Videos, Photos: China’s First Home-Built Aircraft Carrier Begins Sea Trials

Donate

On May 13 morning, China’s first domestically-built aircraft carrier set out from a dock of Dalian Shipyard, the province of Liaoning, for maiden sea trials.

According to the Chinese media, the trials are aimed at testing the reliability and stability of the carrier’s power system and other equipment.

The Type 002 is the second aircraft carrier of the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

Videos:

Photos:

Videos, Photos: China's First Home-Built Aircraft Carrier Begins Sea Trials Videos, Photos: China's First Home-Built Aircraft Carrier Begins Sea Trials Videos, Photos: China's First Home-Built Aircraft Carrier Begins Sea Trials

Chinese Naval Aviation: Developing a Viable Carrier Borne Strike Capability

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Prince Teutonic

    Home built but it looks suspiciously like Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier…

    • Joe Dirt

      “Made in China” it will sink in a week.

      • Jesus

        Carriers made in the US will sink in two days.

      • Dr. Pro Liv

        So it will half of US fleet and half of US aviation being made with ready made parts
        “Made in China”

        • Joe Dirt

          Says the foreigner….

          • HighLord Gaz

            Says the dumb-fuck trailer park low-life…

          • Joe Dirt

            block :) have a nice day

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            Says american news report warning about SECURITY risk of “cheap Chinese spare parts” used too much by US military to make savings

    • kraaiiii

      its modelled after Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier but without its flaws

      • as

        By appearances it already inherited it’s flaw which is the ski jump ramps bow. That shape are extremely vulnerable against sea skimming missiles.

        • kraaiiii

          whit a ship this size it really doesn’t matter even a dingie cant escape a homing missile, and most anti ship missile will aim on the centre of the radar cross section

          of the target this usually amounts hitting the ship dead centre which will be close around the engine compartment and command central. the big bow and ski jump will place the radar cross section centre further up front of the ship which could be useful.

          • as

            Well with new material available they don’t have to make the ski jump ramps a fixed armored deck. A transforming ramps would be more flexible for updates or changes.
            And with that shape installing close in weapon system to protect that particular area is complicated.

            When zummwalt picture first available i had thought that the particular shape aren’t only for stealth aspect but also to increase the arc the weapon on the deck can reach to protect the ship. However turned out it don’t even have target acquisition radar. So shape purely for stealth which is debunked myth technology disproved by Serbian.

        • Dr. Pro Liv

          since West has no “sea skimming missiles” and Russians are not threat ….

          • as

            They have them. Although not as fast as the Russian made one.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            Don’t be so shy give us names and how low they can fly….
            or I will not take your claim seriously

          • as

            Excoset missile and Harpoon for a start.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            “For start” :-)) you are joker aren’t you, you must be..
            OK french Excoset
            tell me how your Excoset will come into the range of 70–180 kilometers from that Chinese carrier to be effective?
            Very short range, slow and probably can’t fly very low thus probably easy to shoot down.
            I can’t find how low they can fly.
            Sounds like bollocks to me to consider it a “threat”

            OK Harpoon
            864 km/h now that is more than SLOW!
            124 km range is again very short
            again doesn’t say how LOW it can fly I doubt very much they can get even close to Russian missiles because they are too slow to fly really low
            But even if that nuke sub comes into the range to shoot missile (hardly likely) I find it to be extremely slow like Tomahawk.
            Even a salvo of those missiles can be shot down by automatic cannons from carrier escort

            I am not impressed at all to say the least.
            China has nothing to worry about.
            Maybe you should buy Russian?

          • as

            I’m saying it that they have them.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            OK
            I’ve got that
            Thanks

        • MzUnGu

          Urrr…. The front half of a catapult is “vulnerable against sea skimming missiles” too.

          • as

            That raised the arc even further that it can’t actually look what’s in the front.

      • Dr. Pro Liv

        what flaws?

    • as

      Based on varyag the sister ship.

    • Dr. Pro Liv

      1st Chinese aircraft carrier was Kuznetsov-class bought from Ukraine.
      And this one is copy of the 1st so it is logical that looks like Kuznetsov-class with ski-jump and all..

    • Nigel Maund

      That’s because it is?

  • Joe Dirt

    Only 70 years behind.

    • Jim Bim

      Crawl back to your cave, arrogant moron. Your brain is still underdeveloped. You know nothing about Chinese history and their huge inventions that have contributed to human civilization.

      • Trut Tella

        Yeah, no non-panfaced people would have ever combined saltpetre and sulfur. Except for all those times the Greeks did.

        • as

          Repeater crossbow, fortifications, jung ships, medical cuisines, heavy cavalry, and so on and so on.

          • Jim Bim

            Paper, Printing, Silk, Porcelain, compass, Alcohol, Mechanical Clock, Tea, Umbrella, Acupuncture, Earthquake Detector, Rocket, Row Crop Farming, Toothbrush, Paper Money……….the list goes on and on.

          • Trut Tella

            Lol.

            Repeater crossbows were just another toy, like their shitty little fireworks. Same with everything else. The Chinese have never invented anything that wasn’t a garbage toy. Copy? I grant they can copy human technology, but they can’t invent it.

          • as

            Well for a change they make a hypersonic tunnel testing facility that the west don’t have yet and is ahead according to the western expert in hypersonic technology.

            The world don’t revolves around west civilization.

            I’ll let you know that the greatest admiral in history is Korean. His name is Yi Sun Sin who led a demoralized and outnumbered 10 to 1 Navy to a decisive victory.

          • Trut Tella

            lol.. more chinky chink pretend developments. call me when they build a new city that someone lives in.

          • as

            You never been in China.

          • Attrition47

            Twat

          • Serious

            Americans copied on Germans. Even Saturn V is german.

          • Jim Bim

            No matter inventions, your brain keeps the size of a bean.

          • Tudor Miron

            What have you invented? I Chineas can’t than surely you can. So what is it?

          • Trut Tella

            ching chong ching chong can’t hear you

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            Why don’t you tell that to Japan?
            They were copy shop like China 50 years ago and they were
            not 1.5 billion people !.
            You are dead wrong on that one.

      • Joe Dirt

        That was a low IQ response…block

  • Trut Tella

    And Trump thinks it more important to threaten Iran. Disgusting.

  • as

    I’ll just say it that ski jump ramps bow would invited a sea skimming anti ship missile.

    • Rodger

      If that is the part that’s hit so much the better. The bridge or below the waterline would be much much worse.

      • as

        There’s no point in adoption of flaw. But yes that’s correct. All they need is to keep that particular area an unimportant module for the ship.

      • Dr. Pro Liv

        good comment

        • Rodger

          They’ll develop something now one of their ‘enemies’ is building carriers. Then they’ll export those and every little pet dictatorship of theirs will be able to blow both US (with some Chinese or Russian tweak pack) and Chinese carriers out of the water. But as the Chinese only build these things to keep the US committed to an outdated weapons system…

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            Agree.

            “Chinese only build these things to keep the US committed to an outdated weapons system…”

            And to spread around on second chain of Islands and South China sea I guess. To get AAD against US fleet.

          • Rodger

            I think they just build these so the first US attack wave will be directed on places where no Chinese live and that have no economic value. They are decoys like the carriers. After the US hits and doubtlessly destroys these island forts the Chinese can counter strike with subs, sub-drones and big missiles. I’m sure China has already determined the best place for the US to attack these things from and has left nasty surprises there waiting on the seafloor.
            Just one of these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval) if they hit will put a carrier out of the fight. And if they are shot almost straight up there are no viable countermeasures.
            And if they do want to attack the Chinese mainland and ignore the island forts they will have sailed into a killing zone. It’s pretty solid defensive thinking by the Chinese. They won’t get successfully sneak attacked by sea anytime soon.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            Interesting read…thanks.
            Why Shkval?
            It is Soviet-Russian torpedo not sold to China as far as I know?
            Iran has made some copy does that mean that China got it from Ukraine?
            I’m not military and tactics are not my cup of tea so this is all new for me.

          • Rodger

            It’s an old design so I’m sure China has the skills to build something like it. Any very fast moving torpedo to reduce the window in which the carrier can react would do the trick.

          • Jens Holm

            Let me remind You that goes both ways. So its a matter of filling up patterns.

          • Rodger

            China has nothing to gain by attacking. They are already winning the economic war.

          • Jens Holm

            I dont see USA are doing like that at all. They guard drones and many other things direct from USA.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            I didn’t say for drones. Many parts are top secret but many are not.
            It is fact that US used to buy all electronic parts from China …now they don’t do that…too dangerous

        • Jens Holm

          If so, they probatly will send several from all directions at the same time.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            “Harpoon” 864 km/h range 124 km is joke not serious danger!
            Very slow and very short range for carrier group that has
            500 km denial zone.
            US aircraft carrier even bigger I guess…
            So even if one nuke attack sub sneaks in the shooting range it has limited number of missiles to put in serious danger aircraft carrier
            Every carrier has support ships with many automatic canons and AA missiles at their disposal ” from all directions” to shoot the “Harpoon’s”down

    • Jens Holm

      Haha – and it bwteen the rest of the ship and made by steel, it will protect it ?

      To me there are too much talk about aircraft. Kutznetof of today is no aircraft carrier, but can be used as such.

  • Serious

    Now, even China has more aircraft carriers than Russia !!

    I told you that Russia will do nothing with all the european money of oil and gas.

    Normally, Russia should have at least 3 modern aircraft carriers.

    Like Americans say “Tanks don’t fly”. Russia lacks military projection. That’s why Russia is loosing the war in Syria.

    • Tudor Miron

      “That’s why Russia is loosing the war in Syria”(c) – You should have started with this noncense and that would save us time (not reading the rest)

      • Serious

        Russians don’t want to understand that they are loosing in Syria, they have lost in Ukraine, …… They don’t want to change to reverse the situation.

        It’s like trying to talk with Sunnis. You can repeat 1 billion times that they are stupid and that they are loosing everywhere, they will never ever understand because they don’t want to understand.

        What I can see is that Russia has no goals. Russia only wants some countries to stay with Russia while Russia wants to join the west gang. It doesn’t work and will never work. In the same way, sunnis have no goals. They want people to convert to sunnism to be part of their massive failure while most of the sunnis want to join the west gang as well.

        Both failures. Failures because it is designed to fail.

    • Rodger

      Russia also has no chariots or catapults. Aircraft carriers in these days are just huge expensive targets.

  • Rob

    Well done China. God bless you. Don’t stop keep it up and produce more.
    America and Israel both are notorious terrorist states. I don’t know how the world communities let them to produce and keep Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and its delivery systems for the killing of world humanity. I think the world community is totally powerless. This is not democracy.

    • as

      Democracy can only works if their population actively engaged in it’s political process. Left to people who have no interest or too shortsighted to see it’s future course and you’ll see something like same sex marriage as what they called ‘progressive’.

      • Attrition47

        Blaming the victims? Democracy means that other peoples’ decisions are none of your business. As for participation, name a state that wants the public involved in its affairs and I’ll buy you a pint.

        • as

          What victims ? The model of democracy supposed to be that people can change the state affairs not the other way around. I don’t say democracy is worse than the other governmental system only there’s big flaw to it. Scratch that that if it’s not Democratic it’ll be Communism. You can actually adopted balance between the two or a newer system altogether.

          • Attrition47

            Name seven democracies.

          • as

            Most NATO were Democratic wasn’t it ?

          • Attrition47

            List seven

          • as

            Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, DPRK, Saud Arabia, Qatar. I can only list five sorry.

          • Attrition47

            They have elections, which isn’t the same as having democratic elections, as you will have noticed if you live in Britain or America.

          • as

            Which kind of Democratic election that would be most effective do you think ? As demonstrated by French a nobody like Macron can be an eligible candidate or like the US long mired in scandals and implications Trump can be a candidates. That in my opinion is a ruse and certainly a flaws.
            In my opinion candidates have to have history in building up something remarkable for his country and unfortunately only those from bureaucracy can notably easier to do so which mean from the circle of power can make it easier to present candidate.

          • Attrition47

            Election to equal the votes of 50% of the electorate plus a minimum of one extra vote.

          • as

            No i mean how they screen the candidate and the voters so as to make the process an actual relevant voting. In my opinion clueless and halfhearted voters should be counted separately with the other voters that do following the election process.

    • Joe Dirt

      CCP is an atheist party. They will not accept Gods blessings.

  • paul ( original )

    I do wonder if aircraft carries might not end up being like Dreadnought
    battleship in WW1. A lot of effort was invested by both sides but in
    the end they played only a small part in the conflict. The thing is I
    can see if the intention is to go round the world dominating small
    countries with not much in the way of a navy then these ships might
    be part of the plan. But I don’t think that is China’s intention. I
    can only see them wanting to interest themselves in the neighbouring
    islands adjacent to its shore line. So may be some carries might be
    needed but I don’t see them tring to compete with the USA, nor do I
    think they need to.

    • as

      Some sort of carrier that can carry controllable (manned or otherwise) aircraft to be used to monitor and protect the national interest do necessary for the increasingly interconnected world. It just have to answer the vulnerability of such type.

    • Rodger

      I think they are redundant already against the bigger players. One possibility is that China builds a few because it knows the US will build 2 or 3 for every one they build.

    • kraaiiii

      yes the future lies in drone carriers equipped whit suicide drones and the normal ones and only a refilling crew for ammo and fuel

      • Jens Holm

        I kind of agree. We know drones and other stuff replaces other stuff.

        But still You have to compare with, what You are up against.

    • Serious

      I don’t think so. China aim to secure their commercial lines and own interests in the future. That’s why they build a military base in Djibouti. China is making long term plan and has a strategy. China needs very big improvments but they have the will.

    • Attrition47

      As the Washington barbarians have shown, they are useful flag wavers and good for air support to armies involved in colonial repression.

      • Jens Holm

        And You figt hard against war ?

        • Attrition47

          I don’t fight at all, I’m civilised. I might be persuaded to go to occupied Palestine with me old Lee Enfield though….

    • Barba_Papa

      China still needs to secure its supply lines to the oil fields of the Middle East and the raw materials from Africa. India sits along that supply line. So China needs to be able to project power in the Indian Ocean.

      • paul ( original )

        I am sure you are correct. I don’t myself know enough about naval warfare to judge if aircraft carriers are what you use to protect sea lanes. It could be I just don’t know enough.

        • Jens Holm

          None knows many real facts about it.

        • testera

          In order to protect sea lanes you need combined fleet. Chinese are set to build big and powerfull navy, and aircraft carriers are just one part of it.

      • Joe Dirt

        one belt one road: “connecting China and the world”

      • Jens Holm

        Against who ?

        • Barba_Papa

          Against whoever gets it in their minds that they want to cut China’s access to those areas of the world. The US and India most likely.

    • frankly

      It is not about winning an actual world war or any particular battle. It is about making money. Big ships are the most expensive item on any ticket. I would say they are the biggest symbol of Imperial Ambition. It literally means we will destroy you. If the world got together, built 5 carriers and sent them to attack the US, what would they send to defend themselves? Fast Attack Submarines.
      So the argument of who is the most aggressive nation? Who has the most aircraft carriers? End of discussion.

  • Nigel Maund

    This ship is a transitional phase of development to the first real 21st Century carrier as the PLAN learn Carrier Strategy, Tactics and Operations. Thereafter, the third carrier will challenge US Gerald Ford class – just watch and see. The Chinese are very quick learners and are working to their usual long term plan. They want to ensure the US is quite literally pushed out of the South China Sea. This is merely a matter of “when” not “if”.

    • as

      That explain raw adoption of it’s design ? Well yes i think they’d learn something vital after operating 2 identical ships at the same time.

      • Nigel Maund

        They may seem identical on the outside, but look more carefully

        • as

          That fixed ramps can be substituted into transforming one for a start so it can quickly get update or changes. No need to make it’s whole hull forms into one.

          • Nigel Maund

            Agreed. The UK mini – carriers of the Ark Royal class used ramps which was a British idea. The two new Queen Elizabeth carriers employ a lot of the technology that went into the Nimitz and Gerald Ford class super-carriers and will carry 40 F-35’s when they get built!! The Chinese are probably 15 to 20 years behind the US in carrier design but have a remarkable ability to play catch up just like the Japanese did in the 1930’s. The US have been the leaders in carrier operations and design since 1942.

  • You can call me Al

    “According to the Chinese media, the trials are aimed at testing the reliability and stability of the carrier’s power system and other equipment.”…….. wow, that is what they do in testing !!!.

    It does look a beast of a ship though, well done China.

  • Valentian

    It is not ‘Type 002’, but first (of 2 contracted) ‘Type 001A’, based on Kuznetsov-class aircraft cruiser (Kuznetsov are not pure unarmed ‘carrier’…).

    This one, with hull No. CV-17, and possible name ‘Shandong’ , is built in Dalian, and second of this class is currently build in Shanghai. Although, some say that in Shanghai is not under construction second of this class, but first of ‘Type 002’ class….

    So, with these two home-made aircraft carrier they will achieve goal to have three conventional aircraft carrier group by 2020 – for each of China’s Navy fleet.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150418171253/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20131211000053&cid=1101

    ‘Type 002’ aircraft carrier will be larger (55,000 > 85,000), without ski-jump ramp (i.e. fully CATOBAR), little smaller than Nimitz-class carrier, and possibly conventionally powered. According to that, next ‘Type 003’ class, will be ‘real’ super-carrier and nuclear-powered.

    • Nigel Maund

      Good commentary and correct!

  • frankly

    Two ships in the Navy; Submarines and targets. Large, expensive, symbolic, empty gesture. The reason the US built bases all around the world is they know in a real war their carrier based planes with their precious pilots will need somewhere else to land as all the carriers will be Gandhi.

    Hate to see this sort of useless expenditure, more about ego than reality. Russians launched a nice small missile frigate last week, still vulnerable but you can probably build 20 of them for the cost of one carrier. Never mind crew and maintenance. Pilots are expensive, the future is drones and missiles.

  • Vitex

    The phrase “putting all your eggs in one basket” comes to mind :)