world

China launches high-tech aircraft carrier in naval milestone

60 Comments
By DAVID RISING and KEN MORITSUGU

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


60 Comments
Login to comment

Leaving the dry dock is one thing. As mentioned fitting out and sea trials will be a time-consuming process likely more time consuming than initially budgeted for as these are new technologies to the Chinese.

Learning to operate in a battle group will take years and possibly a decade. This ship is not a risk as of yet, but it is an expression of China's intention to dominate the Western Pacific out to and possibly beyond the 2nd Island chain.

We would be wise to begin ramping up our capabilities and revising contingencies now.

15 ( +22 / -7 )

Based on a flawed design, China still doesn’t have planes designed for naval operations. So it’s a big sneeze wrapped in propaganda that in 10 years will be rusting somewhere that nobody can see.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

Amazing how some assume China is slow and dumb.

Their not !

Chinese are dangerously clever and need to be observed with caution constantly.

-3 ( +14 / -17 )

Where is it going to refuel/resupply?

6 ( +10 / -4 )

What are the two long oblongs on her foredeck?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Where is it going to refuel/resupply?

as most of the world hates US led NATO, around 80% of the worlds population.

-26 ( +6 / -32 )

So Biden's successor is likely going to have to deal with the American freak out when a Chinese carrier group combines a freedom of navigation patrol with a friendly port visit to Cuba, including some flights off the deck in Guantanamo Bay.

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

Where is it going to refuel/resupply?

In a port, of course.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

It is time Australia regained Aircraft carriers in its fleet. Two or three escort carriers to ensure one is operational at all times and two in a surge. They only need 2 squadrons of F-35B and 6-10 helo's and perhaps 1 small AEW&C per active carrier. This would enhance security for the Indo-Pacific region and take some of the strain off the US navy to try and be everywhere at once.

They are as needed today as they were when first used by the RAN. Time to return to a minimum global blue water navy. It will not challenge a navy like China, US or even India but it will increase options and security in our corner of the worlds oceans.

Heck even Thailand has a small carrier it could use if it fixed it up a little. Singapore is roumored to be planning a small carrier also. Japan and South Korea are building so it makes sense for Australia to return to being a carrier operating nation which it last was in the 1980's.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

as most of the world hates US led NATO, around 80% of the worlds population.

The truth is most of the world either likes or has no thoughts either way about NATO so about 70-80%. Only a couple of Autocratic troublemakers do not like NATO as they can not bully it or attack it.

Where is it going to refuel/resupply?

Chinese carrier can refuel as all conventional carriers and ships do, either in friendly ports or with naval supply oil tankers traveling in convoy with task forces.

8 ( +15 / -7 )

Only two countries in the world have actual naval combat experience using carrier fleets. That's the United States and Japan. China can only do their best to copy what they don't have in actual experience. In fact, after Japan destroyed the Qing Dynasty navy in 1884/85 China has never had any modern naval warfare experience.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

Richard,

It's not nuclear powered so it's ability to sail to Cuba is dubious at best. That would be a long supply line indeed which the Chinese have not now and will not have in the foreseeable future.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

@OssanAmerica

Only two countries in the world have actual naval combat experience using carrier fleets. That's the United States and Japan. 

Incorrect.

India used its aircraft carrier to enforce the naval blockade of West Pakistan during the Bangladesh War of 1971.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INSVikrant(R11)

But your ignorance is understandable since wars involving third world countries may not be noticed much in the West. Especially since the then US President is also on record saying that a genocide of brown Muslims would not really stir people in the West.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Peter14Today 05:38 pm JST

It is time Australia regained Aircraft carriers in its fleet.

Aircraft carriers are big targets .

I mean really big targets and with modern tech you don't have to be close to hit one.

Look at what is happening to tanks and other armored vehicles in the Ukraine.

Even North Korean missiles can travel 1000 kilometers accurately.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The United States loved the China of Reagan times, when it were just a farming country and produced cheap goods, now US detest with fear and envy the modern and progressive China that produces satellites, superconductors, high speed trains and aircraft carriers and the fact that China have their own SELF-DETERMINATION and don't have to give explanations to the decadent west..

Excellent and at least three more aircraft carriers are coming..

GO CHINA!!!..

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

progressive China that produces satellites, superconductors, high speed trains and aircraft carriers

I guess China can finally give up their benefits of being a self proclaimed "developing country" in world trade?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The enormous cost and prestige of modern carriers, especially nuclear powered carriers, makes them effectively obsolete. Political leaders will not risk these vanity ships in serious combat where they could be sunk. The Fujian, like all its western counterparts, will be relegated to striking backwards third world countries and occasionally delivering humanitarian aid.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

as most of the world hates US led NATO, around 80% of the worlds population

For downvoters, add up the population of India, China and Russia for a start.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

garymalmgrenToday 06:58 pm JST

Aircraft carriers are big targets .

I mean really big targets and with modern tech you don't have to be close to hit one.

So? Super tankers, container ships are massive and much larger than small escort carriers. Australia already has 2 ships over 27,500 T, about the size of escort carriers.

The super carriers the US have, The UK carriers and China's new carriers all dwarf escort carriers and are much bigger and thus easier to hit, if you can get past the defenses of multiple escorting warships designed to counter incoming missile threats.

War is a deadly business and navies lose ships. Russia is the latest example losing its missile crusier in the invasion of Ukraine.

It does not reduce the operational advantages of having carriers at your disposal, and what they can do for fleets in both offense and defense. Better to have than not. That is precisely why China is ramping up construction of these sailing cities to have even more.

Australia has experience operating carriers and did so in Korea and Vietnam.

Only two countries in the world have actual naval combat experience using carrier fleets. That's the United States and Japan.

You may mean carrier versus carrier experience. There are a number of nations that have used carriers during conflicts or in offensive operations including US, Japan, UK, France, Russia, Australia, India and there may be others I have missed.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Congradulations, China!

Your achievements were great!

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Impressive! () Too bad their carrier ops capable naval aircraft absolutely stink. It'll be another decade or two before they've figured out how to operate an airwing off of it and even longer before it's tactically effective.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

For downvoters, add up the population of India, China and Russia for a start.

India does not hate NATO for a start. Many people in China do not care or think about NATO so just assuming they all hate it is a huge generalization that has no basis in reality.

Honestly some posters just post pure speculation based on their own "feelings" and make no realistic allowances for reality.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

TokyoLivingToday  07:15 pm JST

The United States loved the China of Reagan times, when it were just a farming country and produced cheap goods, 

No, China (PRC) did not produce cheap goods for the world until the Clinton era in the mid 90s.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Now, while carrier groups (carriers don't operate as singleton ships, they're too big and too small for that) are pretty obsolete as a weapon of war except against the worst of the third world countries, they're still cutting edge as a force projection tool for international relations.

The difference between a 'blue water navy' and a local waters navy is not really anything to do with the warships, but rather warships working in coordination with the 'tenders' which act as mobile warehouses, fuel depots, and repair shops for the warships.

A carrier group ups things a notch because they effectively allow for the group to, in perception, go from being a bunch of ships that 'own' a little bit of water around each individual ship to being a group of ships that 'owns' the stretch of water around the group of ships.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica

Sorry to point out that all carrier versus carrier experience is outdated and useless in today's context.

There will be no waves or torpedo and dive bombers launching close in attacks on carriers as the last battles 77 years ago were. They will launch missiles from over the horizon without sighting anything, in waves of missiles to saturate defenses. No navy in the world has current experience in carrier versus carrier warfare using modern weapons and tactics. In that regard all are in the same position of using best guess reasoning and tactics based on weapons systems available combined with satellite information, electronic warfare and numbers of ships, missiles, and as always an element of luck and judgement based on commanders of the fleet.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Kyo wa heiwa dayo ne You are spot on!! China is very good at copying and very clever with trying to twist reality. That chunk of metal will float but it will fail during sea trials. Its nothing but a scare crow in a field to scare off birds from picking up the farmers planted seeds. In this case its a sitting iron duck with little or no protection at all!. It is what it is and you summed it up best "amazing how some assume China is slow and dumb'. The marks brothers said when you assume you make an ass-out of u-and me!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"High tech aircraft carrier..."

By "high-tech" the writers mean to say "lower tech than the tech of the now-outclassed Nimitz class carriers", the first of which was commissioned in the mid 1970s when Mao, yes, that Mao, was still alive, and the last of which was launched more than 16 long years ago. lol.

Let's not say anything about the fact that 85% of China's "navy" isn't Blue Water capable, or can't operate more than 1000 nautical miles away from shore support, either. Shhhh!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Peter14Today  08:47 pm JST

@OssanAmerica

Sorry to point out that all carrier versus carrier experience is outdated and useless in today's contex

No, the principles are the same. Only the weapons have progressed. The carriers still projects forward airpower and must be protected by escort vessels and submarines. Weapons designed to attack a carrier have advanced but so have counter measures. China does not have the core experience of it's own. Just the new weaponry.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@TokyoLiving

The United States fed, bath and clothed China had it not been for the West most chinese will still be wearing military style rag tag clothing. China may hate the west but love everything that comes out of it. Let me correct myself maybe not the people but the old Chinese military rulers who are still around. The Chinese who could leave china leave the first chance they get and never look back. Its a place that is very corrupt. The US opened its doors taught the Chinese farming, took manufacturing to china where the country leaned to produce cheap goods, but with corrupt minds used those skills to become copycat manufactures. If Chinese want to go to college they send their kids to college in the US where most Cheat their way through, some do manage to get through by studying hard but the ones I know cheat and have been warned many times by professors for cheating. I wouldn't trust anyone with a college degree from China UNLESS they can show me an OFFICIALLY stamped transcript from that university registrars office because they have been know to copy degrees from Harvard and Yale passing them off as if they graduated when if fact they only attended and got kicked out for cheating. LOL it works in China the proud parents are so baffled they don't know the kids return after 4-5 years abroad with a fake degree and China does not care they do not verify they take it with the print still wet!! LOL and you say the US detest with fear and envy the modern and progressive China that produces satellites, superconductors, high speed trains and aircraft carriers. Everything China makes is crap, it is mass produced copied and put out to serve one useful purpose and break!! The building crumble, the planes they build can't take g-loads I can go on and on but no nothing negative comes out of China because it all show. But make no mistake because if and when they do they will FAIL!! Like Russia Big dog with not teeth has been exposed!! China so called own SELF-DETERMINATION is their greed and that will be their biggest down fall! No one is asking for an EXPLANATION from China what China needs to do is respect the rights of other nations and stop bullying them and trying to flex its muscles and respect other country borders. You can have a million man army and you can build three more aircraft carriers they will be sitting ducks and just more environmental junk resting on the ocean floor.

NO CHINA!!!.. Respect other countries borders!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If pilot cannot land on the carrier,it floating piece of junk,pilot have to land in stormy seas

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

China’s military buildup shouldn’t be a surprise to world as many have commented here, the West by its own greed for cheap labor has provided much of the Technology to make it all possible & the rest has come in the form of International Espionage of various manufacturing facilities in these countries which we read about over the past 20yrs. China’s Final Goals are & have been transparent “Asian Domination”, Japan, N & S Korea, Vietnam, Thailand. The buildup of their Naval force’s , the small islands they’ve been grabbing up & Militarizing will give them the logistic lines necessary to accomplish their Final Goal. For China, the end goals justifies the means necessary to accomplish them !!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The average Chinese official have no say about their life,than an American teenager,most Chinese are parroting,the government line,they stray from it,end up in a prison camp ,

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

We would be wise to begin ramping up our capabilities and revising contingencies now.

The US Navy has been planning for this day for over a decade. Weapons coming on line now or very soon started to be developed a decade or more ago in anticipation of China one day possessing battle groups centered around a CATOBAR aircraft carrier. LRASM is a good example. US submarines apparently have some sort of supersonic anti-ship missile that is not publicly acknowledged. SM-6 has an anti surface mode giving surface ships more options beyond Harpoon or maybe JSM. The Marines are moving to a new CONOPS of being in the business of sinking ships using long range missiles fired from small islands in coordination with the Navy. A new version of Harpoon is in the fleet as well and an anti-ship version of Tomahawk is coming.

The Air Force has been flight testing a new 6th generation fighter that for now is called NGAD for Next Generation Air Dominance. A new strategic bomber is being built right now in Palmdale, the B-21. The first one is undergoing ground tests. More are being built. A big long range combat UAS that is a lot like an unmanned B-2, called the RQ-180, has been out there for a few years apparently. The Air Force acknowledges it exists but not much more. It is exactly the kind of thing a military would need to take down China's air defenses. Preparation has been going on for a long time.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Great work.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

By "high-tech" the writers mean to say "lower tech than the tech of the now-outclassed Nimitz class carriers", the first of which was commissioned in the mid 1970s when Mao, yes, that Mao, was still alive, and the last of which was launched more than 16 long years ago. lol.

I would not be too fast to write off the Nimitz class as "outclassed". They are nuclear powered and can steam at higher speeds than any oil fired ship that size. They also have unlimited range. A recent development by the US Navy uses their abundant excess power to create a usable jet fuel from seawater. It's a big deal if you can extend how far the ship can go before having to replenish their air wing's fuel supply. Even better if they can produce enough to refuel their escorts. Nuclear power has allowed the US Navy to greatly reduce the need to refuel at sea and thus needs fewer tankers to support global operations. Those old oil fired steam plants in the Kitty Hawk and Forrestal classes burned a lot of oil.

The Nimitz have more elevators and more catapults, meaning they can sustain a higher daily sortie rate than the Chinese carrier can. US carriers put elevators on both beams, so damage to one side doesn't disable all of their elevators, a possibility with the Chinese carrier.

EMALS is a power hungry system. Time will tell if a conventionally powered aircraft carrier can produce enough power for an EMALS system and to propel the ship at an adequate speed and without very high fuel consumption and / or high wear on their power plant. The Ford Class has a new kind of nuclear power plant specifically designed for the high power demands of EMALS and the later possibility of directed energy weapons.

And then there is all the decades of experience operating aircraft carriers that informed the design of the Nimitz class, things like underwater protection, magazine protection, ammunition elevator placement and how ammunition is moved through the ship efficiently to support high tempo combat operations without leaving the ship vulnerable to an ammunition explosion. Does China have insensitive munitions (explosives and rocket propellants designed not to detonate in a fire but to burn instead)? Can the Chinese operate their carrier on a dark stormy night in the North Pacific? How about off Korea in the winter when it's snowing on the flight deck with tie down chains and recessed padeyes covered in ice?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Impressive! (⸮) Too bad their carrier ops capable naval aircraft absolutely stink.

I don't know why you say that. The J-15 is a Flanker derivative. It is a highly capable fighter. Now that the Chinese have cats they can launch them at full load and take advantage of their abundant payload and range. It is an aircraft held in very high regard by the western fighter pilots I am acquainted with. When launched over the ski jump Soviet style the J-15 like the Russian equivalent cannot carry much in the way of ordnance or fuel, but launched off a catapult with a full fuel and weapons load it is a dangerous adversary and gives China a highly capable air wing.

I think the jury is still out on the J-20 and J-35 at least in the unclassified world. I imagine there is some information on these new aircraft but it is all closely held and those who know are not blogging about it. The KJ-600 AWACS appears to be tested and ready to deploy.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

OK, now for some Sea Trials.

Let's test out some of those French made Anti-Ship, Exorcet Missiles that Iraq / Iran / (Kuwait) threw at each other, a while ago.

Should be interesting

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The enormous cost and prestige of modern carriers, especially nuclear powered carriers, makes them effectively obsolete. Political leaders will not risk these vanity ships in serious combat where they could be sunk. 

I do not think that is true. Without the protection offered by the carrier's air wing surface ships are easily sunk by a navy that does have an air wing. If the Chinese want to operate beyond the reach of shore based air power they will have to incorporate their aircraft carriers into their battle groups and risk them in combat. To do otherwise is to surrender to US Navy forces that do have an aircraft carrier. There is just no way for surface ships to operate and survive against an enemy fleet that can bring airpower with it to sea.

The US had far fewer aircraft carriers at the beginning of WWII than it has now and even after suffering losses at Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal did not withdraw its remaining carriers from combat. Instead they were used aggressively. In early battles US carriers went up against numerically superior Japanese forces. In fact even after the loss of Wasp and Hornet in the opening phase of the Guadalcanal campaign, Enterprise fought alone as the only US carrier available (Saratoga was in Bremerton for repair of torpedo damage) for six long months during the remainder of the Guadalcanal campaign with shipyard workers on board repairing bomb damage suffered in an early battle during that campaign. The ship was heeled to each side while at anchor in a safe island to allow workers to repair external hull damage from the bombs, then the ship returned to combat while workers were inside repairing internal damage. Yorktown fought Midway with workers on board as well, repairing the damage suffered at Coral Sea (where the Japanese thought they had sunk her). When you are talking an all out war the US takes risks to win. The Nimitz class are designed to take a lot of hits and not sink. A great deal of thought goes into their design to allow them to absorb the battle damage that is considered inevitable in a major war.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica

Only two countries in the world have actual naval combat experience using carrier fleets. That's the United States and Japan. China can only do their best to copy what they don't have in actual experience. 

As far as IJA aircraft carriers and experience do go a, here a few excerpts (courtesy of Wiki);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_in_World_War_II#Aircraft_carriers

"*Japan put particular emphasis on aircraft carriers. The Imperial Japanese Navy started the Pacific War with 10 aircraft carriers, the largest and most modern carrier fleet in the world at that time. *" (genuinely impressive)

...

"Following the Battle of Midway, in which four Japanese fleet carriers were sunk, the IJN suddenly found itself short of fleet carriers (as well as trained aircrews), robbing them of a strategic offensive capability.

*The IJN consequently undertook an ambitious set of projects to convert commercial and military vessels into carriers,** such as the Hiyō. Another conversion project, Shinano, was based on an incomplete Yamato-class super battleship and became the largest-displacement carrier of World War II. One exception was the Taihō, which was the only Japanese carrier with an armored flight deck and first to incorporate a closed hurricane bow. All three mid-war designs were sunk in 1944, with Shinano and Taihō being sunk by U.S. submarines, and Hiyō by air attacks. *

*The IJN also attempted to build a number of fleet carriers called the Unryū-class, mostly based on the older Hiryū design rather than the newer Shōkaku or Taihō for the sake of reducing construction cost and time. Most carriers were still under construction or cancelled by the end of the war, while the few completed ships never embarked air groups due to severe shortages of carrier-qualified aircrew.*" (much less impressive but in-line with the complete and utter debacle of Imperial Japan)

The IJA's "experience" didn't seem to go much beyond losing the actual advantage (and the units) they had when they started the war...

Let's hope the JSDF learned from their mistakes and will not stick our their necks a second time for an out-of-their-depth brass and political class. After all they had 77 years to think about it and come to their conclusions...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This is a perfectly logical result from China after decades of harassment and threat by the American 7th Fleet. The Fujian is for local defense, as some have pointed out, it is not nuclear powered. The Type 004 aircraft carrier will be nuclear powered. Who knows if or when we will see that as it is a huge technological task.

Liaoning, Shandong and now Fujian. Maybe the next one can be named The Taiwan. :-)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Nothing wrong with strong China for as long as it keeps it's military away from it's neighbors.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nothing wrong with strong China for as long as it keeps it's military away from it's neighbors.

Who keeps the CCP away from its neighbors?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It is one to have something this complex and quite another thing to be able to operate it, let alone effectively. Experience and expertise that China has none of.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What are the two long oblongs on her foredeck?

Those are temporary construction sheds.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It is one to have something this complex and quite another thing to be able to operate it

The Russian's proved that with their inept invasion of Ukraine, even though they had soviet hardware.

..or because of that maybe.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I follow the TNG model of shipbuilding. If sailors aren't permitted to bring families with them, and if they have no large parks aboard, it is not modern.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Only two countries in the world have actual naval combat experience using carrier fleets. That's the United States and Japan.

How about the Royal Navy? Their aircraft carriers fought in the Atlantic, Med and Pacific during WWII. You might read up on the famous resupply mission to Malta that required four RN carriers to defend the merchant ships. RN carriers fought the IJN from 1944 onwards and took plenty of hits. They also fought during the Suez Campaign, the Korean War where three RN carriers participated, and again carried the war to Argentina during the Falklands Campaign. More recently HMS Queen Elizabeth conducted air strikes against Daesh targets in Syria.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Doesn't really matter, they can have a lovely aircraft carrier, but if their Pilots aren't great, well... as they said the US , just another ship to sink with a missile.

Chines pilots take their work seriously. They train realistically and often. Their training is better than that of the Russians.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Let's test out some of those French made Anti-Ship, Exorcet Missiles that Iraq / Iran / (Kuwait) threw at each other, a while ago

An Exocet or its Chinese counterpart the C802 has a small 190 kg warhead. It would take dozens of such missiles to cripple a warship the size of this. The smaller Forrestal had ten 500kg bombs detonate on her flight deck. It did a lot of damage but did not sink her. The US Navy learned a lot from that experience and newer carrier classes have more damage resistance than the Forrestals had. It would take really heavy bombs and / or torpedos to sink something the size of a modern super carrier.

Btw, unlike the all steel HMS Sheffield which burned out and later sank being towed back to the UK after a single hit from an Exocet that didn't even detonate (huge damage control cock-up by the Brits), USS Stark with its aluminum main deck and superstructure but well practiced damage control survived being hit by two of the same model Exocet one of which was a dud but the other very much exploded. She was quickly patched up in Bahrain and sailed home under her own power. INS Hanit, a small corvette of some 1500 tons was hit by a C802, did not sink and was back in service less than a month after being hit. A missile hit doesn't guarantee the target is destroyed, especially if the ship is designed to take hits (civilian ships are not) and have a crew that is well trained and equipped for damage control.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Lots of Chinese got fleece out of million,and the central government will not help them,told them to be quiet

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The truth is that modern missile and torpedo technology has made carriers incredibly vulnerable. It'll be sunk within hours of any future military confrontation with the west.

Remember that every time you buy a Chinese-made good or service you are helping to fund the Chinese armed forces.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those are temporary construction sheds.

Which conveniently hide the catapult system from prying eyes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The truth is that modern missile and torpedo technology has made carriers incredibly vulnerable. It'll be sunk within hours of any future military confrontation with the west.

Number one, the aircraft on the carrier have more range than the missiles that would be shot at them, meaning the missile shooters will be engaged and destroyed before they can shoot their missiles. This and the huge radar horizon something like an E-2 provides are the great advantage a navy with aircraft carriers possesses. Without aircraft your fleet is very vulnerable. But if you bring an air force along you have a great advantage.

Number two, given the size and survivability features of a modern aircraft carrier one would have to be able to score dozens of hits on one to do enough damage to sink one. That means the enemy would have to own the skies over the carrier for an extended period of time. For reference ten 500kg bombs detonated on Forrestal in 1967, a ship far smaller than a Nimitz or this new Chinese carrier, and even that amount of heavy ordnance didn't sink her. Something similar to a C802 has a 190kg warhead. Those will do damage but are not enough firepower to sink something that big. In my own life I saw a dozen aircraft burn on the deck of USS Nimitz during a deployment (techs screwed up and set off the 20mm gun on an F-14, lighting up all the A-7s spotted on the bow). The automatic fire fighting system had the fire out in a couple of minutes and the carrier resumed flight ops that morning after the husks were shoved overboard, the catapults inspected and a detailed FOD walkdown conducted. An earlier mishap had about two dozen air to air missiles detonate on deck. Other than a few small dents in the flight deck there was no serious damage and flight ops were able to continue after debris was cleared.

You can tell the fanbois who have never done a day in any navy get all excited about missiles and drones and think carriers can be sunk with a single hit. I have some news. It takes heavy ordnance and lots of it to sink combat ships that size when they are built to take hits and survive them. The real danger are torpedos from submarines, not missiles. That is why the US Navy takes ASW so seriously.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Which conveniently hide the catapult system from prying eyes.

They are there to protect the catapults while they are working on them. You see similar sheds over the catapults of US Navy aircraft carriers undergoing overhaul.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Desert Tortoise - I know for a* REAL "fact*", that Chinese Pilots need training, they are even trying to hire non-Chinese expat "Top-Guns" to train them... (fact).... British ones too... (fact).,..

Risible nonsense. The Brits don't have any pilots qualified on cats and arresting gear. Their last CATOBAR aircraft carrier was decommissioned in the late 1970s.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's nothing but a souped up container vessel. Anyone can have an aircraft carrier. Just use a container vessel and put a ski jump on it. Use the cranes and lifts on the container vessel to store aircraft below deck. I imagine a lot of container vessels have stability control to keep the deck level too. WIN. And beat china with a non military merchant vessel. A retrofit would certainly cost less than Nimitz class. I am sure Evergreen has a ship they can donate!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

China has the vision to kick US hegamony out of the Pacific Ocean and beyond! Great!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A new generation of carrier based naval combat aircraft is under test and evaluation.

The Shenyang J35s twin engine stealth fighter will replace the J15s, the former USSR's Su27. Will be ready to service at 2025.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites