SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
China Launches 'Fujian,' its Most Advanced Aircraft Carrier
China launches 'Fujian,' its most advanced aircraft carrier:
China launched its largest and most advanced aircraft carrier on Friday at a shipyard in Shanghai, in what state media called a "short but festive ceremony."
The 80,000-ton Fujian, named for the southern coastal province opposite Taiwan, is the first of China's three carriers to be fully designed and built domestically. Unlike China's Liaoning and Shandong carriers, which use ski-jump ramps, Fujian will launch planes using electromagnetic catapults, the technology used on current U.S. carriers.
"Although it will be years before the [carrier] enters military service and achieves initial operating capability, its launch will be a seminal moment in China's ongoing modernization efforts and a symbol of the country's growing military might," said analysts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington, in an article earlier this month.
China Launches Third Aircraft Carrier: State Media - Times of India
China launches third aircraft carrier: State media - Times of India:
[...] However, it will take years before it reaches operational capacity, as the Ministry of Defence has not announced a date for entry into service. "Sailing and mooring tests will be carried out as planned after the ship is launched," CCTV reported. China has two other aircraft carriers in service. The Liaoning was commissioned in 2012, and the Shandong entering service in 2019.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2022, @06:15PM (8 children)
The Ukraine war is certainly going to force a re-evaluation of the role of tanks, but how important this is, is still unclear. It is possible that the T-72 is just a really bad tank.
Consider the Battle of 73 Easting during the 1991 Iraq war. American and Iraqi tanks clashed in one of the few battles of that war that didn't feature much American air power. The Americans and Iraqis were both surprised by encountering each other, so there was no time for air strikes to be called in. The Americans destroyed 85 Iraqi T-72s (and about a hundred outdated T-55s) and lost only one Bradley and no Abrams.
In fighting during the second Iraq war and Afghanistan, it was uncommon for an Abrams to actually be knocked out by direct attacks although it did happen. It was more common for them to get stuck or break down and have to be abandoned. They were more at risk from mines/IEDs, which could damage the tracks, than from enemy guns and missiles.
Even if it turns out that the Javelin and similar advanced missiles are effective against all currently deployed tanks, it doesn't mean that the whole concept is obsolete. Tanks could incorporate more active anti-missile defenses similar to the CIWS systems mounted on ships for example. This might be necessary anyway as designers have experimented with tanks armed with missiles instead of a gun.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2022, @08:24PM (1 child)
The biggest problems the Russian tanks are having in the Ukraine is the lack of infantry and air support. They're meant to be used in a full-up combined-arms operation. Operating without that makes them very vulnerable, as the Ukrainians have shown.
Many modern tanks do have active missile defenses, although I don't know the status of that for Russian tanks; the main system I know if is Israeli, so it's not likely the Russians have much access to it. It'll probably be a bit before those systems are tested in any scale in actual combat.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 19 2022, @12:46PM
Thank you. The concept of combined arms has most definitely not been on display in the Ukraine war. While Russia does have a lot of mechanized infantry, those troops are not proper infantry unless and until they dismount. Tanks and similar vehicles have always been near to worthless on the battlefield, unless they have proper infantry screening. One sapper with as little as $100 worth of equipment can, and does, defeat millions of dollars in technology along with however many troops are inside the can of people.
On the other hand, Russia hasn't forgotten the concept of combined arms entirely. They seem to be using armor and mech to probe, then on contact, they fall back on artillery. I've seen no indication that the armor and/or mechanized actually press the attack while artillery works on the target.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday June 18 2022, @08:29PM (5 children)
That the Pop-goes-the-weasel tank isn't the best design is a given. But we can see here that a modern MANPADS can take out a tank fairly reliably. That the US crews have a higher survival rate because their ammo blows out to the back rather than into their face is nice for the crew, but the tank is toast either way.
I'm also not talking about tank vs tank. I'm talking MANPADS vs tank. Or, if you want it more provacative, $150k vs. $6.2m. One of them needing a three man crew that takes a few years to train properly, the other one taking a two men crew (one man in a pinch) with a few weeks of training. You can outfit 40 anti-tank crews for the price of a single tank. And you can train them consecutively if you so please and still come out ahead in terms of training time. In other words, you need to accompany the tanks with infantry to protect it against infrantry. And that in turn means you give up the key advantage the tank gives you on the battlefield. In other words, what justification to exist do these things still have?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2022, @10:10PM (2 children)
You forgot to count the price of solder's lives here. Very typical for Nazi psycho you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19 2022, @04:19PM
What's your problem with Malthusianism? We need breathing room!
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20 2022, @07:28AM
3 tankers vs 2 infantrists, where the latter have the higher survival chance? I'd put my money on the infantry.
Also, please can the bleeding-heart bullshit. It's kinda laughable when you do that, Ivan.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @05:52AM (1 child)
It still provides teeth and protection to an infantry column. This actually has historical precedent. Russian armor units in the Second World War started with a similar mix. It's not great in a mobility fight, like against the first rush of Nazi units in 1941, but when things are near stagnant it does ok. They can overrun trenches, for example, while artillery just doesn't work that well.
Later the Russians put together more mobile tank units and started doing the same maneuver tactics as the Germans.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20 2022, @07:34AM
Overrunning trenches doesn't work anymore. You have anti-tank weapons today that shoots further than any anti-infantry weapon, especially infantry based anti-infantry weapons. Your tanks get popped long before they could become a threat to entrenched troops.