SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(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]