[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / cafechan / digiguru / ita / kemono / sonyeon ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: 43ee28b9abd0539⋯.png (466.38 KB, 1024x577, 1024:577, ClipboardImage.png)

File: ecdd446b814017f⋯.png (457.17 KB, 1024x577, 1024:577, ClipboardImage.png)

b88f6e No.579591

>China launched its first domestically built aircraft carrier to begin sea trials on Sunday, reaching another milestone in the expansion of the country's navy.

>The aircraft carrier, as yet unnamed, left its berth at a shipyard in the northeastern port of Dalian after a blow of its horn and a display of fireworks, according to reports in state news media.

>The Chinese navy — officially the People's Liberation Army Navy — already has one operational carrier, the Liaoning, which it bought unfinished from Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That ship joined the Chinese fleet in 2012 and began its first operations four years later, putting China in the small group of seafaring powers that maintain aircraft carriers, led by the United States, which has 11.

>The Liaoning, which appears to serve as a training vessel as much as a combat ship, was the centrepiece of a naval parade of 48 ships attended last month by China's leader, Xi Jinping. The following week, it led a carrier battle group in live-fire exercises in the Taiwan Strait and in the East China Sea.

>Since taking office, Xi has driven an ambitious effort to modernise the country's military, reducing the traditional focus on readying the ground forces of the People's Liberation Army to defend against an invasion of the mainland and increasing the emphasis on technology-dependent naval, air and missile forces.

>The new carrier, built by the Dalian Shipbuilding Industry, has a similar design to the Liaoning but has been modified and expanded, according to Chinese and foreign experts.

>The Global Times, a Chinese newspaper, published a side-by-side comparison showing that the new carrier was slightly longer and wider, and saying that it would be able to carry 32 to 36 J-15 fighter jets, compared with 24 aboard the Liaoning.

>Both displace 50,000 tons, compared to the newest US carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, which displaces twice that and can carry 75 aircraft. Unlike the nuclear-powered US carriers, the two Chinese ships use conventionally powered engines, limiting their range and ability to stay at sea.

>"The main tests will be of the reliability and stability of the mechanical systems and related equipment," an article on the website of the Chinese Ministry of National Defence said on Sunday, describing the goals of the sea trials, which could last as long as a year.

>Aircraft carriers are costly and complex — and perhaps no longer as dominant as they once were. Some military experts say anti-ship missiles and other new weaponry have made carriers increasingly vulnerable, blunting the advantage they have had on the high seas since World War II.

>They nonetheless remain a formidable display of power that can reach far beyond a country's borders, giving them important symbolic value that China clearly desires as it seeks to expand its influence abroad.

>China's military is even more opaque than most, and the navy has not outlined its shipbuilding plans in any detail. According to several reports, however, the construction of a third carrier, with a different design, has already begun at the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai.

>The second carrier's sea trials have long been expected, but the ship appeared to have encountered some delays. A flurry of reports in April suggested its trials were about to begin — only for the ship to remain at its berth in Dalian's harbour.

>"When there is good news about the next step, we will announce it first thing," the defence ministry's spokesman, Senior Colonel Wu Qian, said at a news conference a few days later.

>It remains unclear when the second carrier will be commissioned and officially become the fleet's new flagship. Initial reports suggested it would be ready this year, but The Global Times reported on Sunday that it might not be ready until 2020.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/china-s-first-home-grown-aircraft-carrier-launches-20180514-p4zf38.html

https://archive.fo/xWePt

b88f6e No.579592

>>579591

news site blocked archive

https://archive.fo/OCO0z


d72548 No.579604

>>579591

>sailing an unnamed ship

Can the chinks do nothing right?


a41df5 No.579605

>>579604

They haven't named it due to polticial fighting.

>Xi trying to name it after someone the rest of the congress disagrees with.


1c047c No.579618

>>579591

Type 002 should get off to sea next year.

Type 003 in the next.

But don't worry burger-kun, China will only have 2 carriers by 2025.

I mean they have 2 at sea in 2018 and 2 more in construction but they're just trainers.

See, we don't even give them names.

Oh wait now the press is starting to say we need 6…


653e07 No.579627

>the two Chinese ships use conventionally powered engines, limiting their range and ability to stay at sea.

How limiting is this? Are we talking 'regionally limited' or simply difficult to effectively maintain outside of that range?

>military experts say anti-ship missiles and other new weaponry have made carriers increasingly vulnerable, blunting the advantage they have had on the high seas since World War II.

Assuming this is true, what's the next step? Do carriers become vulnerable enough that extreme long range land-based aircraft carrying super AShM are viable enough in penetrating defense networks?

>>579618

>it's the baguette again


afbc16 No.579631

What good are carriers when the locations where they're maintained would get wiped out?


a41df5 No.579642

>>579627

The strategic goal is to break the "first island chain. Taiwain, Japan. That is the goal of these carriers. The goal of the future nuclear carrier if they can build one is to project strength past the second island chain, which is consisting of the outlying US islands of Guam, wake, Philipeans, Midway.


9323b1 No.579643

File: afb7c2f5f58a9fe⋯.webm (12.46 MB, 800x600, 4:3, HEYYEYAAEYAAAEYAEYAA_-_Le….webm)

>>579605

>>579604

Couldn't they just name it after rivers or mountains? That can't be possibly tied to politics. Or have the Chinks actually lost all connections to nature like the ants they are?


3ca3ef No.579644

>>579643

Didn't they name all their rivers/mountains after politicians post-commie bullshit?


ed15da No.579649

>>579627

There once was a plane, so big and heavy, that it could carry a weapon capable of defending any carrier group from almost any threat in the air at ranges no man would even think of. Legends say it was abandoned due to the inability of the salesman who represented it, allowing men from Seattle to blind the men in power, poisoning them, making them believe that the solution from Seattle was all that was needed.

Now, the legend has ended. All tooling has been destroyed for fear of such an awe inspiring plane being used by a former ally, now an enemy - which hasn't stopped that particular enemy. They're just making their own parts.

The plane that it could have become was never realized, it never reached its true potential.

Had it gotten a modern multi phased array radar, its nose was so big it could have been equipped with the best the world had to offer. It would have been able to see further than any Sentry.

Had it gotten the thrust vectoring nozzles, it would have turned on a dime, capable of maneuvering like a plane from the east, making the Air Force look really, really lame.

Had it gotten the desired engine upgrade, no Fulcrum would have escaped it's wrath, no SuperAShM would have been in Range for the Carrier group before a Phoenix found it's way to its launch plattform.

But alas, the price tag was too high and the sales pitch too bad (the guy apparently just went in and said "here", handing them a brochure, naming a price and left while Boeing and Subcontractors had a team explaining everything to the procurement committee) and so the ASF-14 only flies in our and Grumman's dreams.

>>579631

That would be a direct attack on chinese mainland. You'd be much better off picking away their fighters with creative MANPAD system placement. Oceans are big, submarines hard to find, things just get lost.

A carrier without airplanes is just an awkward freighter.


bc0c37 No.579651

>>579627

>Assuming this is true, what's the next step?

Submarine carriers.


e1a596 No.579652

>>579627

>How limiting is this?

With God-tier logistics and planning it could just be "Really fucking annoying and expensive" if you tried to use it in the same way as a nuke AC. Without God-tier logistics (and with the hold-ups and complications that happen 10 times an hour during a war) then … best of luck.

>Assuming this is true, what's the next step?

Giving ASM longer range and either a high enough speed or reduced enough radar signature to get past CIWS. Once that's happened you shouldn't need the aircraft to carry the weapons closer to the target before firing them, and thus wouldn't need a fuckhueg ship to carry the aircraft close enough to manage that.


e7bdb2 No.579666

>>579627

>Assuming this is true, what's the next step?

Think bigger Type 212 submarines with the ability to launch more drones at once.


c63977 No.579668

>>579643

>>579644

Well can't they just give them some cool adjective as a name, bong style? Like HMS Indefeatable, HMS indefatigable, HMS Insufferable, HMS Intolerable, HMS Unusable etc. only in chinese? Or just name them after cool natural phenomena like whatever is the chinese word for 'Thunder' or 'Meteor' or whatever?

>Assuming this is true, what's the next step?

Sinking the enemy's carriers… WITH CARGO SHIPS!


b70370 No.579682

>>579591

So when does a US Cargo Ship sink it?


1c047c No.579683

>>579668

>>579643

Shandong (it's a province) was supposed to be it's name, they can leave it nameless until commission if they want.

The thing about the chairman wanting to give it a politician name is really weird, Chinese ships are mainly named after cities (with 151 cities above 1M inhabitants, it's not like they're gonna run out of names…) sometimes named after mountains or rivers (with no mixing within a class), the ex-Varyag has a province name (Liaoning), so it should be a province name.


97670d No.579687

>Have hundreds of island in your sea that can be used as bases and airfields

>Be an incompetent chink monkey and rather than building airfields on said islands you choose to waste resources and manpower on a fucking aircraft carrier that requires fuel to go around and can't even launch as many aircraft as the average military airfield

Retards who think the chinks can win wars against first-world nations need to be publicly humiliated.


4913f8 No.579688

>>579687

You mean publicly beaten, like in Singapore. Anyone who thinks the Chicoms are even close to the level of humans deserves to be caned for their retardery.


97670d No.579690

>>579688

dubs of truth


1e9dd8 No.579700

>>579591

>First Chinese Domestic Carrier

Domestically built, t's still a Russian design. They even made it weaker by having fewer CIWS and shipboard weapons, they made other design changes to get it built quicker which make it inferior to the Kuznetsov. It's clearly a stopgap design until they get something serious in service. Their first real Chinese carrier won't be built until 2022, it's supposed to use a rail from one of their electomagnetic trains as a launch catapult, so it will likely be a flattop.

The funny thing is that by 2030 carriers will likely be obsolete. They technically have been obsolete for awhile now, but still serviceable for killing durkas and bullying tiny nations. But by 2030 even durkas might get their hands on a Russian scramjet missile, and the proliferation of in air refueling and the ever increasing range of air dominance fighters will make using a carrier pointless.


1e9dd8 No.579701

>>579627

>How limiting is this?

Not at all. Powering a carrier with nuclear reactors is a gimmick considering the entire carrier screen is still using oil, meaning when the screen stops to refuel so must the carrier. Also most of the point of a carrier is it being seen, so having it get topped off in a port somewhere is exactly part of its mission parameter. Nuke reactor might cause some reduction in fuel tenders needed, at some counterbalance of initial cost, but there is no true practical benefit that outweighs the bother of it.

Powering submarines with nuclear reactors makes actual sense, since they don't have a conventionally powered screen, they're operating detached, and their mission profile is to stay out of sight - away from refueling ships and refueling ports.


79e88e No.579712

File: 8471bc435852c91⋯.jpg (6.65 MB, 4240x2830, 424:283, MQ-25-Program-Office-Tests….jpg)

>>579651

>submarine aircraft carrier

How feasible are these in the era of drones?


e1a596 No.579720

>>579687

It looks like more of a boast than a serious military project. As you said, if they wanted to own the airspace over their local waters and out into the closest parts of the Philippine chunk of the Pacific then there are a few thousand places to build much cheaper airbases and very few people who would object to that. This reeks of "HEY, LOOK AT OUR SHINY NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIER, WE BUILT THAT, CHINA STRONK!".

>>579712

Probably a lot more feasible than when the last time someone was trying it. You'd need to keep the sub at surface or a very shallow depth to let it send signals to and receive from the drone though - which could be a risk for the sub. You'd probably get more use out of the budget by trying to increase the range of sub-surface launched ASM.


1c047c No.579724

File: 0cd0c803b470021⋯.jpg (83.01 KB, 1310x717, 1310:717, before china.jpg)

File: e2b129de2d672f1⋯.jpg (78.39 KB, 1310x717, 1310:717, After china.jpg)

File: d660d988848bd58⋯.jpg (92.17 KB, 1024x760, 128:95, before china 2.jpg)

File: bad8bdd63473c13⋯.jpg (192.72 KB, 850x630, 85:63, After china 2.jpg)

>>579712

>How feasible are these in the era of drones?

Very.

All WWII submarine cruiser, as their above sea equivalent, carried planes (that's something everyone forgot… all blue sea ships had planes). Japanese I-400 had as much as 3…

It's insane that while seaplanes were one of the most valuable tactical asset of the war they've been completely abandoned for military applications. When you see shit like the Icon A5 or the Vickers Wave there is no reason why you could make a subsonic light recon/bomber with a similar compact design, and pack a submarine to the gills with them.

With drones it's even simpler.

>>579720

>It looks like more of a boast than a serious military project. As you said, if they wanted to own the airspace over their local waters and out into the closest parts of the Philippine chunk of the Pacific then there are a few thousand places to build much cheaper airbases and very few people who would object to that.

It baffles me that you people think they're aren't doing BOTH.

China own the air space in all the south china sea, it's a fucking fact. Flips and cie can cry all they want it's already done.

They built deep sea ports and airbase literally from scratch FFS.

The carriers are OBVIOUSLY to go beyond that…

If you think than building carriers is cheaper than building massive bases from literal nothing, think again.

Carriers are hard to R&D and costly to maintain, to build not so much.

That's the only reason you're still building two UK (with one going to mothball immediately), you already had put the down payment, the construction cost is ultimately negligible, it's a few billions payed in installment over several years. Any developed country can fit the bill for building a bunch anytime.

Maintaining them is the pain to the wallet.

Hell just the monthly wages of sea pay of the 5 000 crew on a US carriers must reach a stupid number.


b70370 No.579727

I am still amazed you retarded niggers think that an Aircraft Carrier is being built to challenge the West. It's not. It may be portrayed as such but nobody really uses them against nations with anything resembling a navy. What the Aircraft Carrier is great for is projecting your power across the globe mainly against Third World Shitholes. I guarantee that the first proper use of the Chink Carrier will be up and down the coast of Africa keeping niggers in line, or anywhere else Chinks "buy" raw materials from.


5931d6 No.579731

File: 0b711edbc0baad6⋯.jpg (58.3 KB, 400x300, 4:3, shall we play a game gtw.jpg)

>>579591

>>579700

>"The main tests will be of the reliability and stability of the mechanical systems and related equipment," an article on the website of the Chinese Ministry of National Defence said on Sunday

If the US office of naval intelligence's report was correct regarding the PLA(N) recent trends in naval development, this is basically going to be just a prototype or a test bench for onboard systems, logistics and for the manufacturing process. Ofcourse, it's going to work just fine for colonial work in Africa, as the idea probably is to provide air support for their military units working in Africa, should things start boiling over in there.

I suspect that after the next one is finished, and it has completed all of it's trials successfully, they are going to start a bigger production run of carriers.

>>579627

>simply difficult to effectively maintain outside of that range?

It's going to be simply more difficult to effectively maintain it. After all, it basically boils down to having a trail of cow ships feeding that carrier, and a supply base or two in africa to supply those cow ships. It's probably only going to be a problem when shit boils down to state of a world war. And in that case it's going to be doubtful how meaningful having a nuclear powered carrier is going to be for China, as they are presumably going to focus on making sure things don't get out of hand in their pacific trade routes.

>>579687

>Africa and other Chinese colonial-trade interest around the globe lmao


a41df5 No.579751

>>579643

Nope. Usually named after cities/proviences/historical events.

>Eg. Missles Dongfang # is from a musical in Mao Era

>Long March is from the part mythical long march duh

>115, 116 051cs are named after cities Shenyang and Shijizhuang

>Ship classes nicknamed after perfectures / proviences, Luzhou and Liaoning are examples.

>Surfrace ship class naming is generally a clusterfuck.


d054ba No.579778

>>579751

what actually happened during the long march?


afdd05 No.579786

>>579591

>chinks did something

/k/ related by really noteworthy enough for its own thread?


afdd05 No.579787

>>579751

>Dongfang

Sides expanded!


afbc16 No.579815

How formidable is that Chinese Nuke tunnel complex?


1c047c No.579842

>>579778

Total defeat, painted as a victory.

Nationalists troops massacred the commies armies, Mao tried to escape going trough the worst parts of China.

They had 3 armies when it started, less than division when they stopped.

But since the commie leadership survived and still had enough troops to terrorize the countryside and gang-press peasants they called it a victory.


f2ec6b No.579843

>>579842

don't forget massive soviet backing as well as western (read: Jewish) support and volunteers


1c047c No.579845

>>579843

Nah that came much latter. The long march is in the mid-thirties.

It would have been a total victory for the nationalists if not for the factors you cite that allowed them to rebuild their forces in the decade that followed but at that time the commie threat to China was properly stomped out.


1e9dd8 No.579875

File: e18fdcc3d3c5130⋯.jpg (864.65 KB, 3562x1714, 1781:857, kirovtopj.jpg)

>>579731

Doesn't really matter considering carriers will be obsolete by then.

Ford is the last American carrier, which is why only 2 are being built where Nimitz class had 10. Even carrier-dependant navies like USN realize that the age of the carrier is drawing to an end.

We're likelier to get battleships back than carriers…. although they're probably going to look like a 2x sized Kirov class.


1c047c No.579887

>>579875

If anything Russia is reconsidering capital ships altogether.

Both the shipyard activity observed and the Russian State Armament Program for 2018-2027 clearly mentions they will NOT build any.

The biggest mentioned would be a lengthened Gorshkov-class destroyer (Gorshkov-class having the issue of it's engine being made in Ukraine they're seriously late, more Grigorovich-class frigate should act as stop gaps).

The Nakhimov is in rebuild and should take the place of the Pyotr Velikiy as flagship of the northern fleet, then the Pyotr Velikiy would be rebuilt after that maybe they will rebuild the Lazarev but if they do it won't be ready by 2027. Basically all they construct is going to small ships and subs.

Sub in normal amount, lots of small ships and clear plans to find solution to extend the autonomy and range of said small ships to make them more blue waters worthy.

Also it's dubious that they would rebuilt the cruisers, without was is largely Putin whim to rebuild the soviet cruisers as a symbol for internal politics ("we're not letting rot away the USSR inheritance, we're making it better and improved") and just concentrate on making lots of small ships and better subs.


1e9dd8 No.579892

>>579887

I'm just saying, battleships are more likely than carriers to dominate the 21st century and beyond, and battleships in the nearer term would more likely be equipped with missiles than guns. Even when we have space forces, a battleship on water can serve as a mobile orbital defense unit that would be harder to hit with an RFG than a mountain based installation.

I'm not saying that Russia of all people will adopt larger ships, they border four isolated bodies of water, there's no way in hell they should sink money into large ships. Kirov was just an example of a large missile carrying ship, it's use in that image was coincidental.


a41df5 No.579899

>>579892

At that stage, wouldn't it be reign of the destroyers/crusiers? Literally just slap on as many missles as possible for crusiers while leaving ASW to destroyers while giving them a few.

Also apparently the Kirov is roughly classified as a heavy nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser to fuck with the treaties on the bosphorus lol.


5931d6 No.579905

>>579875

Obsolete or not, they are floating airfields and therefore more or less useful for African bushfires where logistics for inland airbases might get wonky due to everything in Africa being more unreliable than weather in sea. But then again, France doesn't seem to have utterly catastrophic problems running their airbases in Africa.


1e9dd8 No.579920

File: 651288d7389c856⋯.jpg (110.45 KB, 600x370, 60:37, megafloat_02.jpg)

File: b333572512dd953⋯.jpg (13.14 KB, 300x230, 30:23, mid_000001.jpg)

File: 1e46ba7dde9c5d4⋯.jpg (12.54 KB, 300x225, 4:3, mid_000000.jpg)

File: bb2e0e39785de46⋯.jpg (591.6 KB, 1525x1541, 1525:1541, floating_runway.jpg)

File: 8a318fdae596bea⋯.jpg (27.7 KB, 500x353, 500:353, white-knuckle-runway-2-1.jpg)

>>579905

They're floating airports not airfields. They have hangar and repair facilities.

An airfield is generally light on those, it would be more similar to picrel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_and_Clover

>Lily was a collection of flotation units developed for the floating roadways used in the Mulberry harbour. Each was six feet across, plates being fitted on the top to form the runway. The complete structure could be towed and weighed 5,000 tons, taking 400 man-hours to construct.

And a floating runway would be even simpler.


4bdcef No.580082

File: 78e3dcd9a47a757⋯.jpg (128.84 KB, 970x546, 485:273, i-400 k-bigpic.jpg)

File: cf4ccdd6523a17a⋯.jpg (88.99 KB, 836x607, 836:607, i-400 japlargesubmarineair….jpg)

File: adda5d79cb67940⋯.jpg (30.87 KB, 650x357, 650:357, i-400 a3bc6f0482173af33909….jpg)


faae66 No.580176

File: 07140e2642239c6⋯.png (28.17 KB, 371x400, 371:400, breddy gud.png)

>>580082

>>579875

>>579892

>mfw aircraft carriers of the future will be submarines carrying small drones for recon, 3rd world CAS and basic A2A while the remaining surface fleets consist of arsenal ships and railgun BBs

But will there be enough civilian cargo subs for the USN to collide with?


300a5f No.580336

File: 90b164d729f0baa⋯.jpg (17.6 KB, 640x480, 4:3, me.jpg)

Guess who sold the Chinese the technology they needed for their Aircraft Carrier?


4c5e2d No.580340

>>580336

Can we stop with the anti-semitic spam already? It get's tiring to state that the sky is blue every third post.


1c047c No.580343

>>580336

Jewkraine?


4913f8 No.580346

>>580340

>does not think every single anti-semitic post is the height of hilarity and 100% original

kike shill.


a41df5 No.580381

>>580346

>Thinking that complaining solves anything.


1e9dd8 No.580627

>>580336

The Soviets?

You're implying Jews have technology to sell.


e1a596 No.580633

>>580176

>But will there be enough civilian cargo subs for the USN to collide with?

Don't worry, there's an almost infinite supply of seabed for the USN Submersible Aircraft Carriers to collide with. It's more likely that they'll just vanish randomly in the middle of a patrol.


300a5f No.580639

>>580340

Yes be a gud goy.

>>580627

Who do you thinks owns defense companies goyim? Israel is the only country that can actually make US equipment work.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / cafechan / digiguru / ita / kemono / sonyeon ]