Second chinese carrier is being launched

yahoo.com/news/china-set-launch-aircraft-carriers-060117092.html

China must grow stronger!

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2016/12/17/world/asia/china-us-drone.html?_r=0
youtube.com/watch?v=F3yZC6uRkH4
youtube.com/watch?v=vBKxfsjR3Ms
youtu.be/lKfb1k4kJ9g
rt.com/news/377332-china-third-aircraft-carrier/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The depicted layout is not of the chinese type.

Chinese cannot built catapults and therefore cannot use turboprop aircrafts from carrier decks.

>ramp
Fucking Carrierlets, when will they learn?

how many will they build? I bet they will have 6 by 2030, and then later add 7 more.

while Kuznetcov will be our only carrier for atleast 15 more years...

>chinese type
Implying such a thing exists

I like how they straight up copied the E-2.

The Buffet and dog kennels are conveniently located on the same deck.

Neat.

I want other countries to bolster their military tech and fleet power

Makes the grand battles to come more exciting

>Makes the grand battles to come more exciting
nah, it only makes your debt grow in a inreasing speed because you can't make weapon cheap, like China or Russia. Seriously, you spend 10 times more on shit that costs 10 times less.

If it's a malfunctioning piece of shit, that means it's chinese type.

Looks ramptastic.

Literally everything the Chinese have has been copied from the west. I suspect they've been freely given in secret at least some designs.

nytimes.com/2016/12/17/world/asia/china-us-drone.html?_r=0

I bet the Chinese studied the drone.

>a fucking banked slope

Fair point.
For example they have tried to develop a domestic jet engine to power their fighter aircrafts.
But have a look at their shiny "stealth" fighter! In the end all of the prototypes of that Chengdu J-20 where powered by imported russian engines.

And why can't they develop shit?
Corruption!
The government officials and party member generals just looooooove to embezzle the R&D money.
There was that case of general Xu Caihou, in 2014. He was caught with literally truckloads of stolen money.

6 by 2040.

The difficult thing is learning to operate the task forces, the one they bought off Ukraine practically serves for practice only. It is not as if USA would share their strategy and training with them.

Same goes for you with Admiral Kuznetsov. You used it for practice and experience, using the accumulated data in future aircrafts. And the plan is to get 2 by 2030. One for North fleet and one for Pacific fleet.

Bet I could sink it with a stick.

I didn't know insectoids could build ships.

It'll sink before it hits the ocean

6 ? by 2040? Are you kidding? They only need to learn how to make them, and they will be making them as the hot cakes. 2 every 4 years. Chinese shipbuilding is getting to levels of the best of the world and they have insane ammounts of steel, workers and money to invest into new toys.

China has the right to self-defense.

they already copied strategy from American carriers so they don't need to learn many things on their own. They benefit from the expirience of others. Here is good material about it
youtube.com/watch?v=F3yZC6uRkH4
youtube.com/watch?v=vBKxfsjR3Ms

Hope so.

But I hope more that you will keep the tech superiority with them. I really would't want to see China eclipsing Russia in modernity and quality of its hardware.

Like S-400 or Sukhois you are building for them. Don't sell them the very best you have.

ahhh a genuinely intradesting thread
I'm not much into navyfag shit but I've always wondered how so many nations had so many carriers in the past and how only like 6 or 7 countries have them now. The US being the only one with more than 2 or 3.
Obviously Japan was forced to disarm after WW2 and Russia sold everything the Soviets ever made for scrap metal in the 90's.
>TL;DR how has the importance of aircraft carriers changed in recent years and why don't countries invest in them as much?

>inb4 some Brazilian posts that tugboat with a ramp on it

Because: why?

If your nations policy is one of pure self defense, why invest that huge effort to develop force projection capabilites you're not going to use?

They can't copy very sophisticated tech fast enough and we already have things that are better. S-400 is already 10 years old can you believe it? And Sukhois are old too, and they can't take apart the engine without breaking it, and then manufacturing various parts of the engine and the materials needed are also beyond them for another 5 or more years.

yeah, Israel sold them the tech
Greatest ally strikes again

I layed out here why they cannot develop cutting edge anything.

>ramp

Kek these fuckers had to put three communication interceptors on the pic

why would you hope so exactly ?

>a fucking ramp
pls

Sounds reasonable.
But why would Italy have two aircraft carriers while Russia only has one hunk of rust floating around?
The UK used to be a leader in aircraft carriers but decommissioned them all. They were already pay for so it wasn't an issue of making a huge investment. Just upkeep
You can't fight an entirely defensive war and win.

Floating ramp

You can buy back Liaoning and 001A after we build up our carrier fleet.

Came here to laugh a well.

can someone explain why ramps are bad?

You realize the Viet Cong numbered in the hundreds of thousands and had weapons and financing from at least three major countries right?

hey, talk that shit to some minor countries, we can actually build carrier by 2025 if we wish so

warm water ports what?

Because Italy has to deal with pesky turks and arabs in their neighbourhood, which have an airforce and small greenwater naval forces.
So, for Italy having a small carrier or two is of interrest.
I haven't read up on the details of italian naval doctrine, so feel free to look it up!

Russia does not really have coastlines to defend besides the baltic coast and the pacific, which are both uncontested.
Historically Russia has allways been a continental power, so they never really invested in force projection.

Less reliable then catapults and can't launch certain planes as easily.

SOON

To give you a run for your money. Last time you had a serious naval contender was Soviet navy in 1970's under admiral Gorshkov. It has been too long.

They've stolen every design we have, including the F-22 and F-35.

The OPM fiasco was almost just a fuck you.

sure nice bait though need a bit more training then almost getting there i'd say but just just like your historical nation always lagging behind the west :)

Carriers are still the means to project power.

don't worry will give you a show and soviets were never a serious naval threat it was always going to be a concern with a land war if it ever went hot but ok :/

Less velocity coming off the ship and therefore an aircraft taking off from a ramp can't be as heavy as one coming from a catapult or else it won't be fast enough. This means carrying less fuel and weapons which limits the operational capability of a carrier.

The problem is that current catapults require you to have a way to generate steam, this is fine if you have a nuclear carrier because you can just extend the power plant assembly. For carriers like the QE class however it requires a whole lot of specialised machinery which will increase the required manpower and upkeep of the carriers

Electromagnetic catapults are being developed however that don't need special piping, just a power cable and are vastly superior. The QE's were designed to use these but delays meant they decided to put a ramp on so that the carriers are functional when they are built and can do a refit for them later

Basically this In order to start from a ramp your aircraft needs a high power to weight ratio.
That is okay for fighter aircraft, but how are you going to start something like
>pic related
without a catapult?

Also, you cannot not lauch aircraft overloaded with fuel or ordnance from a ramp, which limits the mission durations and options.

>A ramp
>Less reliable than a catapult

ski-jump again?

>made in china

He's right though.
There's nothing wrong with ramps, mate. There's a reason they use mazut boilers and ramps instead of nuclear reactors and catapults. And no, it's not because they're poor.

youtu.be/lKfb1k4kJ9g
Go home and take the sub out of attack range

They limit the amount of "cargo" the plane can take off with. Less fuel and/or munitions.
>ramp
>less reliable than catapult
Take a load of this faggot.
While true for the QE, it's not correct for the Admiral Kuznetsov class. Those ships use mazut boilers to create steam since they use steam turbines for propulsion.

>There's nothing wrong with ramps
t. typical carrierlet

You realize that Kuznetsov is the same length as the Nimitz, right? And it's a aircraft carrying cruiser.

by the authority of A.D.S.R go home

>Launched
It's going into space?

I don't know why they are even bothering with it.

rt.com/news/377332-china-third-aircraft-carrier/

China’s 3rd aircraft carrier to feature 3 steam catapults, no advanced launch system – report

I mean clearly they aren't too impressed with the Ramp or the third carrier and likely those after it wouldn't be catapult based. Unless the hull was already being laid down for this one and they want to complete it.

If there ghost cities are any indication of the quality of their mass produced ships. I'm not worried.

really, its more dangerous to Chinese

70 years of communism, cultural revolution, labor camps and forced organ harvesting have rooted out any comapssion and higher brain function in the mainland chinese.

Chinese cannot make baby milk formula, without corruption, no hope to make something technical.

The world is unsafe and on knife edge
So why do you have to keep calm and carry on

They have a tendency to build progressively, that's probably why they didn't try to make catapults on their first carrier. They will use their experience building it to make sure everything other than the catapult system works on their second one. Then they will have it all worked out for the rest of them.

Look at their thorium research. They're first building a 2 MW solid fuel reactor. Once they figure it out, they're building a 100 MW pilot reactor for solid and 10 MW pilot reactor for liquid fuel. Then they plan to build 100 MW pilot reactor for liquid fuel. And after that they will produce commercial versions.

No it was war cold and proxy war it killed it

Like Detroit

Sounds more like Russian type. When they sink Gustav?

I bet the Romans said the same thing

Can't fight a land war if their enemy navy is at parity with your own.

Did the boat died?