Chinese aircraft carrier program

Not really no. A newly built ship is different than one that is old and undergoing refurbishment which leads to issues.

I mean, we can start joking about Chinese tanks in Russian tank thread of its tracks falling off or cannon falling off in Peru. But that is called trolling.

So stop being retarded. It isn't that hard.

miketheterrible wrote:That is classified as trolling you know. Which according to some mods is ban offense.

For some reason I just knew that comment would come.

Take a joke dude, Merry christmas!!!

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

I mean, we can start joking about Chinese tanks in Russian tank thread of its tracks falling off or cannon falling off in Peru. But that is called trolling.

I would add that his comparison to the K, even if it was a joke and you got triggered for no reason, is very interesting because it shows how fast chinese ships are build but also how they still lack the capacity to go with their own designs. It also show that Russia struggle with big ships even for maintenance. In terms of power projection China takes the lead by far, in capacity only because in reality they project nothing further their few islands at their borders.

With that said as the this thread shows the Chines are in full process of producing ships of thier own designs.

Nice picture of nr 16 and 17.

Isos wrote:Their designs are copies of russian and US hardware be it ships or the weapons inside. They struggle with a copy of K..
Then they need the 5th generation jet that comes with, nuclear power, catapult, reliability and use it for 30-50 years like US ...

they didn't get the cable arresting system from Russia & had to develop their own. R their J-20s, SSNs & SSBNs also copies?
They don't "struggle" with the CV-16- it was finished, fitted out, served as a training ship, got recently upgraded & made combat ready.
They r building a nuclear powered icebreaker & they don't need a 30y period to master operating a CVN.
Original project documents describe the vessel as an ‘experimental ship platform’ hinting at its role as a test vehicle for nuclear propulsion. The proposed icebreaker will be powered by two 25 MW pressurised water reactors with a top speed of 11.5 knots.
However, the vessel’s specifications suggest that the atomic behemoth will in fact be used as an icebreaker and speculations that the prototype could pave the way for the country’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are rife.
https://safetyatsea.net/news/2019/china-to-build-its-first-nuclear-powered-icebreaker/

China will be able to draw valuable lessons from designing, constructing, and operating a nuclear icebreaker. “The use of a nuclear icebreaker can be understood as laying the foundation for the future acquisition of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers,” states Aki Tonami, Arctic researcher and Professor at the University of Tsukuba in Japan.
https://www.arctictoday.com/chinas-first-nuclear-icebreaker-could-serve-as-test-platform-for-future-nuclear-aircraft-carriers/

(Just had to) Rolling Eyes

Another civilised westerner trolling... what a shock... a low blow as usual... but I can understand the butt hurt... after all my last few posts on this thread have been scathing against the Chinese and their navy... don't worry... you just cured me of that. Wonder how real Chinese posters will feel about you ruffling feathers and creating hostility where none was needed...

It's just the reality.

Well the currently built Chinese carriers are based on the K so perhaps he is predicting their future... will we see that video in future Chinese fortune cookies?
Perhaps more a western funded troll creating hostility between Russia and China via pro Russian websites... he is clearly earning his money.

Perhaps I will troll him on the thread about Swedish navy carrier programme... but there isn't one is there.

Not really no. A newly built ship is different than one that is old and undergoing refurbishment which leads to issues.

I mean, we can start joking about Chinese tanks in Russian tank thread of its tracks falling off or cannon falling off in Peru. But that is called trolling.

So stop being retarded. It isn't that hard.

Damn them Chinese must be stupid if they are producing aircraft carriers based on the Kuznetsov... which is clearly a total failure because things on it can burn. Sweden has never lost a single carrier to anything... but imaginary things are special...

For some reason I just knew that comment would come.

Take a joke dude, Merry christmas!!!

How could you possibly anticipate such a response to plainly obvious flamebaiting.

How can someone with those sorts of powers to predict the future not understand the meaning of the word joke?

I would add that his comparison to the K, even if it was a joke and you got triggered for no reason, is very interesting because it shows how fast chinese ships are build but also how they still lack the capacity to go with their own designs.

Oh please... you keep going on about how wonderful the Chinese ship building industry is and how shit the Russian ship building industry is... when the Chinese make a ship that is of unique design with weapons and systems they have developed themselves then I might be impressed... the Russians should be able to crank out plenty of cold war designed ships and subs, but WTF would they do with them?

Perhaps if they had more destroyers they could ram cargo ships in the dark like the US and Norwaywegians do... that would be cool.

It also show that Russia struggle with big ships even for maintenance.

There was one fire... how on earth can you equate that to the entire Russian ship building industry struggling with maintenance?

In terms of power projection China takes the lead by far, in capacity only because in reality they project nothing further their few islands at their borders.

Well commander exaggeration, tell me how China has expanded its lead in power projection... and how is that expansion helping them in places like Venezuela and Syria for instance? Could China even mount an operation like the Russian operation in Syria?

When US ships in the Black Sea tried to enter Soviet waters due to foibles in the laws of the sea the Soviets rammed them and made them leave... what did China do to the US Navy when they sail through Chinese waters near their artificial islands?

Real power projection there buddy.

It is also good to remember that the newest US carrier can't operate the latest carrier based fighter, the f35. Because it's a very expensive nightmare to develop.

The Ford class can't operate any fixed wing aircraft at all. Which means it should have been given the American Indian name.... Sitting Duck.

UK has two of them but nothing to protect far away from mainland and its navy is lacking money to operate frigates let alone carriers.

More seriously it has nothing with anything like AEGIS to defend them in open ocean... even Russian corvettes made today have their equivalent of AEGIS to share target information and data for collective defence and collective attack.

France on the other hand is still asking itself if they should get a second carrier while they still have a pretty impressive amount of land to protect far away from the mainland and the only carrier and the few modern frigates they have are not enough.

Which suggests the French and British Navies are vulnerable to a standard truck with a standard shipping crate... no wonder you are ripping the Russians...

Children in glass houses should not throw stones.

With that said as the this thread shows the Chines are in full process of producing ships of thier own designs.

No it doesn't... it just shows someone push 999 on the photocopier and no one knows how to turn it off... how about that for a Christmas joke....

K class and its copy are conventional powered with skijump. Nothing really hard to do or operate. CATOBAR are another level.

Ahh bollocks... They didn't need a nuclear powered carrier for what they wanted conventional power did the job. They also only need cats for AWACS, otherwise they only need fighters which for them means ski jumps work fine... faster to use and effective enough for fighter payloads.

However, the vessel’s specifications suggest that the atomic behemoth will in fact be used as an icebreaker and speculations that the prototype could pave the way for the country’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are rife.

They would have to modify it rather a lot... 12 knots is ok for an ice breaker, but not acceptable for an aircraft carrier...

China will be able to draw valuable lessons from designing, constructing, and operating a nuclear icebreaker. “The use of a nuclear icebreaker can be understood as laying the foundation for the future acquisition of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers,” states Aki Tonami, Arctic researcher and Professor at the University of Tsukuba in Japan.

It is a little disturbing that they think a nuclear powered icebreaker means they can design and build a nuclear carrier... how many nuclear ice breakers does Russia have compared with nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

Suggests they are different things doesn't it?

I mean at the very basic level icebreakers don't need armour or to store large amounts of fuel and ammunition, but carriers need to be able to move fast when required...

A carrier requires a lot of technologies and systems that an icebreaker has no need for at all, but priority is that the carrier whether nuclear or not needs to be the centre of your C4IR system... it is the difference between being a useful team or a group of things just going through the numbers.

It is a little disturbing that they think a nuclear powered icebreaker means they can design and build a nuclear carrier... how many nuclear icebreakers does Russia have compared with nuclear powered aircraft carriers? ..icebreakers don't need armour or to store large amounts of fuel and ammunition, but carriers need to be able to move fast when required...

How many nuclear icebreakers (or otherwise, for that matter) r in the USCG? It's a matter of priorities based on, geography, history & economy.
By increasing/doubling the # of reactors it's possible to get enough power. The CVN-65 had 8 of them.  

But like I said chinese do nothing with their ships.

FYI, they conducted anti-piracy patrols off Africa, exercises in the Med., Baltic, Black, Bering Seas/Indian Ocean, & helped to evacuate civilians from Libya.

And if Chinese succeeded in building K sistership that doesn't mean they will succeed in building a nuclear powered catobar.

even if all their catapults fail at 1st, & if the ski jump is retained, there will be plenty of time to correct/fix them.
They had built many SSKs, SSNs & SSBNs, & few small icebreakers for the Bohai Gulf- eventually, NP icebreakers & CATOBAR CVNs will follow them & their STOBAR/CATOBAR CVs.

China Navy Type 002 Aircraft Carrier Standard Configuration:
24 J-15 Fighter
3 J-15D EW Fighter
6 Z-18F ASW Helicopter
4 Z-18Y AEW&C Helicopter
2 Z-18A VIP Transport Helicopter
1 Z-8JH Medical Helicopter
2 Z-9S Rescue Helicopter
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a30258915/shandong-china-aircraft-carrier/

China’s CVs tipped to team up to target foreign forces aiding Taiwan
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3042688/chinas-aircraft-carriers-tipped-team-target-foreign-forces

GarryB wrote:

(Just had to) Rolling Eyes

Another civilised westerner trolling... what a shock... a low blow as usual... but I can understand the butt hurt... after all my last few posts on this thread have been scathing against the Chinese and their navy... don't worry... you just cured me of that. Wonder how real Chinese posters will feel about you ruffling feathers and creating hostility where none was needed...

Well buhuu, cry me a river.

GarryB wrote: was one fire... how on earth can you equate that to the entire Russian ship building industry struggling with maintenance?

One fire?
Dry dock sinks...
Crane falls on the carrier....
Carrier cathes fire....

Add to this the last mission to Syria that included two crashes becouse of technical failures on the ship.

If this isnt bad maintence I dont know what.

You are confusing shipbuilding and design bureau.

You are confusing fanboy wishes with reality... WTF would Russia even do with ten brand new destroyers and two new CV right now?

They have a fleet made up of cold war left overs and a few new small ships they are working on with plans and money for larger ships to progress to now that they are confident that their smaller ships do what they want and are relatively proven in peace time.

Suddenly getting dozens of brand new big ships would cost them all of their budget for the next few years and also result in the rushed retirement and scrapping of quite a few ships that still have a few years left in them... and for what?

Well keep hearing projections... in ten years the Chinese will have bigger navy than the US... what does that mean? Chinese tax payers are going to replace American tax payers as the people most screwed by their military? What prize do they win when they get a bigger navy than the US? War?

We know the Americans are pathetic little children... how are they going to react to the challenge of China with a navy that is growing like this?

I know what Russia will think... we have missiles to defeat the vastly superior in numbers US and NATO navies... those same missiles could be used against Chinese ships if they are stupid enough to make us defend ourselves... of course the chinese aren't that stupid... they only fight battles they need to fight... America loves to fight and will even fight its own allies over anything... all the power of the US Navy and it meant nothing in Venezuela or Georgia in 2008... I think it is funny all these China fan boys and trolls paid for by the west to drive a wedge between china and russia somehow think a powerful navy means you get your way... how often does that work out for the US exactly?

Their shipbuilding industry creates every two years the amount of ships in the french navy.

What would the French do with twice as many ships?

Raise the pension age to 90?

Those are destroyers, big landing ships, frigates, carriers ... something russian cab only dream of.

Only the delusional Russians who dream of bankruptsy to allow freedom and democracy to then invade from the west to save them from their resources and assets...

So yeah they are very good.

Well that is definitive... can you describe their performance in service?  I mean before WWII the Soviets also outproduced the world in tanks and planes by a wide margin... the tanks were mostly T-26 light tanks and the aircraft were mostly Polikarpov I-16s and I-15s, which at the outbreak of WWII were totally ineffectual because their design and layout was not suitable for the way war is fought... if WWII was in the early 1930s they would have been fine, but by 1941 technology had moved on... even in the Soviet Union which were in the process of producing new equipment and vehicles that were state of the art at the time... T-34, KV-1, Yak-1 and MiG-3 were all world class at the time... they were also a minority in force numbers in the Soviet Union at the time of the attack.

Russian are far behind and are happy when they finish a missile boat. And let's not talk about civilian ships.

What is this crap... Russian corvettes are better armed than any ships all of NATO short of the US Navy has, and their radars and sonars are world class state of the art. China in comparison has plenty of Chinese adapted designs from Russia and the west all cobbled together in a way they think will work, but they have no combat or operational experience to tell them what is right and what is wrong... who knows if they are getting it right...

And commercially it makes sense to get stuff made in China... they are cheap... but made in China often means designed elsewhere... when it says designed in China then it might not be so good.

The thing is that it is chinese design bureau that suck because they just copy foreign design.

Everybody copies... look at the F-22... it is just a stealthy F-15, which is just an American MiG-25.

A fire on the only carrier that happened because of lack of security measures.

Wow, you have already read the report from the investigation?

That should have never happened.

Of course accidents should never happen, but that is why they are called accidents...

There were also similar fires in many nuclear sub in the last decade that killed many people. There was no progress over the years.

Hahahahahahahaha... that is the thing... no progress over the years because the new ships and subs they are building look like cold war ships and subs... that is why they never have any accidents, because there are no new technologies, no new equipment, no new designs, everything is the same so that they don't have any fires... it does mean that their navy will be sunk in the first minutes of any conflict but in peace time there are no risks nothing new that can surprise...

Didn't you hear.... hypersonic missiles are 20 years away because they want to be sure there are no fires...

Do you know how to read ? Like really do you know ? Read again what I said.

Here it is : "In terms of power projection China takes the lead by far, in capacity only because in reality they project nothing further their few islands at their borders.

Go on wikipedia and check the numbers. China has now two carrier, big landing ships of improved Ivan Gren like class, something like 20+ modern multi role destroyers.

Do you know how to think for yourself... if you don't actually project power then power projection is just theoretical and worth nothing... but it isn't free.

Russia has what ? Some landing ships and they even had to buy quickly from aboard some civilian ro-ro ships to support its operation in Syria.

Russia has projected power and influenced the future of Syria for the benefit of the Syrian people. Buying things as you need them show flexibility... would building two new aircraft carriers and 10 destroyers have helped in Syria?  Not sure what sort of Navy ISIS had and how that would have helped except extracting a few billion from Russian pockets...

Its destroyers can't create an air defence bubble, they need the few kirov and slava for that. They have however the advantage of big transport planes.

Why would they need an air defence bubble for their naval fleet in Syria... Russian ships are well able to defend themselves, and who is going to interfere with their cargo ships?

But like I said chinese do nothing with their ships. It is expectionnal to see them near Japan or in the middle of pacific. Further than that they mostly never go.

Just like you were saying... massive power projection to the end of their piers... I guess Russia can only dream of such things...  

It wasn't my point. Again read carefully what I said. I was talking about construction of carriers.

In terms of construction a K is easy to make because it has nothing really new or complicated and uses conventional power. Most of the work is welding, something that any shipyard can do.

You do understand they build nuclear powered icebreakers and nuclear powered subs and can also make nuclear powered military vessels too...

A catobar is another level. And if Chinese succeeded in buildig K sistership that doesn't mean they will succeed in building a nuclear powered catobar. Specially that this time they will also have to come up with a totally home made design.

The Soviets were in the process of producing a CATOBAR carrier when the cold war ended, and the another level bullshit is just that.

A ship wide integrated air defence network and C4IR system is vastly more complex and vastly more useful than something to help heavy aircraft take off from a carrier. Their new radar technology could mean a fighter sized aircraft could perform AWACS missions and actually remove the need for catapults completely. Or they might go for airships for the AWACS role...

So many westerners believe the only way is the US Navy way and anything else is weakness...

By increasing/doubling the # of reactors it's possible to get enough power. The CVN-65 had 8 of them.  

Well it comes down to deciding what is safest and what can be achieved... they might need 16 reactors to power their ship, or they might take a risk with a new more powerful but less safe reactor design that only requires 8 reactors... but could also melt down and sink the ship.

China’s CVs tipped to team up to target foreign forces aiding Taiwan

Hahahahaha... yeah, nuclear powered aircraft carriers are excellent for fighting foreign funded protesters... just like stealth fighters were amazing at fighting terrorism in Syria and Afghanistan... hit enough baby milk factories and everything comes right...

Well buhuu, cry me a river.

More trolling... love the irony... you like playing with fire but it is unacceptable for fires to happen on Russian ships...

One fire?
Dry dock sinks...
Crane falls on the carrier....
Carrier cathes fire....

Hahahaha... how dishonest... the dry dock sinking caused the crane to fall, and, what a year later there is a fire related accident... it must be cursed... so why is China copying them?

Add to this the last mission to Syria that included two crashes becouse of technical failures on the ship.

One technical failure that resulted in two aircraft being lost.

If this isnt bad maintence I dont know what.

But that is the point... you have no fucking idea... but luckily fake news doesn't require facts or the truth or even any sense of reality.

A dock sinks because of a power cut. A fire starts because rags were no cleared up decks below where some work was being done... the sky must be falling... fire all the people working at Russian shipyards and just make all Russian ships in China.... is that the solution?

Are they looking after you in that troll farm... do you get a good pay rate, do you get dental with your healthcare package?

Started any good riots in Hong Kong today?

Well it comes down to deciding what is safest and what can be achieved...

Absolutely. The French CVN had many problems but not with its reactors AFAIK. The same reactors power their SSBN:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triomphant-class_submarine

The CV-17 is 47-50K T:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Shandong

The CV-18 will have a displacement of around 85K T:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme#Type_003

The CVN-19 may be up to 110K T:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_004_aircraft_carrier

The Type 094 SSBN reactor could be adopted for the CVN should the new reactors' development fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin-class_submarine

It's also worth noting that the VMF Kirov class CGNs have combined nuclear and steam propulsion system (CONAS), & the Chinese may have a similar arrangement on their 1st CVN. Both components are capable of driving two geared steam turbines, generating 120,000 hp (89 MW) at two prop shafts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_nuclear_and_steam_propulsion

Hahahahaha... yeah, nuclear powered aircraft carriers are excellent for fighting foreign funded protesters...

In 1989 the PLAN was still a brown water navy- as back then, the CCP has no scruples drowning any1 in blood to "preserve societal harmony & stability, to insure China's peaceful rise under its guidance." It's no coincidence that during the recent 70y PRC's anniversary celebrations & the CV-17 commissioning, Chairman Xi wore Mao's suit. The PLA/Armed Police have a role in preserving CCP control/enforcing its will in HK & the PLAN has a role in preventing Taiwan going fully independent.
I have no further comments at this point.

Isos wrote:Their shipbuilding industry creates every two years the amount of ships in the french navy. Those are destroyers, big landing ships, frigates, carriers ... So yeah they are very good.

There is a big difference between what the CdG battle group can do and what the Shandong battle group can do. Once the Chinese fleet leaves the 1st island chain they are at a severe disadvantage to their French counterparts. PLAN has three distinct problems with their CBG, the most obvious is lack of of catapults which leaves no AWACs and limited payloads, the second is poor ASW and the third is noisy attack submarines. PLAN might be able to slug it out missile for missile as they carry more while France has more accurate one's, but the battle would never get that far. Rafale would be able to engage the Chinese long before they would ever know where the French were. Rubis and soon Barracuda submarines are vastly more stealthy than Chinese subs, just one of those could sink the entire Chinese battle group. It isn't about quantity, it is about quality of the capabilities.

Rubis and soon Barracuda submarines are vastly more stealthy than Chinese subs, just one of those could sink the entire Chinese battle group.

The PLAN can send out a few Kilo/Yuan SSKs ahead of time to even the odds.
China & Russia can & will cooperate in improving their ASW as it would benefit both.

Isos wrote:

That wasn't my point. I was just saying that chinese build ships very fast and in huge quantity that other countries can only dream of.

Chinese may have less capable vessels but they have much more of them than french. And their quality isn't that far from western or Russians. They got 4 Sovromenny that they are upgrading with their own stuff. If their missiles and detectors were so bad they wouldn't be replacing proven russian stuff. They also have s300, tors... from russia that they are copying. I wouldn't underestimate the chinese.

The thing with the french navy is that we have only 1 small carrier that can be destroyed in a sneaky attack. A chinese sub on the bottom of the sea, turned off and listening won't be detected unless you use active sonar. On the other side CdG launching its awacs and rafales can be heard hundreds of km away. When you attack you have the advantage of when and where.

Even north korea destroyed a modern south korean with a midget sub whike the corvette was using its active sonar.

Now that they understood how to build K class they will start CATOBAR. And once they understand how to build them they will pop up 4 or 5 in 10 years.

The stuff they are replacing is Soviet Era, the only criteria is that they make it indigenously. They don't want to buy Russian anything if they don't have to. What they consider good would be considered unacceptable by Western standards.

The thing about the Chinese Navy is they only have 1 combat capable carrier which can easily be destroyed by a French attack sub. A Chinese sub on the bottom of the sea would be crushed like a tin can and would lay forever where it sat. Chinese subs are so noisy no one has any problem tracking them.

Once Chinese make an actual CATOBAR then their carrier aviation will become more potent, they still suffer from poor ASW and noisy nuclear submarines. That isn't set to change anytime soon.

GarryB wrote:

More trolling... love the irony... you like playing with fire but it is unacceptable for fires to happen on Russian ships...

One fire?
Dry dock sinks...
Crane falls on the carrier....
Carrier cathes fire....

Hahahaha... how dishonest... the dry dock sinking caused the crane to fall, and, what a year later there is a fire related accident... it must be cursed... so why is China copying them?

Add to this the last mission to Syria that included two crashes becouse of technical failures on the ship.

One technical failure that resulted in two aircraft being lost.

If this isnt bad maintence I dont know what.

But that is the point... you have no fucking idea... but luckily fake news doesn't require facts or the truth or even any sense of reality.

A dock sinks because of a power cut. A fire starts because rags were no cleared up decks below where some work was being done... the sky must be falling... fire all the people working at Russian shipyards and just make all Russian ships in China.... is that the solution?

Are they looking after you in that troll farm... do you get a good pay rate, do you get dental with your healthcare package?

Started any good riots in Hong Kong today?

You cant possibly think that the Russian ship building industry and the Russian navy itself hasnt f****d up quite a few times during the last decades? Does every accident happed becouse of bad maintenance? No, im sure alot is becouse of inexperienced crews, not following fire and security protocols (Fire hazard training seems specialy out the window in Russia), bad qualtiy on parts and systems, rushed time schedules on vessels that isnt really ready for service or trials for that matter.
And it isnt small things we are talking about here. Several dozen of servicemen and workers have lost thier lives during this period. Im sure more will be lost over the next decade.

What i know of the chinese (copied) carriers hasnt been on fire, they havnt lost any lives and havnt had cranes falling on them. This only seem to happen to the Russians....strange right?

A Chinese sub on the bottom of the sea would be crushed like a tin can and would lay forever where it sat.

there r plenty of shallow areas in & around China's seas.

Chinese subs are so noisy no one has any problem tracking them.

Back in In October 2006, Kitty Hawk and her escort warships were undergoing exercises near Okinawa, and a Chinese Song-class submarine shadowed the group then surfaced within 5 mi (8.0 km) of the group on 26 October 2006. ..Reports claim that the submarine had been undetected until it surfaced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kitty_Hawk_(CV-63)#1998_to_2008_(Forward_Deployed:_Yokosuka,_Japan)

According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/

“It would be pure conjecture to assume that the battle group commander was surprised by the appearance of the Chinese Song-class submarine in those particular waters off Okinawa, that the force ASW (anti-submarine warfare) readiness status was not alert, or that China’s diesel submarine tactics are well defined. The surfacing may very well have been merely a ‘poke-in-the-eye’ signal that he had achieved a vantage position on the force, and that he had best reveal himself before the force initiated deadly counter action. [The Chinese sub commander] had made his point,” Vice Admiral Bernard “Bud” Kauderer, USN (ret.), a member of the JINSA Board of Advisors and a former Commander of Submarine Force, Atlantic Fleet, said. ..
According to the Washington Times, November 15, 2006, Admiral Fallon said the Kitty Hawk Task Force was not conducting active anti-submarine patrols when the Chinese submarine successfully infiltrated the carrier Task Force, but said the U.S. Navy nevertheless was reviewing submarine defense protocol. But Kauderer warned, “there can be no ‘time out’ periods during which a Battle Group Commander can assume that a submarine threat has been reduced to zero, anti-submarine warfare is an art to be practiced 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20080624124553/http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/164/documentid/3652/history/3,2360,656,164,3652

More recently, A Chinese submarine stalked the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan for "at least half a day" on October 24, according to a US official quoted by CNN. The incident occurred off the coast of Japan, where the Reagan is based. ..
It's likely China regularly does this, but does not announce the event by surfacing within visual range. China almost certainly did so to prove a point: at the time the United States had announced it would send a ship into the South China Sea on a Freedom of Navigation exercise to challenging China's territorial claims. China demonstrated not only was it shadowing one of America's ten aircraft carriers, it could get within torpedo range if it wanted.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a18094/a-chinese-submarine-stalked-an-american-aircraft-carrier/

Tsavo Lion wrote:
there r plenty of shallow areas in & around China's seas.

Who says they will be operating there? You can't park a nuclear submarine in shallow waters and expect to get kills.

a Chinese Song-class submarine

I was referring to nuclear subs, SSKs can't keep up with a carrier group.

Who says they will be operating there?  You can't park a nuclear submarine in shallow waters and expect to get kills.

relatively shallow- those depths won't crush them & they can lie there in ambush.

I was referring to nuclear subs, SSKs can't keep up with a carrier group.

they have plenty of quieter SSKs to send out ahead of time along possible CVN route/patrol area, no need to keep up with it. It's been done with the USN; the French Navy ASW isn't any better. Besides, Soviet SSNs were noisier but still at least 1 managed to get a periscope picture of a CVN, & 1 collided with the CV-63: https://www.pbase.com/image/101581592
https://www.rbth.com/history/330178-soviet-nuclear-submarine-rammed-carrier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACSzlEX362o

In A 2013 Exercise, A U.S. Submarine Sank A British Aircraft Carrier

There is a big difference between what the CdG battle group can do and what the Shandong battle group can do.

As I said with the Soviets at the very start of WWII, they had enormous numbers of tanks and aircraft, but those platforms were obsolete by the time it came to use them and trying to win a war by effectively trying to make the enemy run out of ammo is not a good way to fight a war...

On paper the armour on the T-26 wasn't any worse than the armour on a Panzer II, and its gun was actually reasonably good too for the time... a 45mm high velocity gun would penetrate any German tank of the period. The problem was that it was a WWI design with just two crew where the commander was also the gunner and the loader, whereas the otherwise similar German vehicles whose layout was much better thought out had separate crew members for each job... commander, gunner, loader, because in combat each job is important in itself and needs to be done simultaneously... ie one person cannot perform all the jobs at one time effectively.

There is a huge difference between on paper performance and performance in the real world.... tactics... training... but more important effective tactics and effective training. Then I would say logistics will decide whether you can keep doing it, and C4IR so you can find them, and hit them.

China is producing new ships... but production is not the problem.

What is the plan they need these ships for... I am not suggesting they don't have one, but I am pretty sure the plan is not to keep these ships in port just in case or they will rot and be totally useless.

It isn't about quantity, it is about quality of the capabilities.

X2.

China & Russia can & will cooperate in improving their ASW as it would benefit both.

China is competition for Russian sub exports and also a customer of Russian subs... I don't think they will give them all the help they will need in this regard... purely for selfish reasons which are not hostile but self preservationary...

Idk. Ask russian admirals. They expressed the need for 30 Gorshkovs when the program started.

They probably did, but as they still have a lot of ships around from the cold war they clearly have not started production of those 30 Gorshkovs, and nor have they even funded quick fire solutions to get them into service as quickly as possible. They have clearly built some and are thoroughly testing them and making sure they are what they want before even showing any signs they will enter mass production... which is exactly what you would expect... what happens if they got China to build their 30 ships and those ships arrived and they realised that they are actually a bit small so 4 or 6 would be fine but for the rest of them (24-26) they want them bigger and better armed or with more storage for longer duration journeys... it would be too late and they would be stuck with the design they started with that was by no means proven and useful.

China didn't have a large cold war fleet of now obsolete ships, so they are building new ships to create a bigger fleet, the Russians had a fleet that was too big and was largely obsolete for their new needs... it was designed and intended for the Soviet Union which they are not.

There are big ships they can upgrade and keep using for another 20 or 30 years, but most of the small ones they need to get rid of because small ship designs age quicker, plus smaller ships are quicker and easier to make and when integrating new technology to make multirole small ships is good experience and practise for the larger ships they will be making later on down the track.

With the right equipment (ie big dry dock and large cranes etc etc) it is easy to make big ships... they have more room to fit all the stuff you need... engines get bigger, radars get bigger, sonars get bigger, and more weapon launchers can be fitted and larger guns... the reason they aren't making them right now is because they are not ready to make them right now... you have to plan for these things and their plans are for helicopter carriers in a year or threes time to be laid down and built, and then bigger ships to support it... presumably with current bigger vessels upgraded to support it in the mean time and then CVNs in 2030 onwards... claiming the Chinese are better ship builders because they are making carriers now is just childish... maybe they want to send a message to the US regarding the US constantly rattling the sabre with their own carriers near Taiwan etc... who knows... they could have started building carriers in the 1990s if they wanted to...

They haven't suddenly learned to build ships.

That wasn't my point. I was just saying that chinese build ships very fast and in huge quantity that other countries can only dream of.

One mans dream is a nightmare for another man...

Chinese may have less capable vessels but they have much more of them than french. And their quality isn't that far from western or Russians.

Ships that can't defend themselves from the missiles of the enemy wont last long and will have little real value in any conflict with that enemy. They still cost money to make and to own. Of course China... unlike the US can afford them...

They got 4 Sovromenny that they are upgrading with their own stuff.

Sovremmeny are not new vessels.

If their missiles and detectors were so bad they wouldn't be replacing proven russian stuff.

Poor reasoning. They might be replacing Russian stuff with their own stuff so they are effectively Chinese designs that they own and make... but there is no reason to believe their versions of equipment are necessarily better. Their jet engines are not superior to Soviet engines from the 1980s.

To be fair the Soviets took a while to get those engines right at the time too, but now they have even better engine technology.

They also have s300, tors... from russia that they are copying. I wouldn't underestimate the chinese.

I wouldn't underestimate them either, but the idea that their rapid progress can continue is amusing... with no global empire like the US what do you think they are going to do with all these ships? Perhaps they are planning to confront the US? Perhaps they want to solve the problem of Taiwan? Perhaps they don't know and just want the option just in case.

What I do know is that a Chinese Navy would be useless for an invasion of Siberia... much to Americas disgust I suspect.

The thing with the french navy is that we have only 1 small carrier that can be destroyed in a sneaky attack. A chinese sub on the bottom of the sea, turned off and listening won't be detected unless you use active sonar. On the other side CdG launching its awacs and rafales can be heard hundreds of km away. When you attack you have the advantage of when and where.

Clever tactics can always overcome the advantages another power has, but not forever... Pearl Harbour was a clever attack, but without finishing the US Navy they never had a chance...

Perhaps if they had tried to invade Hawaii... get some natives on side with promises of all sorts of things... and change their codes a bit more often...

Now that they understood how to build K class they will start CATOBAR. And once they understand how to build them they will pop up 4 or 5 in 10 years.

And what on earth are they going to do with 6 or 7 aircraft carriers?

You cant possibly think that the Russian ship building industry and the Russian navy itself hasnt f****d up quite a few times during the last decades?

What have they done wrong?

The Russian navy have inherited a fairly large but largely obsolete fleet from the Soviet Union. They have clearly done a lot of planning and thinking... I really don't think you give them enough credit... in a time period when there was little to no money at all they have gone from huge supersonic anti ship missiles that operate smarter than projected US antiship missiles that are still on the drawing board are projected to do... missiles that are so big that they need entire ships or subs built around them... a Kirov class ship carries Granit missiles... not Vulcan, not Meteorite, not Onyx, it only carries primary anti ship missile type as do all four of the others in the class, the similar but smaller Slava class carries Vulcan missiles but can't carry Granits. The electronics on each ship is extensive... they were to be command ships that manage operations for entire surface action groups, but there was no commonality, and communication with other platforms wasn't what we now called net centric. Each ship and sub type had different sensors and different weapons and different propulsion and a very specific role, with the bigger ships having primary weapons for that role and also backup weapons for defence against other threats... for instance the Sovremmeny had Sunburns for anti ship use and also SAMs to defend itself from aircraft and torpedoes and RBU launchers to defend against subs but it was an anti ship destroyer. The Udaloy... similar ship but anti sub dedication means instead of 8 Sunburns it has 8 SS-N-14s which are primarily anti sub weapons... it also has SAMS and the SS-N-14 has a backup anti ship capacity, but it is primarily anti sub.

Roll forward barely 20 years and they have developed vertical launch universal missile launchers with new anti ship and anti sub and land attack missiles that can be fitted to every ship or sub in their navy... the role of the ship not decided in the design phase where it is fixed but at the pier when the missiles are loaded... their new Corvettes have twice the fire power of their destroyers... more than that because the Onyx is smaller and lighter but also faster and longer ranged than their older missiles... their corvettes can carry 16 Onyx missiles compared with 20 Granits on their Cruisers 20 years before.

They have gone from single role ships to multi role ships with fire power increased enormously... soon Zircon will give them a missile no navy on the planet can stop... but the Russian navy has fucked up and we should all be crying about it... grow up.

That is even ignoring the improvements in other technologies that I wont bother listing because this thread is supposed to be about China.

Does every accident happed becouse of bad maintenance? No, im sure alot is becouse of inexperienced crews, not following fire and security protocols (Fire hazard training seems specialy out the window in Russia), bad qualtiy on parts and systems, rushed time schedules on vessels that isnt really ready for service or trials for that matter.
And it isnt small things we are talking about here. Several dozen of servicemen and workers have lost thier lives during this period. Im sure more will be lost over the next decade.

Tell that to the ten dead American sailors who died because of faulty touch screen technology in their new ships that no one knows how to operate... that is probably a maintenance issue too... I mean I wouldn't want to look in to it and actually find any real causes... lets just blame the US Navy and blame the people who died and those around them.

What i know of the chinese (copied) carriers hasnt been on fire, they havnt lost any lives and havnt had cranes falling on them. This only seem to happen to the Russians....strange right?

What Chinese carriers? How long have they been operating them? And it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few deaths in the making of their vessels... it would be a national secret if it happened and no body would know...

Yet they are buying su-35 because they have better engines than chinese so when russian stuff is better than theirs they keep it. They wouldn't be upgrading the Sovs with their own missiles if they were not better.

They buy to get access and then they copy and adapt... they don't keep buying however.

When they get this catobar and if they still suffer from bad ASW tools, they will buy it from Russia just like they bought s-400 and su-35.

Which is just common sense, but some here seem to think a weakness...

with no global empire like the US what do you think they are going to do with all these ships?

they r becoming a global empire; ships r needed to escort CV/Ns, protect SLOCs, islands, EEZ, SSBN bastions, interests, citizens, for diplomacy, SAR, C4IR, disaster relief, & research.

And what on earth are they going to do with 6 or 7 aircraft carriers?

To have 2 combat ready & deployed 24/7 at sea in a crisis, at least 6 r needed. Also, 1-2 could be used as decoys to draw forces away from the main action; having them at sea beyond the 1st Island Chain will help to locate hostile CSGs &/ keep them farther away from Taiwan & the SC Sea.