China has a aircraft carrier! - Page 3




 
--
 
January 25th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
Exactly...just add a ramp to one side and you should be able to run harrieres perfectly!
...and at a fraction of the cost of a regular carrier. Granted, you are limited in range because no nuke power, but it is a small price topay, right? Maybe put dynamo's on all the excersize bikes and let the crew do "mandatory" 4 hours excersize each day! hahaha
January 25th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
you guys are not seeing the big picture here... an aircraft carrier is more than a flat floating surface...It has many other features. It has long range sensors, a flight control systm and crew, mechanical workshops for the planes, AA defence, air-fule tanks for the aircraft and more. a modified cargo ship might be able to carry aircraf, but it's not an aircraft carrier.
January 25th, 2005  
battery
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
you guys are not seeing the big picture here... an aircraft carrier is more than a flat floating surface...It has many other features. It has long range sensors, a flight control systm and crew, mechanical workshops for the planes, AA defence, air-fule tanks for the aircraft and more. a modified cargo ship might be able to carry aircraf, but it's not an aircraft carrier.
I'm sure we understand. The fact remains it's a classified aircraft carrier under China's navy, this topic was meant to be a kick in the pants to everyone who says "China doesn't even have a aircraft carrier". Perhaps now they should say "China has a aircraft carrier... But it's useless".
But you're right sherman...
--
January 25th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Just have it assigned to a high tech warship that will be the command center of the battle group. So basically run all operations off that more sophisticated warship, but have the modified container ship as the flight deck for air operations.
There is no reason why it shouldn't work.

Not as great as having a real aircraft carrier, but for those who cannot afford one, this is a great alternative.
January 25th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
I was acctually refering to this:
Quote:
Exactly...just add a ramp to one side and you should be able to run harrieres perfectly!
...and at a fraction of the cost of a regular carrier. Granted, you are limited in range because no nuke power, but it is a small price topay, right? Maybe put dynamo's on all the excersize bikes and let the crew do "mandatory" 4 hours excersize each day! hahaha
January 25th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
That was just in reference to the structure of the ship - not the electronics and storage of ordnance/fuel. Of course a lot more goes into it. All in all, converting an existing structure (thaere are quite a few older tankers lying about for a a few mil, you can still come out far less than the couple billion dollar tag on a new carrier - but I see your point and agree.
January 25th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
the_13th_redneck - Maybe you are right, but that ship doesn't have any electonics, sensors, C&C abilities or pretty much anything listed. It doesn't have any VTOL aircraft. All it has is 2 helicopter decks. Therefore if you are really going to call it an aircraft carrier, you pretty much have to call any ASW Cruiser or large tanker/container vessel an aircraft carrier also because they can carry helicopters also.

Just because globalsecurity calls it an aircraft carrier doesn't mean I am going to agree with that classification.
January 25th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
I don't know how Global Security got this information. From whom? How? Official and Unofficial reports indicate China lacks an aircraft carrier.

The title of this topic is absolutely ridiculous! Is this some kind of joke?
January 25th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
It was supposed to be apparently.
January 26th, 2005  
Knightraptor
 
Well what its classified is and what it actually IS are two different things. I mean the US has Wasp Class LHDs that carry Harriers and Helos but technically it is not a carrier.