[HN Gopher] Construction of the 4th Chinese aircraft carrier has...
___________________________________________________________________
Construction of the 4th Chinese aircraft carrier has reportedly
started
Author : belter
Score : 17 points
Date : 2024-07-07 21:16 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (meta-defense.fr)
(TXT) w3m dump (meta-defense.fr)
| borisk wrote:
| Very interesting. Wonder what does building an aircraft carrier
| fleet say about China's military priorities. Are they more
| focused on occupying Taiwan, or on keeping the Malacca Straight
| open for commerce, or on power projection across the Pacific and
| Indian Oceans.
| simonblack wrote:
| Probably more about keeping distant sea lanes like the Malacca
| Strait open in the short term, until the overland routes are
| more developed. After which, carriers are a waste of resources.
|
| Otherwise I'd say it's just as silly for China to build
| obsolete carriers as it is for the US to keep building them.
|
| Missiles outrange carriers which in turn outrange battleships.
| The battleships became obsolete in 1941. The carriers became
| obsolete in the early 2000s.
| skhunted wrote:
| Why do you think aircraft carriers are obsolete?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Even if we accept the premise, carriers are still formidable
| force projection against _non_ -peer adversaries. Imagine for
| instance a chinese carrier vs the Philippines, not vs the US.
| daniel-thompson wrote:
| carriers can be used to project power in scenarios short of
| all-out war, which is the common case, at the moment
| jowea wrote:
| Will overland routes ever be as cheap and used as sea routes?
|
| And I feel the better comparison is does "missile on aircraft
| on carrier outrange hostile missile?"
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| Carriers outswarm long-range missiles and out-loiter long-
| range air patrols.
|
| But more to the point if you can't defend a mobile ocean-
| going fortress, what _can_ you defend?
| lmm wrote:
| > if you can't defend a mobile ocean-going fortress, what
| can you defend?
|
| Underground bunkers (I believe Sweden has a decent history
| of converting caves into aircraft hangers). Just as we
| don't really have conventional fortresses on land any more,
| only trenches and bunkers, as munitions get better we're
| reaching a point where the only way to keep anything safe
| is to bury it.
| YZF wrote:
| Missiles out-range carriers but the cost of hitting a target
| in Yemen with a Tomahawk missile launched from afar (2
| million dollars, range 2500km) is much higher than the cost
| of dropping a bomb (~ 16k dollars) from a jet on said target.
| Even after amortizing all the other costs. The firepower an
| aircraft carrier brings with it to any location it gets to is
| really hard to match with missiles. More than the "bandwidth"
| and cost of that, there's also latency. Drones are another
| thing to compare to.
| bbor wrote:
| Yeah I am _far_ from an expert in actual academic military
| studies (?), but I think there's a lot of theory still
| riding on "big boat capable of deploying a variety of
| aircraft", even if they're not used exactly how they were
| in past wars, cold and hot. Just, like, from a million
| miles up: planes and drones are a lot more useful than
| missiles alone, and the economic angle you highlight is
| just one of the basic differences in tactical affordances.
|
| ..."weaponry studies"? Now I'm curious to what extent there
| exists an academic commentary on stuff like this, separate
| from internal researchers/stakeholders...
| lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote:
| I'm not an expert or anything, but don't modern day drone
| capabilities mean that aricraft carriers are easy to destroy or
| incapacitate?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I think it's too early to tell. Carriers can carry drones, too.
| dmurray wrote:
| People keep saying this, but the trend in warfare these days is
| for limited wars, not superpower against superpower.
|
| A modern carrier group has plenty of air defences and anti-
| drone capabilities to hold off a small- or medium-sized enemy,
| and it would still provide a very useful mobile platform to
| bomb them from.
| ianburrell wrote:
| What kind of drones? People keep saying this but they don't
| specify the kind of drones. The small drones that are being
| used to drop grenades in Ukraine are useless in naval warfare,
| they fall into the ocean after few miles.
|
| The Houthis are using medium range Iranian drones to attack
| ships, but they have mostly been failures since they are easier
| to shoot down. Also, being controlled from land limits the
| numbers and makes vulnerable to jamming. They also don't have
| range to catch carriers out at sea.
|
| The longer range "drones" that Iranians have developed could
| change things. They are basically slow cruise missiles, not
| drones. But they could be used in large numbers because they
| are cheap. There is no indication they have developed anti-ship
| guidance which would bump up the price. However, they haven't
| had much effect in Ukraine, Israel, or Red Sea.
|
| Also, we haven't seen what counters to drones look like. The
| same guidance for autonomous drone could lead to accurate
| cannons taking them down. Cheap missiles could mean cheap
| defensive missiles to shoot down all the drones.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Wouldn't aircraft carriers be able to shoot down slow cruise
| missiles extremely easily?
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| No, you can shoot them down or have a destroyer's smaller guns
| run defense
| Daneel_ wrote:
| I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for an honest question.
| 486sx33 wrote:
| Let us not forget how China deceived the world for their first
| air craft carrier.
|
| "In 1998, the rusting hulk was sold at auction for $20 million to
| Agencia Turistica E Diversoes Chong Lot Limitada, a company from
| Macau. Chong Lot proposed to tow Varyag to Macau under pretenses
| of conversion into a $200 million floating hotel and casino"
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Lia...
|
| The same way they do with carbon emissions and far worse
| emissions like continuing to pollute the ozone layer with
| refrigerants banned by the Montreal Protocol
|
| China is completely EVIL
|
| Global warming = China !
| Animats wrote:
| Construction of the first new Type 004 Chinese aircraft carrier
| has been rumored to be under way for years now.
|
| Is this supposed to be a new Type 004, or another Type 003 like
| the _Fujian?_
|
| With the _Fujian_ completed and in sea trials, it would make
| sense to keep the production line going and crank out a few more.
| The US suffers from on and off warship production. Some years
| ago, after winning a carrier order, the head of Newport News
| Shipbuilding and Drydock announced, in a letter to Congress, that
| if the Navy would order two at once, Newport News would throw in
| a third one for free. The Navy declined.
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| There's credible rumors China is planning to make moves on Taiwan
| 2028ish.
|
| I feel bad for the Taiwanese, similar to how I felt about Hong
| Kong. I was hoping we'd offer Hong Kong citizens aslyum (you'd
| make great US citizens!) but I realize we'd probably also get a
| few... dissidents caught in our net with that program. I even
| debated marrying a Hong Kong girl for citizenship but couldn't
| find any online, also what a weird offer to make, no one took me
| up on it (couldn't find where Hong Kong people posted to
| advertise even).
|
| Anyhow, I do support strengthening our military. I was younger
| and thought our military budget was silly but after more reading
| and more nuance in my worldview, I realize our military is source
| of consistency - a necessary evil that's helped to avoid larger
| wars. Still wish we had better healthcare though.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-07 23:01 UTC)