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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

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....

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: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

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".

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. . . .

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.