PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Golly, I don't 'want' to believe one way or the other.
I happen to think USSR's inability to complete many project had far more to do with running out of money than expertise.
Perhaps PLAN haven't bothered to build cruisers before going to carrier because they never saw the need to master cruiser building. Another poster mentioned it's questionable to say tech advances have to go in exact stages as those before given the overall different level of tech these days.

China built large airliner & nuke sub in the 80s. But they stalled because airliner simply won't sell and nuke sub will be sitting duck if they are not near the leading edge in terms of tech.
I think carriers tech are much more 'crude' or 'matured'. The main factors determining how fast PLAN go will be their tech of the aircraft, ships & subs that will go with the carrier task force.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Golly, I don't 'want' to believe one way or the other.
I happen to think USSR's inability to complete many project had far more to do with running out of money than expertise.
Perhaps PLAN haven't bothered to build cruisers before going to carrier because they never saw the need to master cruiser building. Another poster mentioned it's questionable to say tech advances have to go in exact stages as those before given the overall different level of tech these days.

China built large airliner & nuke sub in the 80s. But they stalled because airliner simply won't sell and nuke sub will be sitting duck if they are not near the leading edge in terms of tech.
I think carriers tech are much more 'crude' or 'matured'. The main factors determining how fast PLAN go will be their tech of the aircraft, ships & subs that will go with the carrier task force.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Golly, I don't 'want' to believe one way or the other.
I happen to think USSR's inability to complete many project had far more to do with running out of money than expertise.
Perhaps PLAN haven't bothered to build cruisers before going to carrier because they never saw the need to master cruiser building. Another poster mentioned it's questionable to say tech advances have to go in exact stages as those before given the overall different level of tech these days.

China built large airliner & nuke sub in the 80s. But they stalled because airliner simply won't sell and nuke sub will be sitting duck if they are not near the leading edge in terms of tech.
I think carriers tech are much more 'crude' or 'matured'. The main factors determining how fast PLAN go will be their tech of the aircraft, ships & subs that will go with the carrier task force.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Gollevainen said:

I still find it almoust hilarious how people just want to believe the best possiple version of all rumours, and simply neglet all the facts and throws out analogies that suites their version bets, without even stoping for one minute to figure themselves how "building frigates + large cortainer ships = capacity to build carriers."

Click to expand...

Ok, so what exactly are you claiming is so amazing about aircraft carriers that nobody can duplicate them, even after decades of technological advancement?

It's a little odd that you think that there's any technology from 1975 that couldn't be duplicated using modern technology given 13 years of lead-time (actually more, since this project started some years ago). It's even more amazing since we're talking about ship-building. An industry (unlike aviation, for example) where the state of the art has advanced considerably in the last few decades, and in which China is a world leader.

In 1975 the only ships on the same scale as a Nimitz were a handful of oil-tankers, and I think most of those were made in Japan, not the U.S. Today China produces ships this size regularly. So producing a ship that size was a big deal for the Americans in 1975, but is fairly routine for the Chinese today. So I think it's pretty clear that size isn't an obstacle.

The weapons and sensors for a carrier aren't that different from smaller ships, so that's not an obstacle.

The basic layout is an issue, but for that they have the Varyag and even the Nimitz to study. You can bet that there are Chinese engineers with detailed models of the Nimitz on their desks.

The catapult should be no problem. They've probably been working on that somewhere already.

Elevators and hangar bays will take some care to design well, but technology isn't an issue here. This is pretty basic technically.

All ships have living quarters. Nothing new here.

So what is it that should cause such big problems?

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Gollevainen said:

I still find it almoust hilarious how people just want to believe the best possiple version of all rumours, and simply neglet all the facts and throws out analogies that suites their version bets, without even stoping for one minute to figure themselves how "building frigates + large cortainer ships = capacity to build carriers."

Click to expand...

Ok, so what exactly are you claiming is so amazing about aircraft carriers that nobody can duplicate them, even after decades of technological advancement?

It's a little odd that you think that there's any technology from 1975 that couldn't be duplicated using modern technology given 13 years of lead-time (actually more, since this project started some years ago). It's even more amazing since we're talking about ship-building. An industry (unlike aviation, for example) where the state of the art has advanced considerably in the last few decades, and in which China is a world leader.

In 1975 the only ships on the same scale as a Nimitz were a handful of oil-tankers, and I think most of those were made in Japan, not the U.S. Today China produces ships this size regularly. So producing a ship that size was a big deal for the Americans in 1975, but is fairly routine for the Chinese today. So I think it's pretty clear that size isn't an obstacle.

The weapons and sensors for a carrier aren't that different from smaller ships, so that's not an obstacle.

The basic layout is an issue, but for that they have the Varyag and even the Nimitz to study. You can bet that there are Chinese engineers with detailed models of the Nimitz on their desks.

The catapult should be no problem. They've probably been working on that somewhere already.

Elevators and hangar bays will take some care to design well, but technology isn't an issue here. This is pretty basic technically.

All ships have living quarters. Nothing new here.

So what is it that should cause such big problems?

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Gollevainen said:

I still find it almoust hilarious how people just want to believe the best possiple version of all rumours, and simply neglet all the facts and throws out analogies that suites their version bets, without even stoping for one minute to figure themselves how "building frigates + large cortainer ships = capacity to build carriers."

Click to expand...

Ok, so what exactly are you claiming is so amazing about aircraft carriers that nobody can duplicate them, even after decades of technological advancement?

It's a little odd that you think that there's any technology from 1975 that couldn't be duplicated using modern technology given 13 years of lead-time (actually more, since this project started some years ago). It's even more amazing since we're talking about ship-building. An industry (unlike aviation, for example) where the state of the art has advanced considerably in the last few decades, and in which China is a world leader.

In 1975 the only ships on the same scale as a Nimitz were a handful of oil-tankers, and I think most of those were made in Japan, not the U.S. Today China produces ships this size regularly. So producing a ship that size was a big deal for the Americans in 1975, but is fairly routine for the Chinese today. So I think it's pretty clear that size isn't an obstacle.

The weapons and sensors for a carrier aren't that different from smaller ships, so that's not an obstacle.

The basic layout is an issue, but for that they have the Varyag and even the Nimitz to study. You can bet that there are Chinese engineers with detailed models of the Nimitz on their desks.

The catapult should be no problem. They've probably been working on that somewhere already.

Elevators and hangar bays will take some care to design well, but technology isn't an issue here. This is pretty basic technically.

All ships have living quarters. Nothing new here.

So what is it that should cause such big problems?

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

prrhhhh

Ok, so what exactly are you claiming is so amazing about aircraft carriers that nobody can duplicate them, even after decades of technological advancement?

Click to expand...

What I'm claiming? I'm claiming that china haven't got the ability to build 93,000 carrier in near future, it hardly have the cabability to build even smaller carrier. It has hard times to developt even succesfull destroyer class so it's childish to imagine that they would somehow be able to build carriers.

It's a little odd that you think that there's any technology from 1975 that couldn't be duplicated using modern technology given 13 years of lead-time (actually more, since this project started some years ago). It's even more amazing since we're talking about ship-building. An industry (unlike aviation, for example) where the state of the art has advanced considerably in the last few decades, and in which China is a world leader.

Click to expand...

China is world leading in carrier building, or in warshipbuilding....
This is exactly what I'm trying to pound to your heads. Being able to build tankers has nothing to do with the ability to design and build aircraft carriers. If you can build small buisness airoplanes, does it mean you can design Sthealth fighters? No. Being technologically advanced in one sector doesen't mean that you are the master in other.

The size isen't obstacle, the overall concept of Aircraft carriers are. Go ask Popeye just how complicated ships they are. Apparently you have no idea of shipdesigning or shipdevelopment in general, othervice you would know how hilarious you sound.

The basic layout is an issue, but for that they have the Varyag and even the Nimitz to study. You can bet that there are Chinese engineers with detailed models of the Nimitz on their desks.

Click to expand...

I have detailed model of USS Forrestral but thrust me, I haven't build even rowing boat yet

You guys stating things like that above are as funny as those who claims that BF2 can teach you how to fight in real combat enviroments (And we really have had these incidences) I'm tierd to try and teach you guys, so before anyone starts claiming anything here, please get your facts, realities and common sense in order....and take of those red eyeclasses...

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

prrhhhh

Ok, so what exactly are you claiming is so amazing about aircraft carriers that nobody can duplicate them, even after decades of technological advancement?

Click to expand...

What I'm claiming? I'm claiming that china haven't got the ability to build 93,000 carrier in near future, it hardly have the cabability to build even smaller carrier. It has hard times to developt even succesfull destroyer class so it's childish to imagine that they would somehow be able to build carriers.

It's a little odd that you think that there's any technology from 1975 that couldn't be duplicated using modern technology given 13 years of lead-time (actually more, since this project started some years ago). It's even more amazing since we're talking about ship-building. An industry (unlike aviation, for example) where the state of the art has advanced considerably in the last few decades, and in which China is a world leader.

Click to expand...

China is world leading in carrier building, or in warshipbuilding....
This is exactly what I'm trying to pound to your heads. Being able to build tankers has nothing to do with the ability to design and build aircraft carriers. If you can build small buisness airoplanes, does it mean you can design Sthealth fighters? No. Being technologically advanced in one sector doesen't mean that you are the master in other.

The size isen't obstacle, the overall concept of Aircraft carriers are. Go ask Popeye just how complicated ships they are. Apparently you have no idea of shipdesigning or shipdevelopment in general, othervice you would know how hilarious you sound.

The basic layout is an issue, but for that they have the Varyag and even the Nimitz to study. You can bet that there are Chinese engineers with detailed models of the Nimitz on their desks.

Click to expand...

I have detailed model of USS Forrestral but thrust me, I haven't build even rowing boat yet

You guys stating things like that above are as funny as those who claims that BF2 can teach you how to fight in real combat enviroments (And we really have had these incidences) I'm tierd to try and teach you guys, so before anyone starts claiming anything here, please get your facts, realities and common sense in order....and take of those red eyeclasses...

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

prrhhhh

Ok, so what exactly are you claiming is so amazing about aircraft carriers that nobody can duplicate them, even after decades of technological advancement?

Click to expand...

What I'm claiming? I'm claiming that china haven't got the ability to build 93,000 carrier in near future, it hardly have the cabability to build even smaller carrier. It has hard times to developt even succesfull destroyer class so it's childish to imagine that they would somehow be able to build carriers.

It's a little odd that you think that there's any technology from 1975 that couldn't be duplicated using modern technology given 13 years of lead-time (actually more, since this project started some years ago). It's even more amazing since we're talking about ship-building. An industry (unlike aviation, for example) where the state of the art has advanced considerably in the last few decades, and in which China is a world leader.

Click to expand...

China is world leading in carrier building, or in warshipbuilding....
This is exactly what I'm trying to pound to your heads. Being able to build tankers has nothing to do with the ability to design and build aircraft carriers. If you can build small buisness airoplanes, does it mean you can design Sthealth fighters? No. Being technologically advanced in one sector doesen't mean that you are the master in other.

The size isen't obstacle, the overall concept of Aircraft carriers are. Go ask Popeye just how complicated ships they are. Apparently you have no idea of shipdesigning or shipdevelopment in general, othervice you would know how hilarious you sound.

The basic layout is an issue, but for that they have the Varyag and even the Nimitz to study. You can bet that there are Chinese engineers with detailed models of the Nimitz on their desks.

Click to expand...

I have detailed model of USS Forrestral but thrust me, I haven't build even rowing boat yet

You guys stating things like that above are as funny as those who claims that BF2 can teach you how to fight in real combat enviroments (And we really have had these incidences) I'm tierd to try and teach you guys, so before anyone starts claiming anything here, please get your facts, realities and common sense in order....and take of those red eyeclasses...

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sorry Golly, but it's pretty clear that you're just hand-waving now.

The best you've been able to come up with is that aircraft carriers are "complicated". I'm sure they are, but obviously not so complicated that other countries weren't able to develop them decades ago.

Space travel is complicated too, but other countries figured it out. Same with microprocessors or nuclear reactors. Any large project, even a skyscraper, requires coordinating lots of people. Thousands of design drawings and wiring diagrams. Hundreds of engineers pouring over minute details. That just makes it a big project, not some kind of magical feat.

Actually you're being even sillier than I thought, since I thought you were concerned about the size of the ship. If that's not the case, then you must actually believe that the Nimitz is so much more complicated than the Varyag (which is the actual starting point) that the Chinese can't bridge that gap in 13 years, even with the aid of today's technology.

13 years is a pretty long time. The first nuclear sub was launched only 10 years after the end of WWII. The Americans put a man on the moon only 12 years after the Soviets launched the first satellite. 13 years ago most people hadn't heard of the Internet. But you actually think that advancing from a 1985 Soviet carrier to a 1975 American carrier takes more than 13 years? Even if you're doing it using 2007 (actually 2007-2020) technology?

I have detailed model of USS Forrestral but thrust me, I haven't build even rowing boat yet

Click to expand...

Exactly. You look at it from the perspective of somebody who hasn't even built a rowboat, while these guys are looking at it from the perspective of having built other vessels - both military and civilian - and having poured over their own carrier designs for years.

I'm sorry that you don't see the connection between civilian and military industries, but I'm afraid that's a limitation of your own understanding about how industry works. Civilian and military designs have to follow the same laws of physics, involve the same project management skills, and use the same manufacturing technology. It's not a coincidence that industrial power goes hand-in-hand with military power.

... Ami.