>13 years to make a carrier that was already partially built
haha oh china

It was never intended to be operational. It's a reverse engineering exercise.

>>8980420
Bullshit. It is fully meant to operate as a carrier. Maybe just for training, but they didn't refurbish it just so it should sit and do nothing.

China cannot into Naval warfare. Btw what is with the curved part in the front? Is it really necessary?

That thing looks so sad.

>>8980438
not required, but it's just another type of carrier design which is common (not universal though) in non-US carriers.

>>8980428
> meant to operate as a carrier. Maybe just for training
Those are two totally different things.
> they didn't refurbish it just so it should sit and do nothing.
Using it to learn how to build a carrier is not "nothing."

Oh, china, you so crazy.

>>8980438
>>8980448
It's not required if you want to put your plane in the water... Otherwise you need a ramp if you're not going to use catapults

>>8980438
It's a quarter pipe for skate commandos.

>>8980438
It's a ski jump, a British invention, it allows aircraft to take off carrying greater weight. They don't need catapults

>>8980438
It trades a little takeoff speed for altitude, which can make taking off from a short deck with a shorter catapult a little safer. US carriers are big enough that they just throw the plane harder with a bigger catapult.

>>8980438
If I'm correct the ship was built by the Soviet Navy. At the time, the USSR did not have the technology to build Catapults, and instead used Ski jump style ramps for take off operations.
The Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov has the same thing.

>>8980449
No they aren't. operating all of a carriers functions for training is still operating the carrier. Building it and not using IS making it physically do nothing. It will probably troll around China's littoral zone, practicing carrier operations for possible future vessels. I would be shocked if it just sat around.

China cannot into water

>>8980483
Louisiana cannot into Katrina.

>>8980412
They didn't exactly put priority into it. The Varyag is nothing but a long-term study of the chinese navy for all things carrier-related. From construction to crew training, procedures and doctrine. It's a test case meant to aid development of thei own carrier designs. Actual combat/projection capabilities it has are a secondary concern.

It's rather typical for the Chinese, when you think about it. Playing the long game is something they're doing a lot more than just about anyone else.

>>8980468
no you are wrong ...

>>8980498
That last sentence is woefully untrue.

Is the carrier Nuclear or Diesel powered?

Hi China!

China may actually have an intended use for this.

Dispute over Spratly Islands.

article is full of errors and unfounded speculations.

>>8980529

Oars

>>8980529
Diesel I'm pretty sure. Maybe gas turbine, but probably diesel. The only non-US nuclear carrier is the de Gualle, but it's reactor is underpowered because it wasn't originally designed for carriers. If you read the article, as well as many others, the Chinese have a poor track record with propulsion of all types.

>>8980550
'sup

>>8980569
then provide legitimate articles that state otherwise

>>8980569 A DangerRoom post written by someone who doesn't know shit about military hardware.
Why should today be different than any other day?

>mfw they got rid of the Granit missiles which was the only good part of the Kusnetszov's design

>>8980584
do your own research.

>>8980585
You realize that some Danger Room writers have gone on to work for the Pentagon and military think tanks...

>>8980591
way to backup your baseless claim...

>>8980592
That proves they're smart?

>>8980529
Diesal i bet,nuclear power? Heh those yellow monkeys cant even figure out how to build a sub much less a nuclear powered carrier.

>>8980601
It's proves, or at least lends itself strongly, to the idea that they do have a good idea of what they are talking about. Wired is considered pretty reputable and they tend not to have writers talking about things which they have little or no idea about.

The Varyag is a crappy design based on a crappy Soviet doctrine. It's a MoH waiting to happen in a shootout, but holy shit that guy is fail. I'm not even Chinese but I raged at how he dismissed the Chinese naval abilities.

>David Axe
>anything but a clueless fanboy

>>8980629
But the Chinese don't have a lot of highly modern(ized) surface ships... that's fact, not bias. And they also have far less experience in naval operations of all types... also fact, not bias.

>Shi Lang
It's called the Varyag. There is no ship called the Shi Lang.

The Varyag was named the Shi Lang by a bunch of Chinese internet fanboys. Janes picked it up and this shit just spread.

The PLA doesn't name ships after people. They name them after cities. There isn't a single Chinese PLAN ship named after a person.

>>8980468

nothing to do with not having the technologie (lol), just another design

Do you think it's possible to build a carrier with a flat deck, but also have it able to elevate into the Ski ramp?

>>8980689
Entirely possible, but what would be the point. Catapults allow heavier loads and a wider range of aircraft launches. And when the EMALS is in service on the Ford-class,, catapults will pull even further ahead.

>>8980689
There's no way you could have any rigid material do that without having a sharp increase in grade, which probably wouldn't be very good for the military aircraft being catapulted off. I've always heard that ski-jumps aren't effective to begin with, although that is hearsay.

ITT: americans.

>implying China even needs carriers
>implying China isn't the greatest military power in the world
>implying China can be invaded

>>8980550
>implying exocet's are good for anything besides acting as shooting clays for 70's AA systems

>>8980723
>In this website: America

aren't the jets on soviet carriers supposed to have their wheels chocked and they rev up and then they let them go???? isn't that how all ski jump carriers work?

>>8980723
Americans on an American website on a domain dominated by Americans... unthinkable! Come down off that pedestal faggot.

>>8980729

>Implying that a nuclear strike wouldn't bring ANY country to its knees.

>>8980729
lolque.jpg

>>8980723
ITT: anyone who hates America has to face the fact that the only legit military contender of America doesn't have a navy worth shit therefor breaking any illusions that China could even attempt a invasion without getting blown up at sea making their rather large army practically useless.

>>8980734
>>8980736
>>8980738
>>8980742
>>8980761

Trolled americans.

>>8980768

>>8980768

I better damn hope for the Chinese that they dont turn the Varyag into a true aircraft carrier because it is more like an aviation cruiser like its Russian sistership, the Kuznetsov.

But it will be fun for the Chinese to handle the proppulsion systems because they are extreemly crappy on the Kuznetsov.

>>8980801
>>8980803

>>8980768
>jokes on you i'm not really retarded

It isn't even worth mentioning being worried about. Aircraft carriers are obsolete beyond pimp smacking shitty 3rd world countries anyway.

>>8980804
They bought the engines from the Ukraine, the same ones on the Kuznetsov like you said... but it was either that or build their own, which we know they are terrible at.

>>8980807
mindhive

>>8980768
>Reaction image depicting an American artistic creation used to disparage Americans
Delicious.

>>8980801
>>8980803

Nice hivemind gentlemen.

Anyways, Varyag is just the Chinese their first ship that can launch aircraft. No need to be that negative towards them. Hopefully they will succeed in creating actual carriers that are larger, more efficient and better then the aviation cruiser.

>>8980813
china has interests in africa that they want to look after.

>>8980813
I think you forget that carriers travel in battle groups in real combat scenarios.

>>8980706

Look at the Russian carrier. It's effective.

from the article:
>Rumors of a Chinese copy of the E-2 seem unfounded, for an E-2 would require a steam-powered catapult to boost it into the air

pic related.

>>8980851

The Kuznetsov is NOT an aircraft carrier, its an aviation cruiser.

An aircraft carrier is using its planes in an offensive way whilest an aviation cruiser uses the planes in a defensive way.

Dont expect Varyag to excell in being a carrier instead of an aviation cruiser.

OK things that everyone here has over looked.

1 china doesn't really worry about expending human capitol or even capitol if it benefits them in the long run.
2 China has no real interest in going to war with the US or Europe. Or pretty much anyone else unless they absolutely have to.
3 Building a Carrier is about projecting you power inland from the sea. China's desires tend to be about securing land power and using it to control the sea. GO history china.
4 ALl of that being said diesel, nuke, a thousand guys in the hull with oars as long as it gets them where they are going they will be fine.
Same for catapults. if its 1000 guys yanking on a rope to launch it they will do it.

5 the thing to worry about is that what ever it is when China finally decides to get around to doing it they will burn resources at absurd rates and consume lives to fuel that machine till they get ahead of everyone else. And well they have enough human lives to throw away on it.

Despite all the bashing they get to be honest if you have ever looked at the cost to value ratio in china's services its doing a lot better then the US and others. shit even DoD gives china that credit.

Sorry if ramble and barely coherent just came off a 36 hour rotation. I Hope you can get the point of what i am saying

>>8980859
I demand pics that don't suck dick.

>>8980847
soviets spent better part of cold war thinking up ways of penetrating CBG defenses.

>>8980859
Also, I'm pretty sure that plane is too big to land on a carrier.

>>8980911
And?

>>8980921
there's no reference point for size, don't be an idiot.

quad tailplanes make no sense unless you need to fit the aircraft onto a carrier hangar deck.

>>8980941
Don't be a cunt. Look at the aircraft that the Y-7 is based on and then compare it to the E-2. The Y-7 is longer, and has a longer wingspan. Those are things that they try to limit for carrier operations.

Why shitstorm? The Chinese military fucking sucks.

It could be as simple as carting around a bunch of RATO bottles for the Y-7 whenever they want to launch it.

Here's a link that's quite relevant to this topic.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJcp0m-L1mA&feature=feedu]
I must admit I cracked up at some of the reporters pronunciations, but this might give a little insight into what their intentions may be.

Dude, this is making me proud to be joining the Navy. Hell yeah.

>>8981926
Escorted by battleships?... wut

>>8981959
There's a shitstorm a-brewin.

>>8981959
Anyone think the US should start using battleships again, with updated weaponry and nuclear engines?

>>8982001
That would be awesome. Nuclear-powered rail gun equipped battleships. *sigh* We can dream.

>>only 2 type 052c

another uninformed american. move along

>>8982001
What would the point be?

>>8982019
I'm not too sure. Maybe bombarding coastal defense faster then aircraft could?

I'm thinking more on a bad-ass level then a logistical/practical level.

>>8982019
Fleet defense and coastal attack

i wouldn't be to worried about it. china is not out to fight an offensive war. they are putting a lot of their research and money into anti ship missiles. that way, if they ever decide to invade taiwan or the phillipines, they will fight the american navy's response with long range anti ship missiles instead of a navy of their own. an aircraft carrier is a fucking huge target, and it only takes one missile to take one out.

>>8982032
Do you understand how good of a hit it would take to sink a carrier with one typical anti-ship missile? Carriers aren't immortal by any means, but people seriously underestimate their defense network.

>>8982049
i'm sure that more than one missile would be fired at each carrier. the things are like floating cities, so i'm sure that it would take a few hits to take one out.

>>8982053
That's all assuming the aircraft that fire them aren't intercepted out of range or on the ground, or that the ships that fire them aren't taken out in a similar fashion first.

>>8980935
Oscar IIs with P-700 AShM and Tu-22M Backfires with Kh-55 AShM. Slavas and Kirovs also carried powerful AShM but they were more for defence of the submarine fleet.

>>8982032
You know, we could always say if they launch long range ballistic missiles that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and nuclear missiles and would have to respond accordingly.
Of course it's a bluff but would they risk it?

Worked on carriers. You can't expect a fucking missile to hit it that greatly. We have missile interceptors on the ship, as well as other various weapons. We can scramble a fuckton of jets faster than you imagine.

>>8982019
To look cool

INDIA STRONG!

>>8982092
INDIA HAS ONE FUCKING CARRIER.
WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING AS YOU POSTED THAT.
HONESTLY. WHAT.

>>8982081
How long does it take to get planes up again? Say after we launch two, how long until another two usually launches? A couple minutes?

>>8982079
I doubt it. And everything said about those missiles is unverifiable. A lot of analysts think they don't [yet] operate as effectively as China claims.

>>8982095
That they're better than China.

America here, enjoy your first conventional powered Carrier.
We've got twelve nuclear powered carriers and are already building our next generation carriers.
Don't worry though, i'm sure you'll catch up to NATO's standards one day, but probably not.

>>8982101
The crew is very experienced. Depends on what is taking off. We usually carry Harriers, man. I wore a red suit, which means I just loaded the bombs up onto the plane, dude.

>>8982111
Baby steps, man. Baby steps. Hey, I welcome new weapons being developed, this is a weapons board after all.

>>8982115
Oh i'm all for it, it'll encourage the US to build and design new shit, nothing like an arms buildup.

>>8982111
>12 nuclear powered carriers

mfw we have 11

It's funny how the countries without carriers shit-talk the very concept, while simultaneously trying to develop their own.

>>8982126
YOU FUCKING WROTE TWELVE.
HONESTLY WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING AS YOU WROTE THAT.
HONESTLY. WHAT.

>>8982123
Beat me to it.

Watch the whole thing /k/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6NnfRT_OZA

>>8982134
Guess i did, well fuck, i though i made a typo at first.
My mistake, no reason to get all mad over it.
Though we do have one in reserve.

>>8982140
ITS INACTIVE.
INACTIVE.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING MAN.
HONESTLY. WHAT.

>>8982139
Severely out of date in a number of ways.

>>8982145
All i said was we had one in reserve, i didn't say it was active.
Calm down.

>>8982149
ILL BE WATCHING YOU MOTHERFUCKER.
WATCHING. YOU.

>>8982153
Lol

YFW when Ulyanovsk was 40% finished when the cold war ended with the metal for the second one prepared ;_; A true Russian supercarrier with Su-33s, MiG-29Ks, Yak-44s and Kamov choppers, shit would've been glorious.

>>8982139
There'S actually a new and more complete documentary of teh whole affair. . by Discovery Channel, I think.

I NOTICE FRENCH CARRIER DE GAULLE OF NUCLEAR POWER. THIS IS ONLY CARRIER WITH NUCLEAR REACTOR OUTSIDE AMERICAN NAVY. MAYBE FRENCH MILITARY NOT SUCH JOKE AFTER ALL.

>>8982187
OH FUCK THE FRENCH.
WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING AS YOU SAID THAT.
DROP THE FUCKING VODKA.
DROP. IT.

>>8982188

IMAGINE RAW POWER OF FRENCH SQUADRON SCREAMING FROM DECK, MAKING RETREAT OF FULL AFTERBURNER WHILE GLORIOUS WHITE FLAG UNFOLDS FROM DECK. WITH THIS CARRIER YOU CAN SURRENDER WITH STYLE OF TOP FLIGHT.

>>8982187
No Ivan, French are joke.

>>8982198
I SEE.
OH FUCK I SEE THEM NOW CRYING TO MOMMY IN FEAR OF SHITTY PIRATE BOAT.
FUCK. YES.

>>8982198
Does it have Ciwfs(Close In White Flag System)?

>>8982198
-_- i see it now, a huge white flag flying on a giant carrier as it floats backwards lol

>>8982198

Oh Ivan, you just make this board 10X better.

>>8980402
There are about 4 posters here who are not summer.

>>8982172
Wait, is this a mixed ski jump and catapult design? Them crazy Soviets.

Meanwhile in America.

You will never see a Yak-141 operate from a Kiev clas carrier ;_; why could the Cold War not have lasted a few more years.

>>8982292
I kind of wish the Cold War was still going on, we would have tons of more cool shit, the F-22 wouldn't have gotten fucked by politicians, and all the things that are being designed right now would have already been in service.
Fuck you, Soviet Union.

>>8982292
Because the Soviet economy had been tanking for 15-20 years prior to that.

>>8980402
>>8982268
>>8982172
>>8982092
>>8980468

nice ramps for your 13y/o untrained pilots, lesser countries.

>>8982331
WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING WHEN YOU POSTED THAT.
THESE SHIPS ARE SHORT.
HONESTLY WHAT THE FUCK.
TELL. ME.

>>8982393
It's not how long it is, it's how you use it.

>>8982198

YES! AND THEN THE ENGLISH AND AMERICANS CAN ONCE AGAIN SACRIFICE MORE OF THEIR YOUNG MEN TO DEFEND THE NATION BEST KNOWN FOR ITS BREAD! WINE! AND SURRENDERING ABILITIES!

Meanwhile, construction of USS Gerald R. Ford continues...

>>8982406
IF LOUD HOWARD HAS A PENIS OF 5.56 MM AND IVAN HAS A PENIS OF 7.62 WHO THE FUCK HAS MORE POWER AT A RANGE OF 20 METERS. WHO.

>>8982428
I do, because you've both been 'downsized'.

>>8982408

Statistically speaking the French have a more powerful military than the Chinese.

BUT....

YOUR A CAT!

>>8982428
Again, it's not how long it is if your shitty 7.62 can't find the right hole.

>>8982464
IF THERE IS A GAPING VAGINA OF 15 M AND IVAN AND LOUD HOWARD ARE BOTH 300 YARDS AWAY. WHICH ONE WILL HIT THIS.

hai gaiz., cough ..cough... ' helicopter carrying destoyer'' here

>mfw china is almost 100 years late to the carrier party and they can't even do it right

>>8980438

It's a ski ramp. That's how cheapass piece-of-shit carriers launch aircraft.

>>8982468
Howard, since Ivan will be most likely using an AK

..

the age of the carrier is dead in my opinion... i mean.. we have missles and subs and shit that can take them out... i did a paper once in college a few years ago and one of the greatest naval concerns is midget subs.. china and middle eastern countries are investing greatly into midget subs that can peirce task force defences and shoot a torp at a carrier. not only that... but midget subs that can deliver small nuclear payloads.

>>8982469
Hahaha, the Phalanx at the front will block any Harriers/JSFs. Though I think they alleviated that in the 22DDH design.

>>8982483
YES. HOWARD HAS M16

>>8982504
HARRIER IS SOLD WORLD-WIDE
WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING AS YOU POSTED THAT.
HONESTLY. WHAT.

>>8982504

LOLOLOLOL

>>8982487
Yes, but carriers are still a very effective platform for power projection compared to other ships.

>>8982515
I was thinking about the Chinese using the CIWS, i didn't realize that was a Japanese ship, then i realized what i've done.
Give me a break, it's late.

>mfw american ships will have railguns shortly
http://www.military.com/video/guns/naval-guns/railgun-update-from-general-atomics/904431955001/

>>8982488
granted its in a strange spot but its not just stuck in the middle of the bow

>>8980402

inb42billiondollarstealthbomber

>>8982619
Oh yeah! Fuck you China, here's our new 4 billion dollar stealth bomber, you're super fucked now.
>inb4 spending war.

>>8982664
NO. WE DO NOT FUCK CHINA BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO BIG.

>>8982712
I agree, China is a huge, fat slut with a gaping hole.

>>8982734
BUT IT IS SIMPLE.
BUT MONGOLIAN BODY DISEASE ON BLANKETS AND SEND THEM TO CHINA!
FUCK YES!

>>8982740
Or we could give the Mongolians fighter bombers.

>>8980911
>>8980935
Nuclear cruise missiles launched from shadowing submarines.


This Chinese carrier is roughly the equivalent of the USS Ranger, though not home-brewed like the Ranger. Some of you guys had it right, this is a learning/testing/training platform. This is how doctrine tends to be developed.

Yes, this carrier isn't very impressive. Especially considering its limited electronics suit, radar, and aviation wing. I cannot comment on questions about its engines.

In about a decade, the Chinese will be capable of rivaling an Americas carrier, but I doubt they will. US carriers are expensive, maintenance intensive, a manpower black-hole, and they are high profile, high risk targets. In fact, I have doubts the US Navy will be able to justify replacing the Nimitz class and the Enterprise on a one for one basis. Especially since the US Navy is historically underfunded.
Amphibious assault like ships are slightly easier to justify and significantly cheaper.

The Forrestal is an example of the need for extensive damage control and firefighting training. It is typical of novices to make such oversights and is representative of many hidden costs and liabilities that China has little to no experience with.

Regarding anti-ship missiles, there are ways to counter them but that tends to be a long term losing battle.

>>8982856
>In about a decade, the Chinese will be capable of rivaling an Americas carrier.

>I have doubts the US Navy will be able to justify replacing the Nimitz class and the Enterprise on a one for one basis.


Wat,

>>8982856
I almost guarantee the Nimitz will be replaced on a 1:1 basis. They might go down to a 10 supercarrier fleet though. I could see that happening. But the Navy is experiencing huge funding increases in general because the Pacific is recognized as the next area of contested power. Part of the thing about supercarriers as well is that they can conduct non-combat missions that smaller carriers can't (or at least can't maintain for a useful length of time)

>>8980438

That is only seen in soviet made carrier's. the traditional design is excepted by everyone else.

>>8983842
Good joke.

Asian Naval Asset Power Rankings

1. JMSDF Hyuga Class
2. That neat one off ROK Floating Fort thingy... It's stupid but cool.
3. JMSDF/ROK Diesel subs

900000000000001. Varyag

>>8980592
>David Axe is an independent military correspondent based in South Carolina. He has reported from Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, Lebanon, Somalia, Chad and other conflict zones. Axe is the author of the graphic novels WAR FIX and WAR IS BORING and the nonfiction books ARMY 101 and FROM A TO B. He blogs at www.warisboring.com.

this is the guy who wrote the article. he draws cartoons and occasionally talks to mudpeople, he is not a defence analysis.
he writes for the-diplomat aswell. if you ever read the-diplomat articles they are exactly like hurdur 4chan style analysis.

>>8983924
and you know more?

>>8983937
You don't need to be better than someone to call them out on sucking at something.

>>8983943
But you should be if you're going to completely diminish their knowledge of something when the make a career out of that kind of thing.

>>8983924
The only difference between a defense analyst and a military correspondent is that the former owns a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships, while the latter uses Wikipedia articles that cite Jane's Fighting Ships.

>>8983937
yes i do.

hur [spoiler]read academic journals or non mainstream reports[/spoiler] dur

http://www.andrewerickson.com/2011/05/china-signpost%E2%84%A2-%E6%B4%9E%E5%AF%9F%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD-3
5-the-%E2%80%98flying-shark%E2%80%99-prepares-to-roam-the-seas-strategic-pros-and-cons-of-china%E2%8
0%99s-aircraft-carrier-program/

>>8984036
I am comfortable assuming you do, in fact, not know more.

>>8984079
too bad i've just demonstrated my superior knowledge.

>>8984117
troll harder chinkosaurus.

Aircraft carriers are outdated. Why do they want them?

>>8984167
You know nothing. Get the fuck out.

>>8984167
whats this "pushbutton warfare" i keep hearing about?

>>8984167
Everyone wants the, why do you think they're outdated?

>>8984167
Better go read some Books.

Just a small fact for you:
During OIF 250 US Navy Hornets flew sorties of carriers (+ F-14s, EA-6Bs, Vikings, etc)
USAF only had 131 F-16s and 90 F-15C/Es in theater.

Source: US Navy Hornet units of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Osprey Publishing)

>>8984167
If nobody else wants them, please give them to America. We'll gladly take them in and push our power projection to exist even outside the solar system.

In the future, all human piloted fighters will be decomissioned and be completely replaced by remote controlled drones.

I wonder what a drone carrier would look like.

>>8984287
>you will not live long enough to see space carriers

>>8984294
This future still is a long way out.

>>8984249

I'm sure that the operational tempo and the number of sorties flown by the Air Force assets significantly outstripped the Navy.

>>8984167

They are good at projecting power at small 3rd world countries but they would get destroyed before they enter into striking range in a real conflict. Also, helicopters and tanks would suffer huge losses in a real engagement.

>>8984294

They would probably look like a submarine.

>>8984294

So are they launching drones from the carrier AND being remotely controlled from the ship?
Or is it being remote controlled somewhere else?

>>8984314
If I have my numbers right every carrier (2-3 in the NAG, 1-2 in the Mediterranean) launched 4-6 planes every 1,5 hours. Dont have numbers on the USAF, but please enlighten me.

>>8984322
There's no way for you to know that. People thought we would lose hundreds of tanks and helicopters in desert storm and we didn't. Early strikes against anti-air, air, and defensive assets makes everything much easier. Systems are designed to go up against the best, but rarely if ever have to.

>The rest of the world is catching up with the U.S. Navy's technology.

Old news is old. Anyways the biggest threat to our Navy which has been shown several times is submarines. I wouldn't worry about some derpy aircraft carriers.
I think the navy is in the middle of an upgrade anyways. The USN is getting new aircraft and submarines, and DARPA is developing unmanned sub hunters.

And here's something related anyways.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-
exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

>>8984377
The Navy is getting new anti-sub planes, helicopters, and systems capabilities. I'm not all that worried about their subs either.

>>8984377
That event happened at a time where the USN was prevented by court order from using active sonar.

>>8984438
oh yeah cause of them dolphins.
fucking dolphins.

>>8984444
Yeppers

So are frigates disappearing in the next ten years from the American navy?

wake me up when they finally create battleships equipped with railguns.

>>8984465
The traditional terms like "Cruiser" and frigate don't mean a whole lot in the USN.

Most tasks assigned to frigates will be performed by LCS.

>>8984465
as of now, mostly yes. The littoral combat ships are replacing them in many roles, and the extension and upgrade of arleigh burke class destroyers is supplanting them as well.

>>8984481
Faggot detected

Bottom line.
there is not a navy on the planet that can prevent the USN from inflicting their will anywhere they want.

>>8984515
>Bottom line.
>there is not a navy on the planet that thinks it's worth preventing the USN from inflicting their will anywhere they want.
fixed for you.
subs and missile spam can really mess up the USNs day. you'd escalate the situation though which probably wouldn't work in your favor.

>>8984545
If the navy thought there was a real chance of it getting bum-rushed, they'd act to counter that pretty easily. Damage would be done, but would be significantly minimized and probably decimate the opposing force.

>>8984545
>Subs and Missile Spam.

Good thing that no country in the world today has the ability to fire enough missiles to get past a CSGs defenses.

And good thing that Carriers travel with other subs to kill the bad guy subs.

So again to reiterate:

>No navy in the world has the ability to prevent the USN from inflicting its will when and where it wants to.

AIP subs are a real threat to CBG's. That's why the USN has bought one to study it and try and develop counters to it.

>>8984861
Thats not why they are studying it.
They are studying it because the Us has very limited recent experience with constructing non-nuclear subs and it is possible that in the future they may need to develop littoral SSKs.

And the same tactics that work against Diesel boats works for AIP SSKs.

>>8984884
the thing is, no tactic really works against SSKs

>>8980846
Maybe, in this case this aircraft carrier is more of a long term research project to prepare for when they do need to use airstrikes as a negotiating tool.
>>8980847
And continually get sunk by submarines in combat exercises.

http://ports.co.za/navalnews/article_2008_01_19_1038.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-
exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

>>8984623
HMS Gotland managed to snap several pictures of the USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier. The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US Fleet against diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lacking.

>>8982172
>>8982268

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU MAKE ME THINK OF THE ULYANOVSK!!!!!?

Damn you... Damn you...

It breaks my heart, thinking of how Russia could've had a true Super Carrier with missile cruiser abillities included...

Pic related, the YAK-44.

why can't china into aircraft carrier?

>>8985342

Because it is their first one and have yet to learn allmost everything from scratch?

Because the Varyag is an aviation cruiser instead of an aircraft carrier and much work is needed to propperly convert the Varyag into that new role?

>>8985331
>It breaks my heart, thinking of how Russia could've had a true Super Carrier with missile cruiser abillities included...

Unless they decided to make a large naval shipyard in the Pacific, then it never would've happened.

>>8985368
>Super Carrier with missile cruiser abillities
Putting all your eggs in one basket much?

>>8985368

Erm, the Ulyanovsk was constructed in the Ukraine so, Ukrainian docks had enough space to build them.

>>8985373

Not exactly. It would allow the Ulyanovsk to be more independent. Offcourse it still would've had a group of other ships to accompany it.

>>8985388
>Erm, the Ulyanovsk was constructed in the Ukraine so, Ukrainian docks had enough space to build them.

And you're forgetting that it would essentially be limited almost entirely to the Mediterranian in the event of a war due to being surrounded on all sides by enemy nations and having to push through at least three chokepoints if it was fucked and had to get out of the Black Sea at the start of the conflict. Building and basing out of the Black Sea would be horrific strategically and the northern shipyards were incapable of the task and even the surface fleet stationed there was unable to do much for most of the year. Hell, if all the problems with potential deployments and even moving it out of the Black Sea after construction with the Kuznetsov didn't highlight the problems with building large vessels there, nothing will.

You're letting your love of slavshit get in the way of simple strategic planning.

>>8985349

From what I've seen the Chinese some to have completely gutted the Varyag and gotten rid of nearly all the offensive missile systems and made room for more aircraft, it looks like the rebuilt Varyag will end up very different from her sister ships and be closer to a conventional carrier than an aviation cruiser

>>8985423

I never implied anything of deploying the Ulyanovsk in the Black Sea and Meditterenian. I just said that the Ulyanovsk could be produced in the Ukraine and then sent to the Northern and Pacific fleets.

And i do agree building large vessels in the Ukraine isnt a sane idea too.

>You're letting your love of slavshit get in the way of simple strategic planning.

I think that we both misunderstood each others messages.

>>8985440

Allright, then it seems China has succesfully learned some lessons it seems. Hopefully their proppulsion systems wont suffer the same fate as the fucked up Kuznetsov.