Will It be better than the French Aircraft Carrier?

Will It be better than the French Aircraft Carrier?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why did they leave the last bit of the landing strip unpainted, It's really getting into my autism

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why are they leaving that last bit of the landing strip unpainted?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/4PKruQI.png

      Why are they leaving that last bit of the landing strip unpainted?

      Because the edge is slanted. This way it begins from the same spot on both sides. It would be dangerous otherwise, because one side would have more room than the other but appear to be the same on approach.

      At least that's what my guess is.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most definitely. China is an actual emerging USA class superpower, not a regional power like France.

    The real question is, when will Chinese buildup trigger the US to once again think in terms of Cold War era megaprojects to keep up?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not a chance. Chinks have no real institutional knowledge with regards to carrier design or operation. Whereas the Frogs have been building and operating carriers since prior to WWII.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Whereas the Frogs have been building and operating carriers since prior to WWII.
        bearn was a useless piece of shit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone talks about institutional knowledge but there are a lot of cases historically, especially in terms of naval history, where emerging naval powers have outfought, pound for pound, established naval powers. Germans barely even had a navy before 1900 and yet overperformed in the only major naval engagement of the First World War. Similar story in WWII, while the British were able to overwhelm the Germans with numbers (and later radar-FCS systems), there were a number of early humiliations the Germans put the British through. It's good to have institutional knowledge but it can also lead to overconfidence and complacency, and institutional knowledge can be developed very quickly.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Chinks have no real institutional knowledge with regards to carrier design or operation
        You're stuck in early 90s. They've operated some bought soviet shit, then built a new one based on the same design.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >whatever chinks do for the first time is better than anything westerners have been perfecting for half a century
      aha

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Implessive

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      100日元 have transitioned toward your bank bill, netizen Wi Jua

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Vely implessive!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think regarding everything but propulsion, the Type 003, due to the use of electromagnetic instead of steam catapults, is basically going to be a mix between what the CVF-FR, aborted project for a CATOBAR QE class named PA2 in France, should have been, and what a CVN-78 is.
      I doubt the Chinese will have improved upon anything regarding operations.
      I also think the autonomy of such a ship will be limited due to boilers needing to burn immense amounts of fuel to produce the electricity needed to operate three EMALS-like catapults.
      Therefore the autonomy of this ship will be counted not in days or nautical miles, but in numbers of launches at sea before refueling.
      This proves this ship won't be truly expeditionary.
      The Chinese nevertheless thoroughly studied how mainly the USA (and incidentally France) use their nuclear CATOBAR carriers, and probably came to terms with the idea ramps are dumb given their needs.
      Their next Type 004 carrier will be the same as 003 except nuclear, at which point they will truly become an expeditionary blue water navy if air operations are mastered, and if they can make more than one of these carriers.

      China can't be a worldwide power without nuclear carriers. France has only one, and will only make a single new one, but it has one.

      Not a chance. Chinks have no real institutional knowledge with regards to carrier design or operation. Whereas the Frogs have been building and operating carriers since prior to WWII.

      >Whereas the Frogs have been building and operating carriers since prior to WWII
      Don't forget to mention the catapult and angled deck was a British idea anon. which only makes the royal navy's abandonment of this concept more disappointing.
      However the mostly definitive idea of what the aircraft carrier itself should look like, of its general layout and operations, with elevators, flat deck, island, and so on, was first theorized in France before WW1.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do you see a possibility of PA-NG getting a sister ship?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I have no idea but I would say no.
          Two PANG equal two carrier groups, with jets, frigates, submarines, supply ships. With crews. This is much more costly than just the ship.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wouldn't they be using the same battle group since they go in port for so long?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              French carrier maintenance is so long precisely because there's only one : every swing by the drydock counts, so we have to make it as thorough as possible so that we don't need to do it again for as long as possible.
              For us to get two carriers we would need
              1. Money to build the carrier, its air group and escort, which means
              -1.a stop being in debt
              -1.b allocate more of the budget to defense instead of welcoming migrants who hate us, pensions for useless deluded boomers and nogs/arabs living off social welfare for several decades while dealing drugs on the side, and salaries for lazy leftist teachers/civil servants and senators/deputies who don't even stand in session
              -1.c that this hypothetical increased defense budgets favors naval expansion over buying more ammo, modernizing existing capabilities or supporting Ukraine
              2. More people to crew all that. The Navy is the branch of the French armed forces that has the least difficulty to recruit, but :
              - 2.a that would be an absolutely massive ammount of people to find and train, and you would need the absolute best
              - 2.b what's more difficult than recruiting is getting people to re-enlist and for that you would need to improve the pay, the living conditions in barracks, in other words compete with the private sector
              3. Time
              That's a lot of hops to jump through. 2 might be solved by the reintroduction of conscription, which polls indicate more and more people including youths are in favor, but 1 and 3 are sadly here to stay unless we get a new De Gaulle or Bonaparte style "larger than life leader coming out of nowhere in our time of need" character

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thx for effort postinv

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                france has tried the sea game in the past more then once. Its been a near failure almost every time

                France is a land nation with its military needs directed towards it. Just because now there is an illusion of peace on continental euro means its infinite and cant shatter just as easily. Burgers are in a pretty obvious decline phase with a isolationist tendency and its only a question of time before they see europe as a second or third rate theater.

                Historically everybody whos primary needs are land based trying to play the naval game has ended up with a giant black hole sucking up limited resources and finally in complete failure. Only those whose home is surrounded by protective sea have a priority importance for naval capacity

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >land nation, innit?
                Nigel, please.
                >only country in Europe except Spain to have both Mediterranean and Atlantic coastlines
                >CMA CGM, the second largest shipping company in the world, headquartered in Marseille
                >second biggest EEZ in the world
                Being an island doesn't make you a sea power, political will and not being landlocked do.
                You yourself became a sea power not because you were an island and that's what you had to do, to support your trade and colonial empire, and that sea power vanished along with your trade and colonies. Your "protective sea" didn't reassure you enough for you not to build coastal forts (and not a navy) in panic every time a big power appeared on the continent
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-invasion_preparations_of_1803%E2%80%9305
                https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09592296.2022.2113255
                There's even an entire genre of little gay fanfictions in which you fantasize about the continental BVLL landing on your virgin white cliffs of Dover, you naughty slags
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_literature

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >writes kino fanfiction about losing because they can only be invaded in wild fantasies
                based

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                France encompasses 12 time zones.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The uk has more

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                [...]

                ://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/time-zone-by-country
                Nope, also, France has 13 time zones, 2 more than any other state on the planet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      OH HERROW PREASE, YEW WAN EAT DOG ANDU SHIT FROM SEWER?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      US Will be new Soviet Union in that mega weapon projects race will lead to its bankruption as well as dissolvement. Already seeing with hypersonic arms race and race to 6 gen airplane abilities

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Already seeing with hypersonic arms race and race to 6 gen airplane abilities
        ^THIS

        the US's failure to secure hypersonic, "below the horizon" missiles begat a strategic defeat that saw the middle east, far east and eastern europe unravel virtually instantly, when Iran/China/Russia understood the severity of US incompetence

        the Gen-6 is even more foolish, because the US never even got its 5th gens fully functioning or full mission capability
        its literally pointless

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          USA doesn’t have any real competition in 5th gen. No matter how bad you think the f35 was, there are no competitors that are even playing in the same league

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hilarious thirdie cope. F-35 is the only mass produced 5th gen in the world.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you count the USAs attempt at 5th gen a failure then no one has a 5th gen plane. So then “gen 6” would just be the real 5th gen.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >emerging
      >has the demographics of a dying country
      sure...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Most definitely. China is an actual emerging USA class superpower

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That’s their goal but even China knows that they’re very far away from that level.
      If this carrier works as planned, they’ll still be far behind.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >US megaproject to keep up
      While i think the idea of China matching the US is silly the idea of the US going full ham and connecting the Mississippi river to the Columbia River via a massive series of locks and tunnels to facilitate trade gets me super hard.
      On the Columbia side of the river you can get pretty far already Lewiston, Idaho being a port city with ocean access. but if you take a fork a bit in front of Spokane and add some massive locks on that river as well as widening and deepening as needed you can get all the way to Flathead lake in Montana this route does have the slightly massive issue of the river passing into Canada and there being 2 dams you'd need locks at in canada to get all the way through. Issue being that at that point despite being 100~ miles from the mouth of the Missouri you've got the Continental divide in the way.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Alternatively they go the Snake River Route at Lewiston, probably viable economically? it'd go past Boise, Idaho Falls and twin Falls, gets them closer to the Missouri river and is entirely within the US

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >China is an actual emerging USA class superpower

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      China does not have parity with the United Kingdom.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If they can closely copy American carriers which they are obviously trying to do, then yes it will be better than the French carrier. They won't have a fricking clue on how to effectively operate naval aviation though. China has no actual combat experience and are clueless from a strategic and tactical level.

    Another problem China has with all of their tech is although they may create a reasonable facsimile of a Western ship/aircraft/weapon, because they are incapable of their own original thought and innovation, they will always be behind playing catch-up when the West moves on to a new generation/technology. The only thing China has as an advantage is population size and sheer numbers of manpower and weapons.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >China has no actual combat experience and are clueless from a strategic and tactical leve
      white monkeys can teach them the basics and not much can they do about experience except get into a minor war with Vietnam. I wouldn’t underestimate them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What "actual combat experience" does any Western military have against an enemy that isn't pissant tribals and urban militias? The last time any of them fought a war against actual military formations was in 2003, and the US AAR's indicate that the Iraqi Army mostly dissolved without a fight and the air force and navy were all but nonexistent, so the only time they've fought a war against large military formations was in 1991, and everyone with that experience has been retired for 10 or 20 years, and those were against forces that were vastly numerically and technologically inferior. The last time any of these countries have fought a near-peer adversary was Korea or WWII depending on how you want to label it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        asking this question means you are thoroughly ignorant and not worth speaking to other than to mock.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, so there's a major conventional war that the US has fought since the Gulf War? Lobbing missiles at tribals and thirdies with no fear of retaliation is not combat experience, it's practically military exercises.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >what experience do you have other than these massive conventional wars

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              If we get to count experience of retired people then that goes for China too. The Sino-Vietnamese War was significantly larger than the Gulf War. You can lose institutional knowledge if you don't use it and you can gain institutional knowledge quite rapidly, the US itself gained institutional knowledge of military affairs very rapidly during the Second World War.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >If we get to count experience of retired people
                Those 2LT's from OIF are in their late 30's now.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The opening of the Iraq War was 21 years ago, and it was against an enemy whose air force was virtually nonexistent and even whose artillery and SAM forces never even attempted to fight. There were few engagements in which the Iraqi forces ever even returned effective fire. That's technically a conventional war, but it's against an opponent that's so inferior it may as well not be.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The opening of the Iraq War was 21 years ago,
                As I said....

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                More like 40's and 50's bro. They're colonels and BGs now.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Are you saying the US didn't have the know-how to fight a war until 1939?
                Also, stop it with the comparisons to the past, modern wars are exceptionally complicated and laboured events.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                George C Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army in 1939, certainly thought so, he said that the US "did not even have a fourth rate army"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >person is complaining that he doesn't have enough resources to his job
                hmmm

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not just resources, no experience, leadership that was simply dismissive of innovations in warfare, etc. etc. One of the first reforms implemented when Marshall took over in 1939 was to forcibly retire much of the senior officer corps because it was useless. The US Army in particular was just not a good force with virtually no experience against a conventional adversary. It had only even briefly fought in the First World War and even that required its troops to receive training from a foreign military. The fact it had so few resources is indicative of allowing what institutional knowledge it did possess atrophy. It was smaller than the Bulgarian military and had less real world military experience. The US Army from 1939 went from a glorified police force for the colonies into one of the most professional and best-organized forces in the world by 1945. The US didn't even *have* a professional army at the turn of the century, it was a bunch of militias recruited by randos effectively deputized and given guns, the Spanish humiliated them in Cuba man for man., some of the battles there the US came out looking Africa tier compared to the Spanish.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                WW2 isn't comparable to modern warfare.

                >Chinks have no real institutional knowledge with regards to carrier design or operation
                You're stuck in early 90s. They've operated some bought soviet shit, then built a new one based on the same design.

                Yeah, the chief staff of the Russian Kuzy class carrier, the one, went on a diplo trip to an US carrier and they were stunned by the sortie rate and general capability of the carrier ... thing is, that carrier was America class.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Doesn't have to be, the point is that you can gain institutional knowledge very quickly, and much of that institutional knowledge about the fundamentals like supply, logistics, organizing, etc. is very similar even if the combat isn't.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think you make a lot of good points, and im not the anon you were responding to with them, however I do have to interject here that these changes require some form of professional introspection, as well as admission of error, with a critical and impartial approach to improvement. I would argue that these qualities are fundamentally opposed to authoritarian regimes with their routine micro management, nepotism, and sycophantic leadership. To that end I wouldn't be expecting an american, ww2 tier glow up any time soon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >require some form of professional introspection, as well as admission of error, with a critical and impartial approach to improvement
                >these qualities are fundamentally opposed to authoritarian regimes
                Good way of putting it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this is probably why every single US weapon system developed after 1990 has been a catastrophic, near economy-collapsing failure

                everything you summarized from that post applies to post 1990 American MIC

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It’s frustrating when people spazz out when you so much as mention the navy is beyond fricked. It’s measurable reality that within two generations the US basically won’t even know what makes a ship buoyant,

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think generally you're right, but the PRC and ML states in-general tend to be much more self-critical and inwardly focused on their political culture. Both the PRC and USSR essentially rebuked and reversed most of the policies of their original leadership, and while political purges in both states were not as anti-corruption as claimed and about securing power, they still did have the benefit of creating a culture in which officials are vulnerable and fear retaliation for hiding frickups (see what happened to the mayor of Wuhan)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Read the project for a New American Century and now understand that the only countries with similar experience are Ukraine and Russia, who are in both cases operating at home with minimal supply chain problems. Next consider the standard Ukie kit is based off of 2 decades of study of war in various sandboxes. After that consider that the CASEVAC for Ukies is far quicker than Russia's and that the Russian military while gaining experience is now operationally handicapped and stuck rebuilding many core components with a shrinking population and economy

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Project for a israelite American Century

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What "actual combat experience" does any Western military have against an enemy that isn't pissant tribals and urban militias?
        the answer is "none"
        depsite what shit brained

        asking this question means you are thoroughly ignorant and not worth speaking to other than to mock.

        has to say about it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What "actual combat experience" does any Western military have

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not a chance. Chinks have no real institutional knowledge with regards to carrier design or operation. Whereas the Frogs have been building and operating carriers since prior to WWII.

      This is all cope.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >because they are incapable of their own original thought and innovation
      I think it is increasingly a thing of the past already.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, its EMALS system does not work and cannot possibly work with a conventional steam turbine, and China has no plans for a nuclear reactor, so it will never have functional catapults capable of reasonable launch rates as the EMALS cannot recharge energy fast enough for sustained flight operations
    TL;DR propaganda scrap heap that will launch a J-15 for chink propaganda videos approximately once a month

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wait a fricking second...
      It isn't nuclear?!?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not many countries are willing to go nuke. It requires a mature existing contained reactor design, existing refuel training and check in, and a lot of money. Many countries attempt ideas similar but find the cost so much and their mission profile so different than the USN that it doesn't make sense. Case in point Chink subs are diesel electric because they operate in greenwater and even if they didn't they have no ability to service them outside the SCS. Whereas the USN has multiple US bases, several RN bases and multiple joint command bases where other countries will allow stopovers. Additionally USN has been operating with a long reach since 1920 and many of the decisions have been forward thinking of that. China conversely has many small neighbors that jeopardize their regional potential and lots of reason to be concerned at home. Also a good chunk of their naval institutions, knowledge and designs were done based off of Soviet ones and the Soviet Navy is a disaster worthy of a complete history course.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I guess that makes sense but I will still use this information to BTFO wumao.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The type004 will be nuclear supposedly (the one after this). I’m not certain what’s taking them so long either

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not having a suitable nuclear reactor to power such a large ship. The french used a nuclear sub reactor for their carrier, that's why It's so small (LHD size)

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ching chongs dont even know why they need that thing in the first place. lack of directionless doctrine and just copying it because burgers do it does not make for a coherent navy structure. it aint even nuclear FFS which means over half of its capacity will be sacrificed to carry fuel around

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >this thread again
    Year 9 of Fujian construction.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Will It be better than the French Aircraft Carrier?

    Because it is based off stolen American blueprints.... so yes.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The USA with its huge navy needs to spend huge amounts just to maintain the current size with all the maintenance and replacement.
    How much bigger do you think China’s navy will get before they reach the break even point where maintenance and replacements takes up all their capacity?

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