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: 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].