China confirms the 4th carrier is being built

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3254415/chinas-aircraft-carrier-no-4-track-no-technical-bottleneck-admiral-reveals-first-official

Wew lad, i thought they had cancelled it.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    who's going to say it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      A fricking ramp

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't see a ramp on this one. It's supposed to use a magnetic launcher like the Gerald R. Ford class, right?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      A fricking ramp

      Is that a ramp? I was halfway typing a post about how a Rumanian woodcarving board had enough influence on the Chinese MIC that they would design a carrier without a ramp. Which if we realize how chinks do math would be an utter failure.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Flash forward a decade: k/ is laughing at grainy footage of Taiwanese sea drones sinking this thing which has taiwanese pop music overlaid.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >taiwanese
      Idt that China would directly use carriers in an Taiwan invasion scenario.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Xi wants the Island so they will be ised even if they stand back.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They won't be used directly since land-based airfields are so close. But they will be used further out to keep the US busy.

        But that's not true, not all US carriers are going to be in the south china sea. Multiple will always have to stay around the mediterranean to protect Israel, so realistically China would only need 4-5 to reach parity with the US.

        Unfortunately correct.

        Carrier based navies fricking suck, if these morons were smart they'd be spamming the frick out of stealth destroyers.

        They're building a lot of other ships too. China's capacity to build ships is greater than the US'. Crewing all these ships is another matter though.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Crewing all these ships is another matter though.
          if only China had 1.4 billion people to pull from...
          >oh wait

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lol. Fricking piece of tofu will find the bottom of the ocean very fast!

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Implessive

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    China will grow larger!

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I would love morons on /k/, just once, admit that the US needs to build more ships.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Our navy will never go ship to ship with a foreign adversary.
      Not when we have the most powerful Air Force in the world and also the second most powerful Air Force in the world. We can drop LRASMs from stealth bombers that can take off and land on US soil.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >LRASMs
        America has more of them than China has ships. Let that sink in.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >America has more of them than China has ships
          China has less than 120 ships right now?

          By my count the US has at MOST ~108 LRASMs on procurement record for FY24 and before.

          Another ~370 will be produced in the next 5 years, but as of right now we have maybe 100, assuming we used some for testing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            whoooaaa there, coming in here with your facts and sources, who do you think you are?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            whoooaaa there, coming in here with your facts and sources, who do you think you are?

            >airforce only
            ?
            The LRASM is a Navy project first.
            >whoooaaa there, coming in here with your facts and sources, who do you think you are?
            lol, homosexual
            50+50+48+49+48+88=333

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Holy shit tomahawks cost 10x a JASSM at 16 million $ per missile.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                +118 in 2024
                -5 in 2023 for whatever reason

                >include Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >+118 in 2024
                >planned
                >'expected'
                >'testing'
                >'in development'
                HAHAHAH
                AHAHAHAH

                every fricking time with the US
                lmfao the US is the biggest literal ".jpg-tiger" in all of martial history

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >get btfo'd
                >start seething
                Reevaluate your life

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://desuarchive.org/k/search/text/planned%20%22in%20development%22/page/1/
                Holy kek this motherfricker is seething

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >airmen is nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooootcing again
                first day on the job?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Hahaha you don't currently have the things you will be ordering in the future!
                That's how that works, Chinanon.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That is exactly how it works. You either have it or you don’t.
                Or else that Foxconn factory in Wisconsin and the new 3nm fab or some shit in Arizona would be up and running now kek

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >also the second most powerful Air Force in the world.
        You are 10yrs out of date moron

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is SOME valid discussion around increasing to ~13-15 carriers instead of 11 and increasing carrier air wings from 9 to 12 or 13.

      But we don't have the political will to implement such a drastic increase in naval spending that would required for such a thing. And it would take 10-15 years at a minimum even if you threw tens of billions at the problem.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        we need more navy sailors first

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well yeah, it would require a massive recruitment effort on the Navy's side and on the MIC side you'd need to work on increasing shipyard capacity and the workforce.

          That's why I said 10-15 years MINIMUM, even if you devoted FULL effort today.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Increase the benefits and you'll get a lot of sailors

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        misses the key and obvious stopgap of keeping the nimitzes around for another 25 years.
        expensive refits sure but cheaper than a crash expansion of the ford class.
        standing up more air wings would be a matter of training. the jet inventory is on hand or will be on very short order with the F35 pipeline on maximum.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nah that's still going to require 10-15 years at a minimum, and included in my estimate.

          They would minimally need refuelling and life extension refits that would take ~2-3 years each.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      We need more shipyards first

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      By the standards of any other navy, there's what 18 carriers in the USN, if you include the Wasp and America class Amphibious Assassult Ships. There be close to a dozen America class by the time their line is finished, in addition to the remaining 10 Gerald Ford class proper carriers, plus the Nimitz and Wasp class hulls that will be mothballed for a while yet. That's not even counting any of the subs or cruisers.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      As long as they are unmanned.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Our navy will never go ship to ship with a foreign adversary.
      Not when we have the most powerful Air Force in the world and also the second most powerful Air Force in the world. We can drop LRASMs from stealth bombers that can take off and land on US soil.

      There is SOME valid discussion around increasing to ~13-15 carriers instead of 11 and increasing carrier air wings from 9 to 12 or 13.

      But we don't have the political will to implement such a drastic increase in naval spending that would required for such a thing. And it would take 10-15 years at a minimum even if you threw tens of billions at the problem.

      misses the key and obvious stopgap of keeping the nimitzes around for another 25 years.
      expensive refits sure but cheaper than a crash expansion of the ford class.
      standing up more air wings would be a matter of training. the jet inventory is on hand or will be on very short order with the F35 pipeline on maximum.

      Nah that's still going to require 10-15 years at a minimum, and included in my estimate.

      They would minimally need refuelling and life extension refits that would take ~2-3 years each.

      By the standards of any other navy, there's what 18 carriers in the USN, if you include the Wasp and America class Amphibious Assassult Ships. There be close to a dozen America class by the time their line is finished, in addition to the remaining 10 Gerald Ford class proper carriers, plus the Nimitz and Wasp class hulls that will be mothballed for a while yet. That's not even counting any of the subs or cruisers.

      Everyone missing the fact that our sub fleet Mogs-the-shit out of chinas in an utterly one sided and uncontested way.

      Our subs + satellite recon alone could probably sink the entire PLAN surface fleet, and possibly do so without taking return fire.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This.

        >inb4 BUT MUH DIESELS!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >our submarines will win us the war! Trust the plan.
          oh wow. I haven't heard this before kek

          please send more sea puppies into the SCS to find out more "seamounts"

          they fricked our most advanced nuclear sub.
          they blasted the shit out of your ally ear drums and ships
          they killed 100,000+ of your young white populations via fentanyl.

          and you cannot do a thing about it.
          but surely, when shit gets hot. Your submarines will rise to the occasion and you will just "ramp up" production.
          And that is truly IMPRESSIVE.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they killed 100,000+ of your young white populations via fentanyl.
            I'm supposed to be sad about drug addicts dying...?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              you don't understand anon, you should be livid. fuming, even. this is china's revenge for the opium war! waging eugenics warfare against the american population by killing off the weakest of society, or some other weird cope idk I haven't checked weibo

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              you don't understand anon, you should be livid. fuming, even. this is china's revenge for the opium war! waging eugenics warfare against the american population by killing off the weakest of society, or some other weird cope idk I haven't checked weibo

              >it's good that people are dying we didn't need them anyway now we have room for better people
              Holy frick Prigozhin I thought you blew up

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >seamounts
            Do recall that a few months ago a Chinese submarine was lost with all hands after colliding with
            >a fricking rock
            Not only did the CCP lose the boat, they left the crew to die slowly of hypoxia because they lacked the technical resources to mount a rescue operation.

            The chinks are where the US was 60 years ago with the USS Thresher.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they killed 100,000+ of your young Hispanic and black populations via fentanyl

            White people mostly do Coke and Weed Anon, with a dash of meth on the side.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              thats not true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they fricked our most advanced nuclear sub.
            Are the Chinese reduced to stealing credit from an underwater mountain?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh absolutely, you'd have to be blind to not know about the state of several ships in the navy along with our systems to maintain them. Bragging about tonnage will only get us so far until the chinks match us there too. Best not to rest on our laurels but the men running the show are goddamned morons. I'm not saying the Cummault was a perfect ship but it'd've worked out better if congress had kept their fingers out of the program

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      US is already at 200 supply

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    7 more to go to reach parity with the US

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But that's not true, not all US carriers are going to be in the south china sea. Multiple will always have to stay around the mediterranean to protect Israel, so realistically China would only need 4-5 to reach parity with the US.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But that's not true, not all US carriers are going to be in the south china sea. Multiple will always have to stay around the mediterranean to protect Israel, so realistically China would only need 4-5 to reach parity with the US.

      >forgetting all the amphibious assault vessels loaded up with VTOL jets
      yessss silly foreigners, we only have 11 carriers, no need to worry 😀

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Carrier based navies fricking suck, if these morons were smart they'd be spamming the frick out of stealth destroyers.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Carrier based navies fricking suck
      The only significant naval conflicts in over 80 years were won crushingly by a carrier based navy.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The only significant naval conflicts in over 80 years were won crushingly by a carrier based navy.
        so why couldnt a multi-national 50+ nuclear-ship flotilla unfrick a simple canal from the literal last place GDP nation (yemen) on planet earth

        at some point, youre going to have to explain that^

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And what other navy has managed to do so instead?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And what other navy has managed to do so instead?
            none

            what kind of question is this?
            the entire "free world" sent a 50+ ship flotilla of nuclear armed, nuclear propulsed state of the art warships to the region to pacify it #1
            then #2 strike fear into the hearts of any would-be nations that want to have the next go

            there isnt "any other navy" to make such an attempt
            outside of Russia+China or something
            which I have a feeling, if you pissed them off good enough,
            the suez would be open, whether by option,
            or a parralell one blasted next to it

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              And just what exactly would Russia (lol) and China's (lmao) navies do?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >butwutabout
          Chang... we've talked about this

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            sorry airmen, its not 1991

            the threat:
            >"we'll glass you with a carrier strike group, alien invasion even"
            has been humiliated, exposed, "de-pantsed' in front of the world,

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Are you arguing that carriers are useless in the thread about China's plans to build another carrier? Answer carefully, your 80 cents are on the line here.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Are you arguing that carriers are useless
                useless?

                jury's out on that one

                but what it *DOES* look like is,
                the overseas "expeditionary carrier strike group"
                appears to have little to no efficacy against a far flung target
                >reloading
                as it were, is a major problem when attrition resources (drones) cost virtually nothing, but pose major theoretical *threats*

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If they built a battleship that would a flex on the West; just to say, "we have more wealth than you".

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    oh no bros not a fourth carrier!
    now they'll have three carriers in dock doing nothing instead of just two. the west is finished

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They have to at LEAST deploy a carrier to a real op. It doesn’t have to be combat per se, just a real-world op like a cross-ocean voyage showing off their flight ops capabilities, disaster relief, etc and so on, if they want even an “implessive” out of me. Doing a pretend FoNOP through their home waters with all their planes stowed belowdecks does not count.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't they send the Shandong to dickwave in the Indian ocean?

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >carrier 1: sovietscrap
    >carrier 2: direct clone of sovietscrap
    >carrier 3: some shit that hasn't even completed trials nor had any of its problems worked out (when it took them a decade to figure out how to even use the sovietscrap)
    >carrier 4: announced
    implessive

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is this going to be nuclear like they planned or are they sticking with conventional?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yea it's the nuclear one.
      I guess by the "no technical bottleneck" means they figured out how to put a nuclear powerplant inside one?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I guess by the "no technical bottleneck" means they figured out how to put a nuclear powerplant inside one?
        Which is probably built by Chinese standards, and since it’s experimental it’s going to be even more unreliable. Can’t wait for this Chernobyl-of-the-Sea to blow up one day on its own

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          China has been building naval reactors for decades and if they've had any nuclear accidents they weren't as detectable as any of the numerous russian ones lmao

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    TRULY MOST IMPLESSIVE!
    CHINA NUMBA ONE!

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Letting the US get de-industrialized was a passive process; just cut spending and let the money naturally follow peasant labor in Asia. If you want to re-industrialize, that’s a major active process — it’s not just money but also the trade schools, workforce, lost institutional knowledge and strategic machine tools. It’s very doable but it’ll take a lot of money and time, and frankly the US leadership is simply uninterested in any serious investment. If I was the magic king I would make deals with Western nations to make use of their struggling shipbuilding industry as an immediate boost. But if course if I were the magic king the demographic collapse into a low-IQ brown shithole simply has to take priority — which means securing the border and getting rid of a LARGE population of migrants which is now a societal problem at it’s core.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >frankly the US leadership is simply uninterested in any serious investment
      The US leadership is incapable of anything besides short-sighted plunder and kicking the can down the road.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Frankly, that describes most leaders in the Western world.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >frankly the US leadership is simply uninterested in any serious investment.
      have you just not been paying attention the last couple years or something? ever since covid theyve been throwing around a ton of money into domestic industry and supply chains. the chips act and the 3 dozen chip fabs that are being built because of it is just one example
      theyre also planning to reactivate several shipyards with help from korea and japan
      https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/U.S.-seeks-to-revive-idled-shipyards-with-help-of-Japan-South-Korea

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    US carriers are much faster and more reliable

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is the first one even functional yet?

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    uhoh stinky chinky mad

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Impressive.

    Prudence, being one of the foremost virtues of Chinese culture and an inborn power of every cherished son and daughter of China, demands that the PLAAN accelerate its carrier development efforts to at once, best America's non-quantum seacraft and secure China's position as a singular leader in global seafaring. China's carrier development isn't with intention to produce instruments of harm and destruction, but to manufacture the apparatuses with which China will protect the seas and safeguard the world from the marauding navies of America and its minion vassal, Britain.

    It should be emphasized that technological militarism of such manner is fundamentally incompatible with the mores of Chinese culture. However, one should judge current Chinese naval strategy in view of the uniquely urgent threat to global stability that is the west, and it's hellion ringleader, America. Circumstance now demands that China reveal to the world its superior ships, carriers, destroyers and other military seacraft so that she may lie in wait, ready to fearlessly defend the vulnerable nations of world from the monstrosities of western powers. No longer will America and Britain stand as obstacles to an equitable, and dignified multilateralism.

    Only with China's magnanimous quantum leadership will the world usher in an era of harmonious world comity.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Implessive.

    Pludence, being one of the folemost viltues of Chinese cultule and an inboln powel of evely chelished son and daughtel of China, demands that the PLAAN accelelate its calliel development effolts to at once, best Amelica's non-quantum seaclaft and secule China's position as a singulal leadel in global seafaling. China's calliel development isn't with intention to ploduce instluments of halm and destluction, but to manufactule the appalatuses with which China will plotect the seas and safeguald the wolld flom the malauding navies of Amelica and its minion vassal, Blitain.

    It should be emphasized that technological militalism of such mannel is fundamentally incompatible with the moles of Chinese cultule. Howevel, one should judge cullent Chinese naval stlategy in view of the uniquely ulgent thleat to global stability that is the west, and it's hellion lingleadel, Amelica. Cilcumstance now demands that China leveal to the wolld its supeliol ships, calliels, destloyels and othel militaly seaclaft so that she may lie in wait, leady to feallessly defend the vulnelable nations of wolld flom the monstlosities of westeln powels. No longel will Amelica and Blitain stand as obstacles to an equitable, and dignified multilatelalism.

    Only with China's magnanimous quantum leadelship will the wolld ushel in an ela of halmonious wolld comity.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    looking forward to the posts of it sinking in pieces.
    US will use philipine's navy like they're using ukraine's army to destroy chinkland. they're already manufacturing the china philipines war and they'll send lots of new ai powerd naval weapons to fight the war without being at war with chinkland on paper.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Shouldn't they fix the crack in the 3rd one first?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good morning saar

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Carriers seem like a total waste of money for a country whose biggest potential conflict and geopolitical goal is an invasion of a large island right off their coast, that money would be better invested in a much larger air force

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Carriers seem like a total waste of money for a country whose biggest potential conflict and geopolitical goal is an invasion of a large island right off their coast, that money would be better invested in a much larger air force

      https://www.expedia.com/Guam.d70.Destination-Travel-Guides

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *