0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
100 $
AUGUST 2021

In Photos: China’s First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Support SouthFront

China’s first domestically-built aircraft carrier – Type 001A – in the port city of Dalian. Type 901 fast combat support ship Hulun can be seen near the aircraft carrier.

In Photos: China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Click to see the full-size image

In Photos: China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Click to see the full-size image

In Photos: China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Click to see the full-size image

In Photos: China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Click to see the full-size image

In Photos: China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Click to see the full-size image

In Photos: China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Click to see the full-size image

In Photos: China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Click to see the full-size image

In Photos: China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Click to see the full-size image

In Photos: China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier In Dalian

Click to see the full-size image

Support SouthFront

SouthFront

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
26 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daniel Miller

Ofc it wold have a ski jump. It has its advantages over catapults.

Peter Moy

Although a ski-jump limits the payload of the J-15 fighter (Chinese version of a Russian Su-33 but with upgraded avionics) it would be interesting to match it against a US F-18 Super Hornet or a French Rafale in air-to-air combat. Just to operate a big aircraft like the J-15/Su-33 from a carrier is an accomplishment. They are almost as large as the former US Navy’s A-3 Sky Warrior (The Whale) and the A-5 Vigilante.

Sinbad2

The Rafale is a Ferrari, the FA18 is a Chevy Nova.
A Mig25 shot down an FA18 in 1991.

Barba_Papa

.It’s cheaper to build and you can launch aircraft without a catapult. Other then that it has zero advantages over catapults. The aircraft have to take off with less fuel and less payload, so less range and ordnance on target. There’s a reason why the next Chinese carriers will be catapults. This one and the existing one are training carriers for the Chinese navy. If you want to project power, as in bomb brown countries, you need to be able to launch aircraft with a decent range and a decent bomb payload.

There was talk of the new Royal Navy carriers also becoming CATOBAR, as the Royal Navy had learned that their skijump equipped Invincible class was pretty much useless. Yes, they did win them the Falklands war, but that was more because their opponents had no sense of strategy, kept their best fighters near Buenos Aires and the rest was operating at the extreme end of its range. If the Argentines had coordinated their forces better, if they had sent their Mirage fighters against the British and if the Argentines had bases closer to the Falklands, either variable could have spelled doom for the British. So the plan was for the new carriers to go CATOBAR and use the F-35C, as that would give the Royal Navy aircraft with longer range and payload. In the end that would have cost 2 billion more, and by that time the British government was desperate to save money. They would have cancelled them if it didn’t cost even more to cancel then to finish them. So the decision was taken to finish the carriers, but with the skijump, as that was the cheapest option. Not the best option, the cheapest option. Short term gain, long term problem.

Daniel Miller

i love how you forget that you can launch 3 aircraft in sucsession form a sky jump then only 2 with a catapult.also the fact that its alot faster and it dosent need steam or electrical power to run.

Sinbad2

Aircraft can carry a bigger payload using a catapult than they can using a ramp.

Daniel Miller

Whats the point if it takes alot longer to launch them?

Sinbad2

What?

Barba_Papa

It’s about tradeoffs, what’s more important when bombing a brown country? Launching three aircraft in quick succession, or two that can carry an actual useful payload and range? I’ll take the latter ANY TIME. The first one only matters somewhat when going up against a first tier opponent, in which case you should be asking yourself WTF that carrier is even doing in that conflict. Catapults, skijumps, doesn’t matter, it would be too vulnerable and to much of a juicy target in such a conflict.

PK

They provide rich targets with 6000 people aboard each.
There are targets and there are submarines.

Barba_Papa

Only when you send that carrier up against a 1st tier opponent. Carriers are for power projection, as in bombing defenseless brown countries. Not for going up against actual 1st tier opponents, the days of the war in the Pacific are over. Maybe that the USN and RN still have such delusions, but I hope that the Russians and Chinese don’t.

In the end its about different jobs. If you need a floating airfield, get the best possible floating airfield. Don’t however make the mistake of sending that floating airfield into actual harm’s way.

Sinbad2

Nothing yet devised can accelerate a plane in such a short distance as a steam catapult.
Although the US is trying to do it electrically.
On my old ship the catapult would accelerate an A4 Skyhawk from zero to 140 knots(260kph) in 60 feet(20 meters).

SFC Steven M Barry USA RET

Nice lines. Clean design. Anybody know how many knots she’ll make?

Harry Smith

Russian wiki says 31 knots

Attrition47

Yes but not everyone. I say “it”.

SFC Steven M Barry USA RET

That’s a decent speed. Thanks. Oh, and ignore the PC commissars. Ships are “she.”

You can call me Al

She always, before the PC brigade got to it a month ago.

FlorianGeyer

The PC madness has now spread to ‘Masters Degrees’ in the US, so the UK will not be far behind :)

You can call me Al

Yes, that is a problem I have, we just follow those fools and arse holes every bloody time; drives me mad.

Harry Smith

Thanks guys!

Sinbad2

Yes ships are always she’s.

Sinbad2

The speed at which China is turning out ships reminds me of the US during WWII.

Make sense

Yes. The speed at which China is arming in general reminds me of the Germans before WW2

Sinbad2

Well they are expecting the US to attack, i wonder how many nukes they really have?

FlorianGeyer

It would be rather fun if the Chinese designated their new ships as Liberty Ships , as the US did with the cargo ships they built in WW2. :)

David Bedford

No wonder America is so worried about the rise of China, within a few years China will have grown so much right around the time that America is in decline for their sanction and tariff war with China and other countries.

26
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x