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)."

Comments

Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[InsightIn140Bytes]

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.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[the linux geek]

The US uses steam catapults, which are even better but are more expensive and are fairly involved to design.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[iluvcapra]

Better to have your nose straight at Vstall, than have your angle of attack inclined at Vstall. Ski-jumps don't work for heavier ASW/AWACS aircraft, and they deprie you of landing space for helicopters.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[roothog]

The US uses steam catapults, which are even better but are more expensive and are fairly involved to design.

Ford class carriers (2 currently under construction) will use magnetic launch rather than steam launch.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[roothog]

almost hitting water if you don't have enough speed. Ski-jump gives you much more vertical speed on take off.

With flat launch, you do hit the water in high seas if they don't time the catapult launch correctly.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US uses steam catapults, which are even better but are more expensive and are fairly involved to design.

Ford class carriers (2 currently under construction) will use magnetic launch rather than steam launch.

To be followed in 20 years by the Obama class which use Hope

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[damiangerous]

Large, heavy aircraft cannot take off from ski jumps. That makes them mostly unsuitable for US carriers as the Super Hornet is one of the mainstays of the airborne fleet.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[Nadaka]

The ford is designed with more powerful nuclear reactors to provide for the magnetic launchers, and potentially rail guns and directed energy weapons. Yes. This will be bad-ass.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[Richard_at_work]

Russia operates Mig-29s and Su-33s off of carriers with ski jumps - and the Su-33 is heavier than a Superhornet.

The USMC also doesn't use a ski jump for it's AV-8B carrier platforms, despite that aircraft operating very well off of the UKs (now retired), Indian and Italian ski jump equipped carriers. It's an operational decision taken by US military planners rather than a limitation with the design, as the RAF GR.7 and GR.9s could launch with a heavier weight than the Marines aircraft because of that ski jump.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[dj245]

I don't understand why they did this at all. A steam catapult is relatively simple mechanically, and any pipefitting company can work on it as long as they have the appropriate government qualifications. Our carriers are going to have nuclear reactors for a long time, and that means a readilly-available source of steam. Going to magnetic launchers just hints to me that the principal contractor wanted to drive up the costs in order to increase their profit, and the ability for them to charge out the ass for aftermarket service and parts.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[myth24601]

I think the main reason the Navy doesn't put ski jumps on the gator carriers that the USMC takes off from is because they don't want to sacrifice the space that could be used for helicopter operations. Those carriers are mainly used for landing troops with the Harrier playing a supporting role.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[roothog]

Magnetic launch puts less stress on aircraft, requires a smaller physical space on the ship, and requires less manpower to operate and maintain.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[ArcherB]

I don't understand why they did this at all. A steam catapult is relatively simple mechanically, and any pipefitting company can work on it as long as they have the appropriate government qualifications. Our carriers are going to have nuclear reactors for a long time, and that means a readilly-available source of steam. Going to magnetic launchers just hints to me that the principal contractor wanted to drive up the costs in order to increase their profit, and the ability for them to charge out the ass for aftermarket service and parts.

From what I understand, the magnetic catapults are much more reliable and preform much better than using extremely high pressured steam. Components tend to break when place them under high pressure, release the pressure in an instant and the slowly pressurize it again.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[NEDHead]

Ski jump technology is doomed as global warming will limit the latitudes where it can be operational

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[damiangerous]

Russia operates Mig-29s and Su-33s off of carriers with ski jumps - and the Su-33 is heavier than a Superhornet.

But they can't be loaded to full weight when launching off a ramp. they needs to be either light on armament or be air refueled.

Smaller carriers that only use VSTOL aircraft could benefit from a ski jump, I don't know why it hasn't been implemented there.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The electromagnetic catapults are powered by an energy storage subsystem:

The induction motor requires a large amount of electric energy in just a few seconds - more than the ship's own power source can provide. EMALS' energy-storage subsystem draws power from the ship and stores it kinetically on rotors of four disk alternators. Each rotor can store more than 100 megajoules, and can be recharged within 45 seconds of a launch, faster than steam catapults.

The larger reactors are likely for the 'all-electric' ships that the Navy plans on building. It is less efficient to convert steam energy to kinetic energy to electric energy to kinetic energy than it is to convert steam energy to kinetic energy, as would be the case with the main engines, which use the majority of the reactor's power.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[Nimey]

Nimitz isn't traditional.

Traditional is naming carriers after battles (also stinging insects), not after people.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[ericloewe]

Also more efficient. I think they're around 20% efficient, compared to steam catapults that only manage ~2% efficiency. They're also far easier to control: You can have a controlled acceleration instead of a huge acceleration that quickly drops, launch smaller, lighter stuff (a steam catapult won't work at "half power", so if you tried to launch an UAV, it would be ripped apart by the catapult operating at full power). Of course, the coolness of any object is automatically improved by adding magnets, so you get that added bonus.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[Martin Blank]

The USS Nimitz was named after Flt. Adm. Chester Nimitz who died in 1966 and is the only US military vessel ever to be named after him so far as I can find. A single vessel doesn't make for a tradition.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[Shakrai]

President's names don't make very good aircraft carrier names in my opinion

They also seem somewhat antithetical to our republican traditions. One can understand when a monarchical state starts to idolize its leaders but why should a democratic republic do the same?

By the way, I heard there's a petition to rename the second Gerald Ford-class carrier "Enterprise", since the old one (CVN-65) is supposed to be decommissioned by whenever the new one is finished

A lot of people will be ticked off if the Enterprise goes to the breakers without a new carrier being named after her. CV-6 was the most decorated US warship of all time. She fought in nearly every major Pacific engagement and stood ALONE against the Japanese towards the end of the Guadalcanal campaign when every other US carrier was sunk or laid up for repairs. Her accomplishments were such that she was the only non-British ship ever awarded the British Admiralty Pennant.

Anybody with any sense of history really needs to be writing letters to their Congressman and the Secretary of the Navy on this subject. Seriously, they'd better not replace the Enterprise with a ship named after another politician that hasn't even been dead long enough for history to render a judgment. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush weren't even dead when their namesake ships were commissioned. How pathetic that we idolize politicians in such a manner.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand wanting him out of office, but you seriously can't wait for the guy to die, WTF?

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[hitmark]

I suspect part of the reduced stress comes from not having most of the acceleration at the start, as the magnetic rail allows for the same amount of force to be applied along the whole distance.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[flyingsquid]

I think it's really worth asking whether ships like the Nimitz-class super carriers are even going to be that relevant in 10 or 20 years. Right now, more and more missions, both reconnaissance and combat, are being flown by drones. We're also seeing the first generation of combat drones getting ready to enter service. The Northrop X-47B made its first flight this year, and they are planning carrier trials in 2013. The question then becomes, couldn't you get away with building a fleet of smaller carriers that would fly drones rather than manned aircraft? Remember that the main reason carriers won out over battleships in the first place was that airpower gave you the ability to sink a battleship long before the carrier was in range of the battleship's guns. Currently, the X-47B has a maximum range of 2100 nautical miles versus 1600 nautical miles for an F-14. Assuming your maximum strike range is half of that, a small carrier equipped with an X-47 or something comparable could attack a Nimitz class carrier armed with F-14s 250 miles outside of the range of the Nimitz-class carrier. If drones do require less infrastructure than aircraft (you don't need to house and feed pilots and copilots, you don't need rescue helicopters in case the pilots go down) then you ought to be able to get away with something that would give you the force-projection beyond that of an existing aircraft carrier, but in a smaller, cheaper package.

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[couchslug]

"To be followed in 20 years by the Obama class which use Hope"

And works indistinguishably from its predecessor....

Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump?

[shutdown -p now]

In practice, carriers are not used by U.S. today to attack enemy carriers; they are used to house aircraft that hit ground targets, just off the coast so that they have short turnaround.

And you can probably replace fighter planes with drones for the kinds of missions that they perform in Afghanistan, or even the kinds that they would be hypothetically performing in Iran; but, for the latter, you really need larger and heavier drones. So you'd still need large carriers to launch them.

Solution to US debt problem

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[kcbnac]

This was sold as a research vessel only, not to be converted back for active military use. Who knows if China is going to follow that, but being an old design and stripped of many useful things, they'd be better off building a fresh one with new design, tech and materials, and keep using this as a "research" ship.

Also sell the one superpower that could actually give us a run for our money the equipment we use? That would be VERY stupid, also they wouldn't take it - they'd want to make sure none of it was sabotaged. (As we've done several times with commercial gear when the Soviets would buy it through 3rd parties)

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[roothog]

Reagan-class aircraft carriers.

Such a thing does not exist. The new class of carrier is Ford class. The USS Ronald Reagan is Nimitz class.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[R3d M3rcury]

That's actually what US Navy Submarines do, also--"oceanic research."

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[NatasRevol]

You mean land locked Tibet?

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[HornWumpus]

AC is a fool.

There is at least one fast attack shadowing this ship already.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[the_humeister]

What are you talking about? Carriers have an offense of 1, a defense of 9, and 4 hit points (1/9/4)! About the only thing that has any hope of destroying one is a submarine (10/2/3) or stealth bomber (14/5/2).

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[Zcar]

Not exactly. The Soviet Union classified them as aviation cruiser for treaty reasons (Montreux Convention, 1936: aircraft carriers aren't allowed through the Dardanelles). At about 65,000 tons full load, it's larger than the French de Gaulle and roughly equivalent the the Royal Navy's planned carriers.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[GreatBunzinni]

And as additional food for thought, consider this: nowadays there are cruise missiles specifically designed to take down supercarriers being sold for around 2 million euros a pop, such as Russia/India's BrahMos. This means that for the price of a single US fighter, any enemy can purchase two dozens or so missiles capable of sinking a multi-billion dollar supercarrier such as those from the Gerald Ford-class. These are missiles which can pretty much be launched from anything, from submarines to planes and possibly a donkey cart as well. So, why is it a good idea to waste money on these massive bullseyes?

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[CaseCrash]

Phht, that's Dungeons and Dragons, a game your play with friends in your mom's basement. He was talking about Civilization, a game you play alone in your mom's basement.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[Daimanta]

I guess countries like Spain, Italy and even Thailand are "offensive countries"? They all have aircraft carriers.

Remember the ships the Empire used in Star Wars?

That's right, Thai fighters.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[frank_adrian314159]

So, why is it a good idea to waste money on these massive bullseyes?

Why? Not all conflicts are against enemies who have the wherewithal to attack you from 1000 miles away. If you're going up against a small country in another part of the world, you can park it far enough away that they can't bring it down with their resources and you can still fly your aircraft over them with impunity.

Why else? Because they let high-ranking military personnel feel important when they're allowed to drive one.

Want more reasons? Transfer payments to corporations and other associated entities. Jobs.

I could go on but, chances are, I've proved my point. There are many reasons (both good and not) for building these dinosaurs.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[Dunbal]

The day of the carrier is over, anyway. They're great for beating up third world nations, but "power projection" just isn't going to work against a real airforce and air defense system. The US has yet to fight a fight without air supremacy. How useful is your carrier when only 25% of your sortie makes it back?

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[Beardo the Bearded]

Learn some fucking facts. Seriously.

The US debt is a little over 15T(Trillion). China holds 1.134T. That's 7.5%

China holds a meager 7.5% SEVEN POINT FIVE PERCENT of the US debt. That's it. Japan, the next highest creditor, holds 6.4%.

The grand total of all foreign debt is 4.6T. That's 30% of all the US debt.

Foreign countries -- all of them -- hold THIRTY PERCENT of the US Debt. The rest is owed to the US, either to the Federal Reserve or the US public.

Here are the stats on foreign ownership of the US debt.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[ckaminski]

Excellent, when you can get another wing from the motherland in 24 hours via a network of in-flight-refueling aircraft.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[DesScorp]

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.

$5 billion? The Ford Class is expected to hit $15 billion apiece. Which is why the Navy is planning to stretch carrier construction from 5 year cycles to 8 or even 9 year cycles. They simply can't afford as many at those costs. The DDG-1000 may be $7 billion dollars apiece for a destroyer. The F-35 is now as expensive as the F-22, with much less capability. We're pricing ourselves out of a Navy with any significant numbers of ships.

Re:Solution to US debt problem

[DesScorp]

The US has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the entire world combined. China's one ancient soviet carrier is nothing.

The point of this carrier isn't to challenge the US carrier fleet. The point of this carrier is to learn how to build and operate carriers. Once they do that, China will start building much larger and more capable carriers and in greater numbers, while the US Navy is trimming it's fleet. If I was Taiwanese, I'd be nervous.

Why do we still build weapons?

[Haedrian]

"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?

Re:Why do we still build weapons?

[Sez Zero]

Does it really matter? Are we expecting WW3 anytime soon?

You can't rattle your saber if you don't have a saber!

And nuclear powered mobile military bases are great for rattling

Re:Why do we still build weapons?

[readin]

WWII was started by two countries that, though historically capable of supporting strong militaries, had not taken advantage of the colonial age due to circumstances - Germany due to disunity and Japan due to a period of shutting itself off from the outside world. Both countries were looking to take their rightful place on the world stage. Both believed themselves racially superior but victims of historical wrongs committed against them. Germany at least, did not claim its initial moves were aggressive but were merely recovering what should have been theirs all along, in particular areas where German culture existed.

Does any of this not apply to China?

So they've discovered flight and have oil!

[Kenja]

Time to drop the trade agreement for furs and hope they dont halve aluminum or uranium within their borders.

Brilliant!

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Brilliant!

[Manfre]

We'll just continue to spend China's money. They can't win the cold war if they're paying for both sides of it!

Re:Ukraine

[idji]

Go and google "The Ukraine" and look up Oxford English Dictionary and you will find such interesting linguistic jewels. "The Ukraine", "The Crimea", "The Sudan", "The Netherlands", "The Congo", "The Ivory Coast". Now get off my lawn....

Another odd decision from China's government

[gestalt_n_pepper]

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.

Re:Another odd decision from China's government

[baKanale]

Apparently they are building their own. As a prelude to this they've been buying up both ships and ship plans from Western navies. I think their plan is to use these to learn how to build and operate carriers before they start making them at home.

On a side note, they turned the decommissioned 1970's era Soviet carrier Minsk into a military theme park called "Minsk World"! They did the same thing with the Kiev, but it's name isn't nearly as amusing...

Aircraft carriers

[0123456]

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.

Re:Aircraft carriers

[0123456]

Carriers provide force projection, e.g. intimidation of smaller militaries by sending a capital ship and battle group in their direction.

As I said, they're only of use if the other side can't shoot back. Otherwise they'll be scrap on the sea-bed within a few days.

Even the British carriers in the Falklands only survived because the Argentian Air Force ran out of Exocets.

Re:Aircraft carriers

[ISoldat53]

In war games that is exactly how they did it. Saturate a defense sector with missiles and decoys until the defenses burn out or run out of ammo.

Re:Aircraft carriers

[LWATCDR]

Not really.
1. It is not easy to get within range of a us carrier group with Aircraft. They have E-2s which give you great radar coverage plus F-18s armed with AIM-120s.
2. If you manage to get past the CAP then you have to deal with the escorts. Both the DDs and CGs classes in use today have great air defense systems. Not to mention a lot of SAMs.
3. You then have to get past the point defenses of the ships to hit a carrier. It could be done but you better bring about 100+ aircraft to the party.
As far as using a surface ship? The Carrier can reach out and hit you from a long way.
4. Subs? well they are actually slow. A fast sub is a loud sub and likely to be a dead sub.

As long as the carrier is out to see it will be tough nut to crack. Now if you can get it close to shore and used shore mounted weapons you may have a chance.

The only reason that the Brits lost any ships was they lacked any AEW assets like the E-2 and only had Sea Harriers.

Re:Steam powered?

[dj245]

If they didn't stuff a nuclear reactor in it, they are probably burning Heavy Fuel Oil, sometimes referred to as Bunker C. It is a heavy oil which needs to be heated before you can even pump it. HFO is the nasty stuff left over after you refine the gasoline, diesel, and other useful oils out of crude. It burns dirty, but at sea nobody cares. In port, some countries/ports make you switch to marine diesel to improve the air quality. I didn't check, but I doubt China is concerned with burning HFO in their ports.

Sticker on bottom of ship...

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

... says "Not made in China".

Not first, just first functional

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So they've finally figured out they have to Build them in the OCEAN?!?!?!?

Re:Backed by

[geckipede]

If the daily mail ran a headline claiming that two times three equalled six, I'd double check on my fingers before believing them.

Unintended consequences. . . .

[dtmos]

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. . . .

Re:Ukraine

[sysrammer]

Slavic languages do not have articles.

Just a few details...

[rabenja]

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.

Re:Ukraine

[swalve]

The Ukrainians are pissed about that because they were a regular old country called Ukraine until the Soviets took them over and converted them into a region rather than a state. It was an emasculation of sorts, and when they got their autonomy back, they preferred to be called by the correct name. Same thing with Yukon in Canada. "The Yukon" was a region, and then it became the Province of Yukon, or just Yukon.