back to article China launches aircraft carrier the length of 2.1 brontosaurs

China has launched its own aircraft carrier – the first ship of its type to be built from scratch in the rising Asian superpower's yards. The yet-to-be-named warship was launched at a ceremony held in the northeastern port of Dalian, according to local media via the BBC. Al Jazeera reported that the 50,000 tonne carrier (she …

Facepalm

China were only allowed to buy their previous carrier from the Ukraine under the promise of turning it into a floating casino.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Looking at the lottery of outcomes, and the fact that the House always wins, it could be argued that ownership of aircraft carriers is a casino operation. Cost overruns on the US Ford class carriers are hardly something to be proud of, and the UK's dismal mess of building carriers big enough to have catapults, but forgetting to spec them... well.

I would beg to differ with the article though that whilst China may have built this new one themselves, it is so similar to the Kuznetsov class that it clearly is a modest design revision with a bit of the fat trimmed - hardly a true indigenous capability. If they got the paper designs from Ukraine, then all they've done is bash the metal out for a near 40 year old design, if they've tried to recreate the designs from the metal then lord knows what sort of podge up they've got.

But, good luck to the them! Let the Chinese find out the hard way what a dismal money sink carriers are, how vulnerable they are to missiles. I suppose that their real purpose isn't to face off to the Yanks, but simply to frighten the nations round the South China Sea, and continue to prop up the regime of Fat Boy Kim.

12
4
Anonymous Coward

@ AC - Unlike US Navy, Chinese are way more careful

when spending public money (hint: your internal organs risk becoming available for transplants) so it might not be such a money sink after all. Remember, in China when the communist party recommends you to be efficient you'd better be or else...

7
0
Silver badge

I would beg to differ with the article though that whilst China may have built this new one themselves, it is so similar to the Kuznetsov class that it clearly is a modest design revision with a bit of the fat trimmed - hardly a true indigenous capability.

While that's true, I think Chinas carrier plan seems to be based along the lines of use these to learn and work up to a full nuclear class carrier. I can't help thinking of the engineers from Kawasaki and Yamaha, coming over looking at Triumph bikes and learning from them.

6
0
Silver badge

engineers from Kawasaki and Yamaha, coming over looking at Triumph bikes and learning from them

"ok, now we know what NOT to do..."

14
0
Silver badge

@Gene Cash

engineers from Kawasaki and Yamaha, coming over looking at Triumph bikes and learning from them

"ok, now we know what NOT to do..."

"Hmm. This Western technology is fiendishly complicated. What possible advantage is there to having all the oil on the OUTSIDE of the engine?"

31
0
Silver badge

Re: @ AC - Unlike US Navy, Chinese are way more careful

> "Remember, in China when the communist party recommends you to be efficient you'd better be or else..."

Ask the Soviets how well that worked.

1
1

More like , lets build them, but cheaper!

2
0
Trollface

Chinese bikes don't leak oil

0
2
Silver badge

I like your thinking, El_Fev. There's no need to copy yesterday's paradigms from the West. What if the Chinese were to have just one fighter jet per boat? They could build thousands of those! They could employ JATO units for vertical takeoff and then land on one of those new islands they're building in other people's waters.

The result? A dispersed 'carrier group' that's really hard to sink. A lot more flexible too. Heck, they could even sell units to tiny countries that could never afford a proper carrier!

Just don't call them junks...

1
2

Re nuked

The fact that all the blueprints were included in the sale indicates that claim is well, a tad fake.

0
0
Silver badge

Chinese bikes don't leak oil ...

Chinese bikes don't last long enough to need oil ...

6
1

Re: Re nuked

Now see here

1
0
Silver badge

AIUI aircraft carriers are fine for asymmetrical force protection, but floating deathtraps against any sort of adversary with ballistic missiles. Can't find the link but a few months back I saw a really good summary of the problem by someone who actually knew what he was talking about (I just nod sagely when I read stuff on the internet, it's really not my area.) I do know that the Falklands campaign was a couple of lucky missile hits away from being an utter catastrophe though; if Hermes or Invincible had been hit... thousands of dead, goodnight Vienna, and hello a whole new parallel universe with a completely different history of the 80s (in the UK anyway.)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-carriers-specialreport-idUKKBN16G1CX is the nearest thing I can find with a couple of mins searching.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99NLoPtuZVY is a rather dramatic animation of how you wipe out a CBG with one tactical nuclear launch. AIU ships have very little realistic defence against ballistic missiles, whther conventional or nuclear tipped. Looks pretty quick, anyway, I'd rather be vapourised than trapped in a dark upturned metal box listening to the downflooding.

0
0
Silver badge

Only 1 island

So only half as good as the QE class.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Only 1 island

@Aladdin Sane

Only 1 island

So only half as good as the QE class.

Alas, Extra Island vs Steam Catapult - no contest. Or, may be the shipbuilders managed to convince the MOD and RN - "Steam Catapults are so yesterday - what a Tier 1 Navy aircraft carrier needs is an extra island - just sign here and a lucrative job will be waiting for you when you leave government service"

3
0
Alert

Re: Only 1 island

Believe it or not...this is the transcript of an actual radio conversation between a US naval ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. The Radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on Oct. 10, 1995.

US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.

CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA*, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

The Obstinate Lighthouse

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Only 1 island

snopes says that's fake, just wish it was real though!

0
0
Silver badge

ski-jump deck

But no Olympic-size pool?

10
0
Anonymous Coward

But can it pull a caravan?

I believe it is equivalent to 25 norris.

2
0

Bollocks

An aircraft carrier is something like 200-300 metres long. There's no way a Brontosaurus was 100 metres long. You're thinking of a Bolloxosaurus, surely?

21
1
Silver badge

Re: Bollocks

If you finely slice a adult brontie at an angle (to look classy) and lay the bits end on end, it'll easily reach 100m in length.

8
1

Re: Bollocks

Absolutely disgusting. Ban this person for life!

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Bollocks

There seems to be a bug in El Reg's unit conversion page : It clocks the brontosausus at 138 m instead of the more reasonnable 22 m.

8
0
Silver badge

Re: Bollocks

If you finely slice a adult brontie at an angle (to look classy) and lay the bits end on end, it'll easily reach 100m in length.

Yeah, but you've then got the problem of finding a large enough serving plate, cocktail sticks, and bowl of dip. It never all gets eaten, and honestly, who has fridge space for half a leftover sliced brontosaurus?

14
0

Re: Bollocks

I reckon a Chinese Aircraft Carrier would be a perfect serving platter for sliced brontosaur.

10
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Not bollocks at all

An aircraft carrier is something like 200-300 metres long. There's no way a Brontosaurus was 100 metres long. You're thinking of a Bolloxosaurus, surely?

I think you will find that the Chinese have been building a "pocket aircraft carrier" reminiscent of the German pocket battleships Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee of the Second World War.

A brontasaurus was about 20 metres long. Whilst a 40 metre long ship might be big for Western pockets, the Chinese have very deep pockets these days.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Bollocks

Nah, you would spend far too long going down to one end of the deck just to see what other dips were availlable.

2
0
Def
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Bollocks

The largest Brontosaurus (Pl. Brontosauruses, Brontosauri) skeleton was about 22 metres long, but the article only referred to Brontosaurs, which are their lesser known, fully made up 160 metre cousins.

5
0

Re: Bollocks

There seems to be a bug in El Reg's unit conversion page : It clocks the brontosausus at 138 m instead of the more reasonnable 22 m.

Thanks for pointing this out! It looks like this specific unit conversion has been wrong for quite a long time.

I've just now updated it to have a more meaningful value, i.e. exactly 157 linguine.

0
0

Re: Bollocks

well since the brontosaurus is completely ficticious, I submit it can be any length you want.

0
1
Silver badge

The carrier is not the real threat

The real threat are the 85+ missile boats with 8 missiles each as well as 120+ other surface ships with 2-8 missiles each. Mix of Sunburns and indigenous stuff. Enough to overwhelm the defenses of a typical Tier one navy carrier group by sheer numbers. That is the real danger. The carrier is mostly just to project defensive umbrella over the rest, not for offense.

9
1
Silver badge

Re: The carrier is not the real threat

So if carrier groups are now obsolete, why are the Chinese building them?

3
2
Silver badge

Re: The carrier is not the real threat

"The real threat are the 85+ missile boats with 8 missiles each as well as 120+ other surface ships with 2-8 missiles each."

And here's me wondering just how well all of that surface stuff copes with a few well driven submarines...

6
0
Bronze badge

Re: The carrier is not the real threat

Sort of. Remember the sea is very big and even a carrier task force is quite small compared to that. What all those missile boats need is targeting information. And it's very hard to get such information when your enemy has air dominance and can knock down your recon drones/aircraft before they can supply such data.

While most modern missiles can simply be fired down a vector with the hope that the onboard radar will pick something up, that is a rather poor method of engagement with a much lower chance of a successful strike.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: The carrier is not the real threat

How many torpedoes do hunter-killer subs carry and how long does it take them to return to port, refuel and rearm? How good are China's shipborne anti-sub systems?

From the way Trump's acting, we may get answers to those questions before very long...

0
0
Silver badge

Surprised the Chinese hackers haven't purloined someone else's blueprints for a carrier. What's that? They have the UK plans and decided to build their own. Now that says something !!!!!

8
3
Silver badge

The Chinese boat looks like purloined off Russian blueprints. Something in-between Kuznetsov class (after refurb which took the missiles out) and Ulianovsk class.

That is not surprising as they have purloined the blueprints of the fighter to fly from it and they are pretty well matched - Su-33 requires a specific ski-jump ramp config.

Their next (nuclear using stolen Ulianovsk class blueprints) carrier is more interesting. The two they have now are just to "lean how to use it".

3
1
Coat

"What will China use their new aircraft carrier for?"

That's an interesting question BBC, I imagine they will use it for carrying aircraft.

23
0
Silver badge

Re: "What will China use their new aircraft carrier for?"

That's a valid question from a nation who sort of has an aircraft carrier but no suitable aircraft to fly from it.

16
1
Silver badge

Re: "What will China use their new aircraft carrier for?"

That's a valid question from a nation who sort of has an aircraft carrier but no suitable aircraft to fly from it.

Bollocks. They have cloned Su-33 and they are flying the clones today off the ex-Varyag (Liaoing). So they definitely have MORE suitable aircraft than UK.

2
6
Silver badge

Re: "What will China use their new aircraft carrier for?"

Um, I believe JB was referring to the UK.

9
1
Silver badge

Re: "What will China use their new aircraft carrier for?"

'That's a valid question from a nation who sort of has an aircraft carrier but no suitable aircraft to fly from it.'

Strictly speaking we've got 3* aeroplanes we could fly off it and a plethora of helicopters.

*I mean we have 3 actual F-35B, there are other aeroplanes we could fly off it given the space available but I don't think anyone's done the clearance process to operate an Islander from a CV.

2
0
Silver badge
Coat

It would appear that their aircraft carrier has the unprecedented ability to launch and recover aircraft. This must be new and innovative, as the British design never managed to incorporate that feature.

26
1
Silver badge

Lies!

I think you'll find that Her Majesty's aircraft carriers are perfectly able to launch and recover helicopters, as well as any and all of these fun drones from Maplin.

15
0
N2

HMS Ark Royal

The real one, not the toy

Had proper steam catapaults - after which the accountants decided otherwise.

5
0
404
Silver badge

Re: HMS Ark Royal

That will always be my favorite British aircraft carrier - through Tom Clancy novels.

The HMS Ark Royal - never any disrespect offered or intended - she was a badass Lady.

2
0
Silver badge

>ability to launch and recover aircraft. ... as the British design never managed to incorporate that feature.

You ordered an aircraft carrier, it can carry aircraft. If you wanted an aircraft taker-offer and lander you should have said so

19
0

Units

Shurely the length should measured in double-decker buses?

6
0
Bronze badge

Re: Units

"Shurely the length should measured in double-decker buses?"

Or roughly 16536 toothbrushes laid end-to-end ..

5
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017