That'd be an absolute disaster waiting to happen. Too bad this is just bullshit propaganda. :lol:
http://chinadailymail.com/2013/10/07/china-developing-180000-ton-double-hull-aircraft-carrier/
QuoteChina developing 180,000-ton double-hull aircraft carrier
Posted by chankaiyee2 ⋅ October 7, 2013 ⋅ 4 Comments
Qianzhan.com said in its report yesterday: China has to put an end to its old practice of following others countries' footsteps.
Sources say that through meticulous engineering and mechanical analysis, China will conduct research and development of the first 180,000-ton double hull aircraft carrier in the world.
If successful, it will be a movable Chinese territory with maritime hegemony.
It will have a huge capacity, capable of carrying 125 J-20 fighter jets enough to destroy any existing aircraft carrier in the world.
Sources say that China conducts research into a 180,000-ton double hull aircraft carrier because compared with a monohull aircraft carrier, it has exceptional advantages.
A double hull carrier may have two identical runways for simultaneous taking off and landing.
In addition the diagonal runway on the existing Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is too short to be free of the risk of crash.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4CTh0jS.jpg&hash=5eb889adc160ecd069f4d89c660de889d218f542) (http://imgur.com/4CTh0jS)
Ah man, thought you'd found my scoop for today, but can't find any single piece of corroborating evidence. :(
Makes it thrice as expensive and twice as likely to sink.
Well, they're sort of developing it, the same way the Japanese were developing the Super Yamato battleships or the British developed the N3-class ships.
Can you imagine trying to maneuver such a pig? You'd be hard-pressed to avoid hitting whole continents.
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 07:31:54 AM
Can you imagine trying to maneuver such a pig? You'd be hard-pressed to avoid hitting whole continents.
I doubt it handles all that much worse than a supertanker. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 03:43:23 AM
If successful, it will be a movable Chinese territory with maritime hegemony.
Happy funtime hegemony!
Some SSN skipper is surfing the Internet, ran across that news story and was admitted to sickbay with a MASSIVE BONER.
Pic needs GI Joes on the flight deck.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3396%2F3630892897_961037e028_o.jpg&hash=efdb637ffe7fa389ebfe55a6b34e6f2da9e7387b)
Strange its the China daily, reads more like the kind of thing the right wing American press would come up with to say "MOAR MILITARY MONEYS!"
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2013, 08:19:31 AM
Strange its the China daily, reads more like the kind of thing the right wing American press would come up with to say "MOAR MILITARY MONEYS!"
It's the China Daily Mail, not China Daily. Big difference.
I can see the 'logic' behind this, when the US Navy splits it in two, they can say "ha ha, now we have two aircraft carriers". :cool:
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2013, 07:38:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 07:31:54 AM
Can you imagine trying to maneuver such a pig? You'd be hard-pressed to avoid hitting whole continents.
I doubt it handles all that much worse than a supertanker. :lol:
It will have more HP per ton (and some better turning moment because of props in both hulls) but will have far, far more sail area per submerged area than a supertanker, and far more inertia. Tonnage is more than triple that of the largest supertanker.
HP isn't key, AC is.
Probably fall apart outside of dock anyway. Or transform into a robot.
Aircraft carriers are 20th century weapons anyway.
Quote from: Zanza on October 11, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Aircraft carriers are 20th century weapons anyway.
True. So are assault rifles, airplanes, and hand grenades. All of them, and carriers as well, are also 21st-century weapons.
Quote from: Zanza on October 11, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Aircraft carriers are 20th century weapons anyway.
You need somewhere to launch your drones from.
Quote from: Zanza on October 11, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Aircraft carriers are 20th century weapons anyway.
If we had air bases in every friggin country then we wouldn't need aircraft carriers.
But then you would bitch about American expansionism and imperialism.
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2013, 08:19:31 AM
Strange its the China daily, reads more like the kind of thing the right wing American press would come up with to say "MOAR MILITARY MONEYS!"
:huh:
Quote from: mongers on October 11, 2013, 08:36:19 AM
I can see the 'logic' behind this, when the US Navy splits it in two, they can say "ha ha, now we have two aircraft carriers". :cool:
Good point. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2013, 04:15:18 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2013, 08:19:31 AM
Strange its the China daily, reads more like the kind of thing the right wing American press would come up with to say "MOAR MILITARY MONEYS!"
:huh:
Don't pay attention to Tyr.
He lives in his own fantasy world.
Quote from: Siege on October 11, 2013, 04:20:55 PM
Don't pay attention to Tyr.
He lives in his own fantasy world.
I would be interested to know what sources inform his views of America.
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 01:33:35 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 11, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Aircraft carriers are 20th century weapons anyway.
True. So are assault rifles, airplanes, and hand grenades. All of them, and carriers as well, are also 21st-century weapons.
Grenadiers?
Quote from: mongers on October 11, 2013, 04:54:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 01:33:35 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 11, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Aircraft carriers are 20th century weapons anyway.
True. So are assault rifles, airplanes, and hand grenades. All of them, and carriers as well, are also 21st-century weapons.
Grenadiers?
There were grenadiers in the 20th century.
I saw that deletion Mongers. I SEE ALL.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2013, 04:57:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 11, 2013, 04:54:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 01:33:35 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 11, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Aircraft carriers are 20th century weapons anyway.
True. So are assault rifles, airplanes, and hand grenades. All of them, and carriers as well, are also 21st-century weapons.
Grenadiers?
There were grenadiers in the 20th century.
Well, they are also a 18th century weapon. Maybe even earlier. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2013, 04:57:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 11, 2013, 04:54:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2013, 01:33:35 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 11, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Aircraft carriers are 20th century weapons anyway.
True. So are assault rifles, airplanes, and hand grenades. All of them, and carriers as well, are also 21st-century weapons.
Grenadiers?
There were grenadiers in the 20th century.
Well, they are also a 18th century weapon. Maybe even earlier. ;)
Yeah, but the grenade was still a weapon used in the 20th century. grumbler's whole point was that just because a weapon was used a while back doesn't mean that we should hold it in disdain.
I've often felt that restarting B-29 production and deploying them to occupied Araby would quickly put an end to their folly. It worked for Trenchard.
They'd ram those B-29's and knock themselves out of the sky.
On what, pogo sticks?
Fuckers couldn't even crash an EP-3.
I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2013, 08:18:02 PM
I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.
You think those things could reach the B-29s altitude? I tend to think not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2013, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2013, 08:18:02 PM
I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.
You think those things could reach the B-29s altitude? I tend to think not.
I'm not sure what the max altitude is on a stinger. Still, I'm sure the Russians, Chinese or some US company would have something that could handle the B-29.
Anything that's heat seeking would actually be more effective against a jet aircraft than a piston-powered plane.
The point is that you can lose one a day and it's, like, no big deal.
Max range of a Stinger is something around 17,000 feet, btw (and they have UV sensors as well as IR, but I imagine that's even less useful against a piston engine aircraft).
The Original Stealth Fighter
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-gGL8nxQ52y0%2FUJOkNiqCHDI%2FAAAAAAAABsk%2FXf9BWUc4T9k%2Fs320%2FThe%2Bde%2BHavilland%2BMosquito.jpg&hash=c0c98c729e952121d54a7fde5356642b360918b4)
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2013, 08:18:02 PM
I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.
the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2013, 08:18:02 PM
I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.
the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.
I was actually wondering about that myself, but I'm not confident in saying that a 3kg explosive would not fuck up a B-29 very badly. It seems to me like it'd be very likely to severely damage/take off a wing.
A Quick study found two occasions of piston engined aircraft being brought down by shoulder held aa missiles. Both Air Rhodesia Vickers Vicounts and both being brought down by Strela 2 missiles, both planes being civilian passenger liners and in both cases all passengers died, though in one of the cases the guerillas had to go to the crash site and murder the survivors.
The Vickers Vicounts were developed from WWII era Wellington medium bombers; which were flimsy and consequently taken out of bombing duty being relegated to being naval patrol aircraft.
Though both these cases seem to have been at low altitude during take-off or gaining altitude after take off. Plus, the engines and fuselages on Fortresses and Lancasters were considerably sturdier.
I was unaware the Strela was that old.
Stingers are only good against choppers.
I don't think there is any fixed wing aircraft kill on record for stingers.
I'll have to look it up.
Strella 7s were all over Africa.
7 being the original Soviet designation for shoulder fired rockets, whether anti-tank, anti-personel, or anti-aircraft.
They abandoned that designation in the late 80s if I recall correctly.
Quote from: Siege on October 12, 2013, 08:33:51 PM
Stingers are only good against choppers.
I don't think there is any fixed wing aircraft kill on record for stingers.
I'll have to look it up.
Clearly you've never seen excellent Nic Cage/Sean Young vehicle
Firebirds. Not one but two Saab Drakens.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2013, 07:54:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2013, 08:18:02 PM
I'm sure that the B-29 would be very vulnerable to modern shoulder-mounted AA missiles, which the Russians, Chinese and Raytheon would be only too happy to provide them.
the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.
I was actually wondering about that myself, but I'm not confident in saying that a 3kg explosive would not fuck up a B-29 very badly. It seems to me like it'd be very likely to severely damage/take off a wing.
The burster on the Flak 88s weren't much bigger than 3kg, and they'd blow a wing off real nice with a straight shot.
This would be "downbuilding". I don't think building obsolete machines is the solution.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2013, 09:01:00 PM
Quote from: Siege on October 12, 2013, 08:33:51 PM
Stingers are only good against choppers.
I don't think there is any fixed wing aircraft kill on record for stingers.
I'll have to look it up.
Clearly you've never seen excellent Nic Cage/Sean Young vehicle Firebirds. Not one but two Saab Drakens.
Such a lovely aircraft. :wub:
Really was. Probably the prettiest jet fighter of them all, almost certainly prettiest production fighter, just about equaled only by the F-16XL (which was not, you wag, just a version of the F-16 that let itself go).
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.
Not so. A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames. WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.
Not so. A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames. WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.
The B-17 begs to differ.
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2013, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.
Not so. A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames. WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.
The B-17 begs to differ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-1qIN6UeC4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-1qIN6UeC4)
Seems like heavy bombers were vulnerable.
A B-17 couldn't withstand a hit from a 16 inch gun. Victory for the dreadnought again.
You lose a few. On the plus side, if you don't die, you get to take a bath at the end of your shift.
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2013, 05:48:20 PM
The B-17 begs to differ.
The approximately 3500 lost of approximately 12,500 produced agree with me. Some B-17s made it back with damage that looked like it should have destroyed them, but the vast majority with that kind of damage were, indeed, destroyed.
Quote from: Neil on October 13, 2013, 05:51:05 PM
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2013, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.
Not so. A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames. WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.
The B-17 begs to differ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-1qIN6UeC4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-1qIN6UeC4)
Seems like heavy bombers were vulnerable.
The B-24 was the heavy bomber equivalent of a boxer with a glass jaw.
The discussion about whether a WW2 strategic bomber could survive a modern-day missile weapon is about as interesting as whether or not swarms of Incan torpedo boats could sink the USS New Jersey. Only dumber.
Ju-88 vs Roman Ballista.
Jericho trumpets ftw.
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.
Not so. A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames. WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.
AA missiles use massive shaped charges? I'd use high explosive fragmentation explosives imho.
I'd use shaped charge with a proximity fuse.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2013, 07:19:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
the crappy little warheads on the modern things are designed to fuck up high rpm finely machined turbine engines as you find in helicopters and jet planes. Trying to take down a WW2 bomber would probably require multiple hits with missiles.. in more than one engine.
Not so. A modern missile warhead would rip open fuel tanks and the plane would go down in flames. WW2 bombers were able to survive small bullets holes, but not massive shaped-charge-type holes.
AA missiles use massive shaped charges? I'd use high explosive fragmentation explosives imho.
Hopefully someone passes your expert opinion on to the hacks who design these things.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 13, 2013, 07:15:49 PM
The discussion about whether a WW2 strategic bomber could survive a modern-day missile weapon is about as interesting as whether or not swarms of Incan torpedo boats could sink the USS New Jersey. Only dumber.
I think Patton's Third Army could have taken modern day Iraq.
And probably would have had far better RoE too. Heck, he'd have the Iraqi army invading Iran in no time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
The thing about shaped charges is that they do not have any form of useful radius of effect. They are specifically shaped to provide maximum penetration to a depth of a few inches and need to be a specific (and very short) distance from the target. They are anti-tank armor penetrating munitions which are also used in the oil industry to punch thin holes in rocks. The shaped charge is all about concentrating as much of the explosives penetrative power at one specific point.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger)
has the stinger using an "Annular blast fragmentation" warhead, which I believe to be the technical term for a cylinder of high explosives surrounded by small metal fragments.
That's what I like about viking. All short term memory.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2013, 07:19:05 PM
AA missiles use massive shaped charges? I'd use high explosive fragmentation explosives imho.
Larger ones use an expanding rod (ring, really) to create a buzzsaw effect. Smaller ones use a shaped charge with a radar fuse that sets off the charge in the direction of the target, with frag effects. Stinger uses a hit-to-kill warhead, so I don't know how directional the blast is.
At least, that's how it was a dozen or so years ago.
A warhead filled with those tiny bibles they gave away in elementary school.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 13, 2013, 08:15:13 PM
A warhead filled with those tiny bibles they gave away in elementary school.
Smite them with the force of Jaaaaysus!