Views: 145609|Replies: 26

US Nimitz class nuke powered carrier came out in 70s, China needs to catchup [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2018-2-19 19:16:50 |Display all floors
Fast, so far, China still has not capable of producing nuke powered carrier.
The US seventh fleet old carrier USS Carl Vinson , is a Nimitz class, 100k tons nuke powered carrier was constructed in the 70s!
It begun service in 1982.

That's long, !long ago.
China needs to construct its first nuke powered carrier soon. If it waits till 2025, then China is 50 years behind!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2018-2-20 01:19:58 |Display all floors

Tender,

The Admiral Kuznetsov, aka Liaoning, initially, was built as a FLAGSHIP of the SOVIET NAVY and as such the gist behind the planning of this boat just can't be that lacking in purpose and objective when it was built. It is likely thus far in advance of the Nimitz if I am to rate it so no sweat, Tender.

Given the advance standards of Soviet science and engineering at the time and likely the to-detail-plannings of Soviet military strategists when they planned for the Admiral Kuznetsov, the ship has to be at least be in-par with or potentially deadlier to that of the USS NIMITZ which is why there was a degree of fear in the US of the Soviet Navy of the 70's and 80's such that the US will go out of its way to avoid confronting head on any Soviet military apparatus so fear not for the might of the Liaoning.

Now, fowarding this 25 years to an era of Arleigh Burke class Aegis systems, of USS Ronald Reagan, of Bush and Ford class super duper carriers verses China's 052 and 054 Aegis frigates and destryers and China's ''technically 2012 era technology appointed Liaoning class CV, 001A class CV', and an 80 thousand ton (Nimitz tonnage) electro magnetic pulse catapult launch system, the first of its kind on the horizon, and, with sure-kill anti-ship, anti-surface, and ship-to-air missiles to boot, large doesn't necessary mean better or deadlier these days. In fact, they are equally fair game in an era of simply launch and forget as we live today.   

Naturally, if you want to threaten militarily-inefficient countries such as Egypt 70's, Serbia, Iraq, and Libya, militaries that can't hit back at the time as in the case of then China, well yes, larger does mean I won't take no fir an answer. But, if you come face to face with an equal, i.e., as in the Russian arm force Crimea and Syria, or as in the PLA of the present, these Nimitz, Reagan, Bush, and Ford class super dupers simply means nothing to us.



Putin's a killer. This was the claim made by Fox News journalist; Bill O'Reilly during his recent interview with Donald Trump. Trump's reply came in the form of a simple question. What, you think our country's so innocent?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2018-2-20 07:00:10 |Display all floors
Soviet neglected carrier development and put their focus on subs during cold war. Diesel and ski jump are weakness.

China needs nuke powered cruisers, subs, and carriers because oil supply could be tight during war time. Plus they can travel much faster and longer distance without refueling

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2018-2-22 22:42:15 |Display all floors
edisonone Post time: 2018-2-19 09:19
Tender,

The Admiral Kuznetsov, aka Liaoning, initially, was built as a FLAGSHIP of the SOVIET NAV ...



Finally, we're back i. Business...



Innivasions that threatens the best of the best, or so says the BIG NOSES who runs Amerlikas war machine



Look Bostonman, I did not say that. It waz


Elsa B. Kania, an adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security,


a Washington think tank, who said it.






Putin's a killer. This was the claim made by Fox News journalist; Bill O'Reilly during his recent interview with Donald Trump. Trump's reply came in the form of a simple question. What, you think our country's so innocent?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal of honor

Post time 2018-2-23 15:57:26 |Display all floors
Aircraft carriers are obsolete for Christ sake. China doesn't need any. US just has them for industry. US military only exist for industry. China need sub's and lots of them - not aircraft carriers. God. Get it through your heads.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal of honor

Post time 2018-2-23 15:58:44 |Display all floors
Most importantly China needs many troop carrier/cargo sub's for blitzkrieg sea invasion of USA in near future.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

2015 Most Popular Member Medal

Post time 2018-2-25 21:35:25 |Display all floors
HailChina! Post time: 2018-2-22 23:57
Aircraft carriers are obsolete for Christ sake. China doesn't need any. US just has them for industr ...

I'll have to agree with you on this one. Aircraft carriers are giant targets moving no faster than your
average electric scooter. Once you take one out where are all those planes sent up to defend it going to land?
If capitalism promotes innovation and creativity then why aren't scientists and artists the richest people in a capitalist nation?

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.