The Chinese just launched their first domestically produced carrier, and it's a ski jump style of launch system to get aircraft into the sky. My question is why? This seems backwards to me given steam systems have been around for a long time, and we are now using magnetic systems on our newest carriers here in the U.S.. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

More concerned that they now have a system and process of building an aircraft carrier. This is no easy feat with all the technical knowledge, training, materials, resources and infrastructure that goes into building these.

Thank the Russians for this one.

Trinity Ag said:

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

More concerned that they now have a system and process of building an aircraft carrier. This is no easy feat with all the technical knowledge, training, materials, resources and infrastructure that goes into building these.

---

Countries have been building aircraft carriers since the 1920s.

It isn't rocket science. The capacity to build an aircraft carrier is more about cost/benefit decisions than technical challenges.

---

I'm not an aircraft carrier expert by any means, but it took China I believe eight years to build their first one, which was a used one they bought from Ukraine. My understanding is that they didn't have the processes, knowledge, and systems in place to build from the ground up so they bought a used rust bucket, which was commissioned in 2012 I believe. It's taken them another eight years to build one from the ground up.

The Aussie's newer ship, the Adelaide, has a ramp, but I don't think they use it.

The ramp is more so for VSTOL aircraft than for conventional FW airplanes, and it facilitates spectacular fuel savings compared to a flush deck carrier. It's ungainly and adds a bulbous quality to any warship's lines- but they work like a turk.

mellison said:

---

The Aussie's newer ship, the Adelaide, has a ramp, but I don't think they use it.

---

Living in Australia for the past 12 years, I think I would have noticed if they got an Aircraft Carrier.

They call the HMAS Adelaide (III) an Amphibious Assault Ship. Essentially it's a helicopter carrier.
https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-adelaide-iii

The Chinese and the Russians both have a similar design with the ski jump thing at the end. Looks funky.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Trinity Ag said:

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

More concerned that they now have a system and process of building an aircraft carrier. This is no easy feat with all the technical knowledge, training, materials, resources and infrastructure that goes into building these.

---

Countries have been building aircraft carriers since the 1920s.

It isn't rocket science. The capacity to build an aircraft carrier is more about cost/benefit decisions than technical challenges.

---

I'm not an aircraft carrier expert by any means, but it took China I believe eight years to build their first one, which was a used one they bought from Ukraine. My understanding is that they didn't have the processes, knowledge, and systems in place to build from the ground up so they bought a used rust bucket, which was commissioned in 2012 I believe. It's taken them another eight years to build one from the ground up.

---

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-aircraft-carrier-type-001a/\

6 days at sea without refueling. There is no real power-projection capacity with the short legs of their aircraft, and the limited cruising range of the ship.

It is a huge resource suck, with very limited capability. There may be some degree of "prestige" associated with having a domestically produced carrier, but I don't see where that outweighs the cost. But lots of Chinese contractors got rich building it.

In the modern era, if it isn't nuclear powered, it is a parade prop.

But if they only aim to block a few straits in the SCS and out range everyone else with A2/AD and long range fires ...does that really matter? Can't that, in combination (and more ships), have a large effect?

My total guess is that would be a solid schmaybe. Nothing lasts forever and to adapt to changing circumstances you need time, and time is fuel and ammunition. If your assets have a limited range, then they are limited in their response. That thirsty beast would need a tanker full of bunker fuel (if that's what they use) to sustain operations, and even then the further the ship goes the longer lead time or higher quantity of tankers you need to keep it hot.

I'm amazed at the logistics of the second world war of keeping not only the army and marines sustained, but hundreds of ships and planes that guzzle it down. CV 9 class carriers on average at 100 rpms of the screws, burned over 1400 gallons an hour, and at 256 rpm burned 11,575 gallons per hour. Granted technology has probably gotten better, but they're just fuel hogs plain and simple.

Isn't this carrier bought from Russia and converted? Thought this was the Kuznetsov???

No, it's a new carrier that they built entirely. They have another laid down as well, no clue when it comes on line.

Fly,
If all they wanted to do was secure those straights there are a lot more efficient and cost effective ways to do that than with a carrier. But I also think we should have not bought the latest CVN and put that money towards 4 more Virginia class SSN's.

Yeah I was wrong. They bought one and converted it in 2012. This one is a new build on the Kuznetsov blueprint.

CT'97 said:

---

No, it's a new carrier that they built entirely. They have another laid down as well, no clue when it comes on line.

Fly,
If all they wanted to do was secure those straights there are a lot more efficient and cost effective ways to do that than with a carrier. But I also think we should have not bought the latest CVN and put that money towards 4 more Virginia class SSN's.

---

No doubt there are more cost (and operationally) effective ways, but I don't think anything about Chinese military modernization has been about cost effectiveness. Nobody can say for sure what their war fighting concepts is, but it is pretty clear that they are building a SCS layer that will expand to/beyond the second island chain...and maybe a little more flex with a few aircraft carriers to disrupt the flow of forces into the region if things ever got that bad.

Just don't get the general dismissal of these ships as throwaway capabilities. Again, I know jack and squat about aircraft carriers...but it doesn't take a SCS expert to realize that if all goes to hell with Taiwan (just an example)...how many aircraft carriers would it take for an invading force to be concerned we'd have room to penetrate the area given their other means of keeping SE Asia under a vice either A2/AD, diplomatically, or economically + their newfound military capabilities?

It is a Kuznetsov. The one you mention is being built in Dalian, PRC. They purchased the first carrier from Russia sometime prior to 2010~ iirc. The second, I believe, was very recently commissioned.

Edit: wanted to express that I don't think you're wrong. My take is that the PLAN and PLAAF essentially copies most of their units from Russia, by way of reverse engineering. Most of their fleet is a joke and there were only two Ships in their fleets I was ever concerned about in my time doing the things I did.

Bodie Broadus said:

---

It is a Kuznetsov. The one you mention is being built in Dalian, PRC. They purchased the first carrier from Russia sometime prior to 2010~ iirc. The second, I believe, was very recently commissioned.

Edit: wanted to express that I don't think you're wrong. My take is that the PLAN and PLAAF essentially copies most of their units from Russia, by way of reverse engineering. Most of their fleet is a joke and there were only two Ships in their fleets I was ever concerned about in my time doing the things I did.

---

The first one was a shell they bought from Ukraine. Took them a few years to get it to China and then another few years to make it operational. I believe it was eight years from purchase to FOC.

Yes! I knew there were a few details I missed. It's been interesting to keep track of their Naval progression. Some of their ships were interesting purchases.

Why are you guys worried?


It's made in China

True, but if they get 50 of these, watch out. It will align with their "quantity over quality" strategy.

Bunch a Alfred Thayer Mahans up in this mf'er.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Bodie Broadus said:

---

It is a Kuznetsov. The one you mention is being built in Dalian, PRC. They purchased the first carrier from Russia sometime prior to 2010~ iirc. The second, I believe, was very recently commissioned.

Edit: wanted to express that I don't think you're wrong. My take is that the PLAN and PLAAF essentially copies most of their units from Russia, by way of reverse engineering. Most of their fleet is a joke and there were only two Ships in their fleets I was ever concerned about in my time doing the things I did.

---

The first one was a shell they bought from Ukraine. Took them a few years to get it to China and then another few years to make it operational. I believe it was eight years from purchase to FOC.

---

There are rumors they hired an entire division of the Ukrainian black sea shipyard and relocated them to China. I think it's a prestige thing since I believe the PLAN is woefully inadequate to protect a CVN group, my talk with a few officer(s) is that it's basically the "If the Americans have it we should get it". They have issues with building anything that qualifies above a destroyer (One of their new ships is a CG) and major issues in training hours that aren't on shore.

May have changed with Xi recently but my point about deficiencies in shipbuilding still exist. The PLAN is the weakest of the traditional branches.

There is a little joke/history in the PLA. When Deng Xiaoping was in power, he once asked the generals of the branches, "Can you reclaim Taiwan?" and looked at the Navy liaison, who remarked, "As long as the air force can do their job, so can we!". Deng turns to the air force liaison, who states "As long as the land force can do their job, so can we!". Getting irate, Deng turns towards the Army liaison, who states "As long as the 2nd artillery (Air defense/strategic rockets) can do their job, so can we!". Deng finally turns to the 2nd artillery liaison, who sweats a bit before saying "As long as the naval force can do their job, so can we!"

Thus Deng remarked in anger, "Lazy, bloated, arrogant and incompetent"! Then the military was purged reformed.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

The Russian carriers are also not really a threat because anytime they try to do any sort of prolonged operation they end up breaking or catching on fire. Let's hope the Chinese copied as much of their design as possible.

---

Boom!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/04/11/brand-new-chinese-aircraft-carrier-catches-fire/#4dd5f65c7f4d

erudite said:

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Bodie Broadus said:

---

It is a Kuznetsov. The one you mention is being built in Dalian, PRC. They purchased the first carrier from Russia sometime prior to 2010~ iirc. The second, I believe, was very recently comAutodesk SketchBookmissioned.

Edit: wanted to express that I don't think you're wrong. My take is that the PLAN and PLAAF essentially copies most of their units from Russia, by way of reverse engineering. Most of their fleet is a joke and there were only two Ships in their fleets I was ever concerned about in my time doing the things I did.

---

The first one was a shell they bought from Ukraine. Took them a few years to get it to China and then another few years to make it operational. I believe it was eight years from purchase to FOC.

---

There are rumors they hired an entire division of the Ukrainian black sea shipyard and relocated them to China. I think it's a prestige thing since I believe the PLAN is woefully inadequate to protect a CVN group, my talk with a few officer(s) is that it's basically the "If the Americans have it we should get it". They have issues with building anything that qualifies above a destroyer (One of their new ships is a CG) and major issues in training hours that aren't on shore.

May have changed with Xi recently but my point about deficiencies in shipbuilding still exist. The PLAN is the weakest of the traditional branches.

There is a little joke/history in the PLA. When Deng Xiaoping was in power, he once asked the generals of the branches, "Can you reclaim Taiwan?" and looked at the Navy liaison, who remarked, "As long as the air force can do their job, so can we!". Deng turns to the air force liaison, who states "As long as the land force can do their job, so can we!". Getting irate, Deng turns towards the Army liaison, who states "As long as the 2nd artillery (Air defense/strategic rockets) can do their job, so can we!". Deng finally turns to the 2nd artillery liaison, who sweats a bit before saying "As long as the naval force can do their job, so can we!"

Thus Deng remarked in anger, "Lazy, bloated, arrogant and incompetent"! Then the military was purged reformed.

---

You are right...things have changed with Xi. I would not offer, as an opinion, that the PLAN is inadequate to protect a CVN, nor would I suggest China is working on a "If American has it campaign". Since 2012 Xi has been focused on a 30 year modernization plan that would help the PLA see and react faster than they ever have...using hypersonic missiles, advanced radar/space weapons, etc...the PLAN doesn't really have to protect their CVN. The PLA 'joint force' will. Add to that the militarization of the SCS/growing home field advantage, and we have a challenge on our hands. I'm not dismissing the technology gaps in the shipbuilding/recapitalization, but I'd offer most people to discuss the PLA look at it from a singular service lens as you stated above. That is the China of the past. That will not be the China we potentially face beyond 2030.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/China-Russia-alliance-on-horizon-as-nuclear-arms-treaties-crumble

"U.S. moves have already nudged Russia and China closer together. In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed Moscow was helping China to develop an early warning system for missile attacks. Only the U.S. and Russia possess such systems."