Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Spots China's First Aircraft Carrier
Hugh Pickens writes "Commercial satellite company DigitalGlobe Inc. has announced that it has an image of the People's Republic of China's first functional aircraft carrier, taken during the carrier's first sea trials in the Yellow Sea. The carrier was originally meant for the Soviet navy, but its construction was halted as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and engineers in the Ukraine disarmed it and removed its engines before selling it to China in 1998 for $20 million. The vessel, an Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier measuring 304.5 meters long, and having a displacement of 58,500 tons, has been refitted for research and training in China. The Ministry of National Defense says the steam-powered aircraft carrier has completed all refitting and testing work as scheduled after its first sea trial in mid-August, and was heading back out to sea for additional scientific research and experiments. According to Andrew S. Erickson at the US Naval War College, China's long term strategic dilemma is whether to focus on large-deck aviation or on submarines (PDF)."
I would feel much safer to take off from a carrier that has ski-jump at end of the ramp. Without it you're basically taking off from under the deck, almost hitting water if you don't have enough speed. Ski-jump gives you much more vertical speed on take off.
It's "Ukraine", not "The Ukraine" Get it right.
This post is full of failure.
China's aircraft carrier sounds like pretty old tech. Our aircraft carriers are the most advanced in the world, with nuclear power and now electromagnetic launchers. At something like $5 billion apiece, they aren't cheap. Maybe we can get back some of those dollars we've sent to China by selling them a fleet of our new Reagan-class aircraft carriers.
They can now point to all the flaws of this carrier even though these arm chair generals still live in their parents' basement.
2000-3000 new nuclear warheads.
Finally, a bit of target practice
Maybe we can get back some of those dollars
Almost fell out of my chair laughing.
No matter what happens, boss, I can assure you that "we" won't be seeing a dime. Yes, "we" were forced to pay for it, but it sure as hell isn't "ours".
"China doesn't really need carriers. They aren't offensive country like the U.S.,"
From above.
Very true.
The bigger question is Why does US need so many offensive nukes, stealth bombers, Trident D5s, Aircraft Carriers.
Oh yeah. Cheap foreign produced goods for the empire.
Can I get a:
"USA! USA! USA!"
"According to Andrew S. Erickson at the US Naval War College, China's long term strategic dilemma is whether to focus on large-deck aviation or on submarines "
Does it really matter? Are we expecting WW3 anytime soon?
Time to drop the trade agreement for furs and hope they dont halve aluminum or uranium within their borders.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Details: http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/varyagtransform.htm
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
Just curious, what would they burn in an application like this to power its boilers? Oil? Diesel? Coal? (Lead-lined cadmium? Child laborers?)
This was a brilliant move on China's part. A cold war is about making the other country spend too much money so that it collapses...at least that's basically what happened in the last cold war right? China spends 20 million on a ship...let's pretend they double that cost refitting it so maybe $40 million, and this will be used as an excuse for congresscritters to approve billions more in spending that we don't have on "defense."
our floating Chinese overlords.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The US has been waging a world war for a while now. How many countries do you have to be invading/occupying before its called a world war?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
float in on a nice boat to collect on the debt?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It went out in sept, issues found and sent back for repair. Likewise, this went out for sea trials mid. nov. It is possible that this is a fully launched and commissioned aircraft carrier.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They've got thousands of young unemployed engineers, recent advances in the design of hulls and they invest in um, the height of Ukranian technology (OK, maybe borrowed Russian technology). Surely they could have done much better starting from scratch.
Three gorges dam is another strange project. Yes, you can build ONE BIG DAM or 1 hundred little ones that are cheaper, achieve better flood control, yield as much or more power and are easier to dredge when they silt up. And if one of a hundred dams break, it's not as big a deal. If the three gorges dam breaks, we have a real problem.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
If you're fighting a real enemy who can shoot back, a carrier fleet is just a target-rich environment for cheap missiles. This is the modern equivalent of building battleships before WWII only to see them sunk by cheap aircraft.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So they've finally figured out they have to Build them in the OCEAN?!?!?!?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
China is slowly building a blue-water naval capability. This is hard and expensive, and has to be done in steps. Now they have a test aircraft carrier, which they can use to train pilots to take off and land on deck. They can practice the difficult process of servicing and maintaining aircraft on board ship. From this, they'll figure out what to build into their own carriers (two are under construction) and carrier-based aircraft, and how to train their people.
China's current generation of warships is considered reasonably good, although until they see combat, no one will really know. (The US fights a lot of small wars, and thus has experienced troops, battle-tested hardware, and the logistic capabilities to fight a war almost anywhere on the planet. China hasn't been as active in recent decades. Nor has most of Europe, as becomes embarrassingly obvious when NATO actually has to send troops somewhere.)
As China develops more overseas economic interests, especially in the raw materials area, they'll want a force projection capability. This is the first big step.
If the daily mail ran a headline claiming that two times three equalled six, I'd double check on my fingers before believing them.
but considering they now are the source of a lot of stuff made in the world. if their leader went out and said. "i want 20 more in less then ten years" they will be able to build them in less then 5. and it takes us what about 2 to 3 years to build a single one of ours?
congratulations, the united states is like the early ww2 german war machine. were more advanced but it takes longer for us to build our tanks, ships, and planes while our enemies will be able in a short while replace that one much cheaper and faster made one with 2 or more every time we knock one down.
Russia sold an air craft carrier for $20 million? If I would have known this would have been just what I've been waiting for, as I've wanted to live on an air craft carrier set in the middle of the lake near my house.
or else!
What even a modest carrier can do in the near term caught the Chinese by surprise in early 2005,when they watched in horror as Indian and Japanese carriers conducted post-tsunami relief operations. Thus, in reconceptualizing the PLAN carrier, China’s two potential role models—and competitors—are not the United States and the former Soviet Union but rather India and Japan. [Andrew S. Erickson and Andrew R.Wilson, "China's aircraft carrier dilemma," Naval War College Review, Autumn 2006, Vol. 59, No. 4, p. 36.]
Would that this were true -- it would be nice to see countries build military weapons platforms to compete with each other to provide the best humanitarian assistance possible. [/pollyanna] However. . . .
Congrats!
Maintaining an aircraft carrier is expensive.
... cost $5.000 USD, coming with warranty of 6 months...
China buys a derelict boat in 1998 and it has thus far taken them 13 years (and counting) to get to a 2nd sea trial... Without any of the necessary capabilities for war onboard yet... And this is news or cause for concern?
Everything else is just a target.
Congratulations to the People's Liberation Army's Navy for its glorious accomplishment of joining the rank of nations like Thailand, Brazil and India in fielding in foreign built aircraft carrier.
Nah. The aircraft carriers are the castles of the middle ages. Someone will come up with a tin opener which will allow a small boat or aircraft to take out a carrier almost single handed. It's only a matter of time. That may even be the research the Chinese want to run against their carrier.
Deleted
Just think how much more powerful the US would be if it didn't spend to bloddy much on its military (approx $700B per year, according to Wikipedia). Cut that down to, say, $100B (still a shitload by global standards). Keep a [relatively] small, but highly trained and equipped reactionary force (around the size of the current Marine Corps). That would leave plenty of room for a couple Aircraft carriers, subs, and enough planes to more than support the ground effort. That leaves an extra $600B for other things, like I dunno, national debt. Think of how powerful the US would be if it had little or no debt, plus hundreds of billions in surpluses every year?
The problem is, and even the most fiscally conservative republicans don't like to admit, is that the defense industry is one the major cogs of the US economy. But even the most conservative candidates (like Ron Paul - who ironically is very isolationist) don't speak much to cutting the US defense budget (or cutting it relatively small amounts (a few percent)).
Funny how despite all the economioc and budget woes, talk of US defense spending is rarely mentioned.
Even in the Falklands war the puny, ill-equipped and ill-prepared Argentine navy was able to sink four UK warships, two of them with Exocet missiles
I thought it was just two (General Belgrano & Sheffield) and both were much smaller than an aircraft carrier.
Also modern aircraft carriers have significant missile defense systems and up-armoring specifically against missiles. I'm really doubtful if even deploying an array of five or ten cheap anti-ship missiles would even scratch a modern aircraft carrier.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It was originally in the Washington Post. It's beyond a subscriber wall, though.
The 3000 warhead number was based on the interpretation of one study group, and while it's interesting, I'd take it with a hefty grain of salt. 1000 sounds a bit more reasonable.
Having been in the Navy for 14 years I do not see China being able to operate a carrier effectively for a decade at least. First you need to have planes an pilots that can land on one, then you have to be learn how to replenish at sea (*not* an easy task), then you need a grunch of ships and submarines to protect the carrier, not to mention operations for achieving that, and of course the entire logistics and training infrastructure to pull the whole thing off.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/06/cold-fusion-heating-up
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Does the yellow sea have whales too?
Either way, west is going to be pissed.
Researchers of all types are able to get time on subs to look in to various ocean phenomena that they are interested in. Maybe just for PR (though they don't advertise it all that much) but probably more that the subs don't always have missions to be going on and this is a way of using them for something useful that also gets crews some training.
That isn't why they are built primarily, of course, but they really are used for it.
submarines and wing in ground effect boats, stop preparing for the last war and start preparing for the next.
Rocket Surgeon.
Submarines and wing in ground effect boats. The trick is to not prepare for the last war, start preparing for the next war.
Rocket Surgeon.
Military preparedness is not something that you do in case everything goes according to plan.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Should be obvious that when TDS says steam it means nuclear, this is obviously a nuclear aircraft carrier.
More interesting is why we're being told that China has "Steam" ships.
The people's republic of China is just as technologically advanced as Russia, Britain or the U.S. it's disingenuous to imply otherwise especially regarding weapons capability.
Maybe you think it's just nitpicking but I did look through all the other comments for someone to at least mention how the article got it wrong
I would not have imagined that such a large and militarily-oriented nation as China -- a nuclear power for crying out loud -- with one of the world's longest national coastlines, would have waited this long to built an aircraft carrier, a piece of military technology that proved its value very conclusively in WWII, some sixty years ago. I mean, really, they went through the entire cold war era without building one?
In fact, it kind of seems anticlimactic and pointless for them start on that now, when they (China, I mean) have much more advanced, modern stuff, like satellites and electronic warfare capabilities.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.