one of its soldiers, sailors or pilots had contracted COVID-19. Instead, the crisis had served to strengthen the combat readiness and resolve of the Chinese military.
That has international affairs analysts worried that even a short-term withdrawal of US and international from the East and South China Seas could give Beijing the opportunity it has been waiting for.
"I think China is exploiting the US Navy's coronavirus challenges to improve its position in the South China Sea by giving the appearance it can and will operate there at will while the US is hamstrung," former Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Centre director Carl Schuster told CNN.
Previously:
(2020-01-09) China Initiates Conflict with Indonesia in the South China Sea
(2019-12-21) Malaysian Top Envoy: China's 'Nine-Dash Line' Claim 'Ridiculous'
(2019-11-22) US Warships Sail in Disputed South China Sea Amid Tensions
(2019-05-14) China Builds New Type 002 Mega Carrier as the Age of Sea Power Wanes
(2018-05-13) China Begins Sea Trials for its First Domestically Developed Aircraft Carrier
(2017-12-24) World's Largest Amphibious Plane in Production Takes Flight in China
(2017-05-25) US Warship Challenges China's Claims in South China Sea
(2017-04-26) China Launches Aircraft Carrier
(2017-03-14) Japan to Send its Biggest Warship to the South China Sea
(2017-01-13) Chinese State Media Boasts About its New Electronic Reconnaissance Ship
(2016-07-14) China's South China Sea Claims Rejected By "Binding" but Unenforceable Tribunal Ruling
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:41AM (2 children)
It has that crazy ramp at the front instead of a catapult. This means it only works for high-powered aircraft with unusually durable landing gear.
American ships can handle wimpy aircraft just fine. Not everything is a fighter. Sometimes you want to fly a maxed-out cargo plane or fuel tanker.
I'd love to see somebody try a catapult on a lower level, or one that holds an aircraft that has the gear retracted.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:06AM
I think that you will find that the ramp was pioneered by the Brits, for launching STOL planes (such as Harrier jump jets).
(Score: 3, Informative) by richtopia on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:25PM
Yes, sometimes you want to fly a maxed out plane or tanker, however that requires really big ships. Carriers which are accessible to only carrier aircraft is an acceptable compromise for most countries. Most carriers have the ski jump configuration to make up for lack of runway.
Only the USA makes supercarriers: look at the tonnage displacement of all carriers in the world and you quickly see the USA is in a league of its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service [wikipedia.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:48AM (2 children)
Now 10 carriers is not enough to compete! We must have 20!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:23PM (1 child)
That would be reasonable. The power US Navy has as a force of peace is severely underestimated by fools and cretins alike.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:36PM
A cretin answer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:13AM (17 children)
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.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:18AM (9 children)
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Two missiles would be pretty funny. "Shit, they have *three* anti-ship missiles!"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 28 2017, @02:57PM
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
> 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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.