>An October 27, 2015, press report states: Chinese military watchers everywhere have another clear sign that China is building its first indigenous aircraft carrier, the Type 001A [aircraft carrier with hull number] "17". The hull in the Dalian Shipyard, with its high number of watertight bulkheads and compartments, has long been the subject of speculation due to its resilient construction and the prominent "no photography" signs around its drydock.
>In photos that appeared on Oct 24, the shipyard installed a module on top of the hull, with a clear 7.5 meter high, 27 meter across room, which is almost certainly a hangar for aircraft. [See Figure 6.] The new photos provide further visual evidence in the open source domain that leave little to debate that China's aircraft carrier program is moving forward. Aircraft carrier number "17" is likely to be 65,000 to 70,000 tons in displacement, have forward located ski-jump to launch fighters, and carry about 36-48 aircraft, a combination of J-15 Flying Shark fighters and Z-8/Z-18 helicopters.
>That's similar in size to [aircraft carrier hull number] "16"[, the] Liaoning, China's Soviet designed and built aircraft carrier or newer programs like Britain's HMS Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier presently under construction. "17" will feature automation to reduce crew size, increased fuel and ammunition storage, and a smaller island superstructure, making it far more capable than the Liaoning.
>If all goes to plan, "17" will be launched in the second half of 2016. At this stage, it would receive its name, most likely the name of a Chinese province or national level municipality. It would likely to be commissioned in 2019, thus doubling China's aircraft carrier capacity for theaters from the First Island Chain all the away to Africa and Latin America. As the PLAN gains more naval aviation experience from the Liaoning and "17", its fleet will then move on to more capable future aircraft carriers, like the planned catapult-equipped Type 002 and nuclear power Type 003.7
I honestly didn't think they would be this far ahead any guesses how congress and the navy will react?
Also Chinese military general I guess.
Hardly. This brings China to the bare minimum of a respectable contemporary carrier. Congress and the Navy don't need to do anything they're not already doing. The Ford-class will be more than enough to ensure a continued overmatch.
>once they have a decent carrier
So how many years do you think it will take for them to use these for a while, learn their lessons, and design, order and build a decent class of carrier?
Nimitz and Ford-class carriers have 85-90 airframes each. Two ski-jump carriers with 50 airframes may change the levels of attrition, but it won't change the balance of power. Two US CBGs will reliably kill their Chinese counterparts.
Yeah I was speaking from an air only perspective, obviously escorts would easily tip the scales
Why is it ridiculous? The chinese only have a small numerical advantage, and the lack of AWACS means they will be seen long before they see the US aircraft, not to even mention their gimped range and/or smaller missile loads due to having to take off light from a skiramp carrier. Thats without even comparing the quality of the aircraft engaging, which should favor the US again
Last nimitz was commisioned in 2009.
First Ford will be in a couple months.
First Nimitz in 2020 (estimated).
Second Ford commisioned in 2020.
Ford's are honestly pretty similar in overall design to the 2009 Nimitz. Just move the island back and upgrade the reactors and electronics.
Still, that's not "intentionally leaking." That's just them fucking up and showing a J-10 shooting a missile and then obviously the Top Gun scene. Very similar to when CNN reported Navy Seal's killing Obama for about 10 minutes.
It's not like CCTV is known for accuracy either. They aren't the Chinese military.
>it was just edited footage from Top Gun
Holy shit, really?
The USA has one carrier in Japan.
Two chinese aircraft carriers changes the entire powerdynamics in the region even more.
So either the USA will send a second carrier to Japan, which will lead to the fact that three or 30% of the aircraft carriers are tie to one region.
>doesnt realize the crippling disadvantages of ramped carriers
>talks shit anyway
Ramped carriers are great as low cost power projection options, but the second those gimped STOL aircraft are pitted against actual aircraft launched from a CATOBAR carrier they are dead meat. They will get picked off long before they have the opportunity to do anything because they have NO AWACs support. They cant even reach the enemy carrier because they will be seen long before hand, and they have shitty short legs because they cant take off heavy
Maybe if the SU-33 takes off conventionally. However, in this case they are taking off from a ramp carrier, meaning they are going to be carrying a light fuel load/missile load
>thats far in the future
F-35C's will most likely be deployed on carriers by the time this second chinese carrier is operational
Not in conventional warfare, no. You could however use it as a big hammer for intervention and protection of your nation's assets and interest.
Force-on-force conflicts are rare, but the ability to put a carrier on the scene is damn useful.
>Doubting two carriers using a method known for higher sortie generation would have a higher sortie rate than a single CATOBAR carrier
Even if you doubt the efficiency of the Kuznetsov-class design and Chinese crew (which is probably less than optimal, putting it lightly) its launching 6 aircraft at a time compared to the Nimitz's 2.
You don't really understand how carrier ops work, do you?
See pic related. The Liaoning can SITE 3 aircraft for launch simultaneously, but it can only launch one at a time, all over the bow as the pic clearly shows. A Nimitz, meanwhile, can site 4 aircraft for launch full up and ready to go and launch two at a time, one each over bow and waist.
But that's not the real limitation on sortie rate. Sortie rate is primarily determined by how efficiently the aviation facilities and munitions supply system within the carrier can recover the bird, get it fueled and rearmed, inspected and back in the air. That's the real bottleneck. The Nimitz has 4 elevators, three of which are in constant use during flight ops, each one transporting two fighter aircraft at a time, with refuel and rearm ops refined from the design phase to be as efficient as possible ever since jets first landed on Midway class ships four carrier generations ago. The Liaoning, meanwhile, only possesses 2 elevators, both of which are too small to lift two Su-33s simultaneously.
While I have no doubt that two Liaoning style aircraft carriers might be able to generate sorties slightly faster than a single Nimitz if crew training and experience were on the same level (will never be, but whatever), there is no physical way for those carriers to generate sorties at twice the rate of a Nimitz. At best, it would be marginal.
In the real world, it'll be roughly equal sorties at a 2:1 hull ratio, if not slightly worse for the Chinese because they lack carrier native in air refueling capability, which is a sortie rate multiplier.
Not to mention that during full up simultaneous recover/launch deck state, the Nimitz can land aircraft while still being able to site two aircraft for launch over the bow, whereas a Liaoning can only site one aircraft for launch during trap operations. Also, there's way more real estate to move aircraft around on the Nimitz during trap/cat state.
>See pic related. The Liaoning can SITE 3 aircraft for launch simultaneously, but it can only launch one at a time
I'm failing to see the real difference between launching two at a time and launching one then pausing for a few moments before launching the second.
Because the Nimitz can still site 4 aircraft for launch, and shoot two at a time.
You cannot just shoot the aircraft, wait one second and immediately shoot the next. It takes 20-30 seconds to do the final send check on each.
Furthermore, and this is where reading comprehension might have done you some good, aircraft siting and launch speed is NOT what limits sortie rate in any full-up recover/rearm/refuel/relaunch max rate scenario. It is by far the least restrictive bottleneck in the process, as I already noted. If you want to talk about sortie rate, talk about how the aircraft move around the deck, where they're sited for refuel and rearm and inspection and how many launch points are open for business during recovery. In all of these, the Nimitz design is far, far more efficient. The simple fact of more real estate makes this possible, even ignoring the better situated elevators (and more of them, carrying more aircraft simultaneously) and more launch sites open during recover ops.