Thread 64282544

I have the impression they copy stuff, without knowing the reason behind it, and then do some shit that doesn't work.

I wonder if their stealth airplanes are really stealth. Or do they only look like a stealth airplane?

>>64282544 (OP)
another pathetic seethe thread

hey where did all the
>hey we nooooooooooooooooootice you!!
posters go?

where are all the airmen at now?

>>64282544 (OP)
>middle
Who is the retard.

>>64282544 (OP)
Sinofags will claim its peak and that they can do no wrong.

To answer your question, they don't care. Its all for show. "Look at us we have a supercarrier! Its got electromagnetic launchers! Fear us!" meanwhile any digging will tell you that the EML is untested, the carrier has troubles moving, and we've yet to see it have to perform in a way the US forces its carriers to in simulated combat.

They wanna look cool and tough so they can act like they're not a shitty country run by shitty people with no innovation.

>>64282584
That shit's more than enough in the way that if you needed to land & launch aircraft at the same time that it would slow down deck ops.

>>64282544 (OP)
Looks fine to me, and it's amazing you took the time draw it out and didn't even notice your "middle" is actually the boundary line.

>>64282592
I’ve spent countless hours flying planes off aircraft carriers in MSFS, and based on that experience, I can confidently say carrier operations shouldn’t be an issue during sorties. If I can handle it as a simulator pilot, a professionally trained navy pilot certainly can.

>>64282612
Its more than just on the boundary line, it reaches into the actual landing zone
Also, how are they supposed to reach the forward elevator? Or are they supposed to just block the entire landing area while they drive their asses to the rear elevator?

Cause that shit is very in the way and if you need to launch and recover at the same time, that kind of thing will slow you down

>>64282616
I can't tell if you're fucking with me, calling me an idiot, or none of the above. I've been on this site too fuckin long.

But on the off chance its not you calling me a fuckin moron. If you were landing and that was up, its a risk that could impede further operations if something goes wrong with the arrestor wires (It happens, its rare but that's not a gamble you'd wanna take) and now you've got a broken deflector, burning plane, and partially disabled carrier. You go from 2 launchers (If you're doing simultanious operations then the last launcher would likely not be being used) to one if the blast deflector is fucked, assuming the Chinese pretend to give a fuck about not jet blasting their carrier crew.

Plus if the deflector is up you lose 8 of those lines (Not sure their length, sorry) of landing space, at which point why even have that extra space?

>>64282657
i mean, it looks less janky than the elevator in front of the catapults that they had on the Forrestalls, but that's just me looking at it without the J-15s, J-36s and whatever the AWACS is on the carrier.

Doesn't seem like that big of a deal though? The Chinese can live with it. and it's unlikely that it would become a massive problem on the operational level. Sure it might be a bit slower than American CVNs, but they have 20 thousand tons over the Fujian in displacement and the Americans have nearly a century of experience operating aircraft carriers.

to put things in perspective, they went from the Liaoning to the Shandong in less time than it went from the USN to go from Langley to the Yorktown's (i know it's kind of a shitty comparison, but the jump in capability from shit ass training carrier to an actual fleet carrier kinda makes sense in my head)

>>64282544 (OP)
This isn't a design flaw since you don’t use that catapult while you’re recovering aircraft. When recoveries are happening the blaster is down and flush with the deck, so it doesn’t obstruct the landing area.

>>64282587
Shit, I bet the EMALS doesn't even work. Look at Chinese roller coaster accidents vs US roller coaster accident rates and how many chinkshit roller coaster companies copy US and European designs.
>wtf do rollercoasters have to do with EMALS anon
It's the best analog for the tech. The USN and NASA worked with Disney Imagineering and consulted engineers from both Disney and Vekoma for direct tech transfer to EMALS. Even with decades of institutional knowledge from these engineers working from all over, they've only just got all the kinks worked out over the last couple years.

Don't even get me started on the propulsion, why does it take the Chinese carriers 2 miles to do a turn when the half century old Nimitz class does donuts.
>>64282592
>>64282657
They probably just accept the risk of crashing head on into the deflector as part of flight ops because clearly choreographing and training means that nothing can go wrong. Just look at how poorly compartmentalized Chinese naval vessels are and how little they pay attention to damage control contingencies to see how much they expect things to go wrong.

>>64282750
>When recoveries are happening the blaster is down and flush with the deck, so it doesn’t obstruct the landing area.

Only during peaceful times.
Or do you really think that during a war the US carrier crew will think: "The damage airplane can wait for the blaster to be down. It can't land right now."

>>64282544 (OP)
Uh, that's the landing strip. No planes take off from there, you can tell because there aren't any catapults.

I swear you fags are either Indian or chink shills trying to make the other side look bad.

>>64282544 (OP)
>I have the impression
You have a wrong impression. China hate is the new fuddlore. The millennials who rightfully laughed at M14s and 1911s are now making the same mistakes as their dads.

>>64282808
Have you never seen a carrier flight op? The leftside catapult deflector is in the way of the landing strip. No room for error.

It is simple, all the chinese has to do is to never fail to catch the hook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf7oCNHucb0

>>64282544 (OP)
>do bugmen think
a visual signature of a real carrier is enough for them, like ants they just follow a trail with no thought involved

>>64282740
The problem with looking purely at the jump in operational capability is that the Chinese from what we've seen aren't inventing new stuff a majority of the time, they're stealing what they can and lying about some of the others, its difficult to know what their capabilities actually are.

Also it definitely feels jankier to me, the Forrestal's Forward Elevator was further back. You could move planes onto them or off of them while you had others on catapults. The Fujian's forward elevator looks like half of it would be blocked by a bird on the catapult waiting to go.

Its definitely something you CAN work around, and the Chinese have shown by actually building this stupid thing that they've decided its a workaround they're willing to do, but I don't know if its a good idea to slow down carrier ops when the US has evidence from WWII that's publicly known that when carrier ops are slower, it can cost you the ability to strike your targets. It forces you either to reduce the range of your fighters due to the first ones having less fuel than later ones, or send them peacemeal which is a worse idea.

>>64282933
>we
The royal we nigger? Is there a mouse in your pocket?
I know the jannies censor most of the Chinese innovation posts here but 4chin isn't the only source of info in the world.

>>64282750
I mean SURE in optimal conditions you're gonna be able to do that, but in the kind of conditions that the South China Sea is shaping up to be, assuming that's where the Fujian is deployed and for this example it doesn't get evaporated by ASMs?

You're gonna want aircraft in the air from the carrier as often as you can. Obviously they need repair so you can't get 100% uptime, usually that means being supplemented by other aircraft, either from carriers or in the SCS case you'd be close enough for land based aircraft, but if you want a carrier to be performing its duties as often as possible, you're inevitably gonna run into a problem of "We have aircraft that need to land" and "We have aircraft that need to take off" are inevitably gonna line up, and then you either slow down launching to recover aircraft, or slow down aircraft recovery and risk the problems that come with planes not being able to infinitely stay in the air, even assuming no battle damage.

>>64282947
That was the royal we slipping out, sorry faggot. Please feel free to disregard all the rest of my post for that, sliteye.

>>64282947
It's spam. You volunteer wumao have multiple threads up at all times, and more that got deleted because you can't check the catalog before making them. If removing spam is censorship, then how do you feel about 2 Babies 1 Fox?

>>64282988
Its also lies a good chunk of the time. You find out real fuckin quick that if the Chinese claim they've invented some new bullshit, its all lights and sounds and no actual breakthroughs.

The CCP has made a culture of "Cheap and impressive." it doesn't need to be any good. Look at their construction industry, or their "High speed rail" that reddit fags can't shut up about.

>>64283020
>High speed rail
The funniest shit about it is that compared to the Japs Shinkansen, no one rides it and they can't reduce ticket prices any lower because the rail companies are so deeply in debt.

>>64283044
They've dropped them as low as possible and that's with govt subsidies.

Why bother with HSR when you can just take a cheap Green Train and get there, just schedule a few more days for travel.

>>64282544 (OP)
This is what happens when you just copy without knowing the reason why things were done the way they were. If they had real experience they would understand why the deck is laid out this way vs just approximating the look.

It can be saved.
Move everything on the right to the back of the ship as much as they can.
Then tilt the catapults a little bit.
There you go, just as good as the american one.

>>64283510
>if we rebuild the ship it can be better
yeah, just a small modification. shouldn't take more than two weeks.

>>64283527
Anon that sounds like its doubting the CCP's ability to get things done.

-1000000 social credit

>>64282789
How time sensitive is turning a carrier though? In the grand scheme of things that's a meaningless difference.
>>64282933
Stealing is jsut outsourcing innovation. Le west is basically the fools for even blowing all that money when you cram infinite Chinese spies into universities collaborating on critical research.

>>64282806
>>64282950
You’re right that in wartime you want maximum jets moving, not peacetime niceties. But “no landings with the waist JBD up” isn’t a nicety—it’s a hard safety/throughput rule. A single trap into a raised deflector can shut the deck for hours and crater sortie generation. If a damaged aircraft calls inbound while the waist catapult is launching, the Air Boss halts the waist cat, drops the deflector (seconds), and clears the landing area; overhead tankers, diverts, and wave-offs cover that brief gap. As for overlapping launch and recovery needs in a high-tempo fight like the SCS, angled-deck carriers manage this with cyclic ops: during recoveries the waist cat stays cold while the bow cats can trickle launches between traps if necessary. The waist cat’s real value is surge launching before a recovery window, not operating while trapping. That’s why Fujian’s “mid-deck” JBD isn’t a flaw—it’s the standard trade-off to maximize sustained sortie rate under combat conditions.

>>64283795
The fuck is this slopbot doing

>A Chinese boat lives rent free in the minds of Americans
I don't understand the obsession with that boat.

>>64283977
idk I found that pretty convincing, but I don't navy

>>64284020
The slopbot just spewed out random things about the waist catapult when the quoted anons didn't even mention anything about it. The issue lies in that the left bow catapult cannot operate (or at least safety) while landings are being conducted due to the extremely close deflector but the slopbot doesn't know that the Fujian's deflector layout doesn't allow that and is reciting training data off the layout off a Nimitz. And obviously the waist catapult isn't going be used while landings are being conducted so that last part is pure slop.

>>64282544 (OP)

What do you expect? They have 0 practical experience and in any war this will cost them dearly early on. Historically it's why they always have massive casualties in most wars. They have no near peer rivals to war with around them so when war finally comes their inexperienced officer corps is full of useless bureaucrats, nepobabies and sycophants. They usually course correct to a meritocracy and they have the numbers to throw into a slog to end up reforming and coming back unbeatable, but that's in a land war. A sea war is going to see a lot of coast hugging, but they don't have the numbers or time to learn. Plus it's not like a game, a ship destroyed out at sea doesn't guarantee you a handful of more experienced survivors you can build a new crew around. In a big war it isn't unheard of at all to lose both a warship and all hands. And I'm pretty sure that's our expected strategy, lure/catch them out and seal club them with our better seamanship.

>>64282789
Because they welded a flight deck to a container ship hull.

>>64284003
Can't speak for the others but I just want the Chinese to copy correctly if they are going to do a blue ocean fleet.

>>64284107
>welded a flight deck to a container ship hull
I'm not seeing an issue here. A lot of that is going to be going down on all sides if ww3 goes hot and India sides with the Chinese.

>>64284093
Probably gonna work considering their carriers have deployed for a maximum of 24 days with the next longest deployment being 16 days and their whole doctrine (at least from all the chinkshills I've seen) assumes a CSG will be parked right off the coast because they keep saying how one will always be in range of a dongfeng 21

>>64282544 (OP)
Chinese copy stuff like Africans, or a child would. Like they are looking for acceptance from white daddy, and want a pat on the back.

>>64282544 (OP)
Maybe they had no choice due to the dimensions of the naval aircraft they have.

>>64282544 (OP)
they have roughly equally qualified scientific and engineering base, if they copy something 1:1 it means it's the most conservative option and they are not sure what to do yet

>>64282544 (OP)
in the next version kind sir

>>64284114
>I just want the Chinese to copy correctly
That's the thing and the problem they're encountering. A fleet is not like an army. In an army a soldier even by himself has the ability to realistically kill or maim at least one or maybe even more enemy combatants. In a navy an individual sailor is effectively harmless. Navies require decades of continued and consistently improving organizational structures, training and development of weapon systems is constant and men experienced with every quirk every system has and the best ways to exploit them.

As stated this takes decades, and even garbage can be lethal if the men that use it are familiar with every inch and trained to exploit every component to just before failure. The "just copy it" approach doesn't work.

You need to understand why, and failing that you need to have men that are motivated, organized and capable enough to bypass, jury rig and improve in the field every retarded design flaw you have. And the Chines don't have that.

>>64284144
>And the Chines don't have that.


But they're working on it. The main issue is whether or not they will let time move their hand. The best time to invade Taiwan is approaching. Now if they move with what they have they might win, they might lose. It's a toss up. They might risk it or they might decide they'll win without firing a shot if they just wait 30 years. Who knows? But I do know that if we wait 30 years we will lose.

Right now? We can definitely, without any doubt in my mind, defeat the PLAN in blue or green water zones. Easily. It would be a one sided slaughter. If we give them time to prepare, develop a culture of professional sailors and seamen? They will come at us like the Japanese did but with substantially more men, allies, and industrial might behind them than the Japanese could have ever dreamed of.

But we don't start fights. Not at the big boy table at least.

>>64284180
The best time to invade and take a naval war was yesterday. More accurately, 2017-2018, when China had revealed all their newfangled missiles, the US-China trade deficit was at an all time high and US doctrine and gearing was still stuck on COIN. Of course China didn't have nearly as many sealift ships and still don't have enough today to support crossings, but an opening blow to both would've been much more effective back then.

Now that the US and even Europe is in full gear to make more munitions and development systems to directly counter China, that window is closing fast and will only flutter open once more again if they make some sort of breakthrough in a weapons system.

>>64282544 (OP)
Were you so fucking stupid you thought the edge of a runway was the middle of it?

>>64284371
I implore you to watch some carrier ops videos to see why it's a problem even on the edge of the lane.

>>64282592
That literally never happens. Launch and recovery are two distinct evolutions. After launching all fixed wing aircraft, everyone clear has to clear the landing area and then the waist catapult guys still have to do their shit to make a ready deck.

>>64282947
still waiting on the video of the ship mounted railgun firing btw

>>64283691
>How time sensitive is turning a carrier though?
4/10 bait got me to reply

>>64282544 (OP)
The J-35 is built with a front-opening canopy that is clearly copied from the F-35. Ordinarily you'd think this wasn't that big a deal, but the whole reason the F-35's canopy opens that way is to give clearance to the B model's lift fan, something the J-35 does not possess and has no plans to accept.

>>64284471
Last time this was pointed out a chinkshill replied with a photo of their MiG-21 clone. What makes it even funnier is that only the early versions of the MiG-21 had forward opening canopies.

>>64282750
One of the Japanese carriers at Midway eventually got sunk because they got hit while switching between recovering and launching aircraft, and had a shitload of aviation fuel and bombs laid out underneath the flight deck. Needlessly slowing down launch/recovery ops is absolutely fucking retarded, but then again we are talking about chinks here.

>>64282544 (OP)
>It is 2025 AD
>China's "super carrier" cannot launch and recover aircraft at the same time.
>The US perfected this technology in the 50's.
Lol, Lmao even.
Next we'll find out that their aircraft can't take off unless they're sailing into the wind.

>>64282808
You vastly overestimate the intelligence of most American posters here, fren.

>>64283044
You have never seen Chinese HSR ridership data.

>>64283454
Kek

>>64284391
I implore you to take a look at >>64283454 and try to figure out why you’re so fucking retarded.

>>64282544 (OP)
>I have the impression they copy stuff, without knowing the reason behind it, and then do some shit that doesn't work.
finally this one understands what the chinese have been doing for decades now and currently still do, and plan to do
people will think this is merely a jest

>>64284664
Are you stupid? Please look at >>64283454 What do you think the other two extra launch catapults and blast deflectors on the landing strip are for?
What do you think is happening in the bottom part of >>64282544 (OP)
's pic?

>>64284471
>>64284477
You dipshits realize the FC-31 has a back hinged canopy, right?

>>64284686
Wow, you’re actually retarded!

why is everyone ignoring the 3rd catapult?

>>64282947
>Chinese innovation posts
no such thing, chinks haven't innovated once in 500 years, neither in technology or their posting style

>>64282544 (OP)
Wait until you find out about "Flex Deck"

>>64283454
>>64282544 (OP)

>>64285050
>>64283454

>>64285050
>>64285053
Still the whole point of the angled deck is so that under normal operations you can launch planes at the same time as recovering others.

The two rear cats on US ships are secondary to the two main catapults, for occasions where higher volumes of aircraft are being launched. In which case the deck will be too busy with aircraft movement for anything to land at all until the launches are completed.

The Chinese layout with one main cat intruding into the recovery area means you only have half the launch capacity that a US carrier has during a recovery, so a significant decrease in sortie rate while this shit >>64285062
the French are doing, is just terrible and more or less means you can't launch and recover at the same time.
Of course, you can gamble that the aircraft being recovered wont overshoot the cables and will stop well before the launch area, but that's flying in the face of why those decks are separate in the first place.

>>64282544 (OP)
>middle of the landing runway
>"Do chineses even think[...]?"
Clearly you don't.

Isn't the chinese carrier just a russian carrier without the cope jump ramp?

That's why it fucking sucks?

>>64282544 (OP)
lmao, if right blast deflector fails, nothing can go in or out of the front elevator.

>>64285494
No. (003 isn’t Russian in origin)
You’re dumb. (Because you’re retarded)

>>64285169
Where are you getting this idea of simultaneous launch and recovery from? See >>64284442
Better yet, enlist

>>64282544 (OP)
>>>/a/282410515

GATE 2 is getting an anime, k bros.
do you like naval guns VS communist pirates?

>>64282947
>jannies censor most of the Chinese innovation posts here but 4chin isn't the only source of info in the world.

your own CCP gov blocked 4chan. you should be in jail according to your own commie lawls. gtfo

>>64282544 (OP)
We’ll never know because America is too busy saber rattling with its own tributary states rather than focusing on its enemies.

>>64285945
It's literally a part of training and the design. Every US Aircraft carrier can launch and recover simultaneously. All day long. That’s part of the purpose of the angled flight deck. That’s the purpose behind CATOBAR carriers such as those used by the US and France.

>>64285945
Imagine this:
>Get into war
>Radar officer: Enemy fleet detected south-east!!
>Captain: Launch all aircraft available NOW!
>Second in commnand: We can't captain, some returning aircraft are still landing now, we can't launch and recover at the same time.
>Captain: OH NONONONONONOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>64286065
What training? You've never been on a carrier. Stop making shit up.

>>64286040
it's fighting latinx cartel now.

>>64286143
>u must be enlisted to post!
ok post time stamp with your enlistment form.

Why are so many but-mad pro chinese propagandists posting here?

The chinese carrier is crap, just accept the reality.

>>64286247
Because everyone is a "chinese propagandist" living rent free in your diseased mind.

US carrier is better.

The two forward elevators are not blocked by the the deflectors in any way.

The landing path is not blocked by the forward deflectors.

>>64283691
>How time sensitive is basic warfare?
Very, slower and less agile ships cost the Japs the Pacific and gave birth to carrier speed naval ops (2-5knts faster than battleships at the time, probably double digit these days

>>64286281
To put this more into perspective, a Carrier is actually the fastest and toughest ship in the Navy. It can steam at full speed indefinitely while the escorts will be limited by a range of 2000-3000 knots and sea states at full speed.

>>64285945
nigga is speaking about the circumstances where all 4 cats are being used to get all aircraft in the air for a strike or defensive action
In day to day operations protecting the fleet there is a constant stream of aircraft going up on patrol, returning from patrol, Carrier Onboard Delivery flights etc. etc. etc. and only the front two cats and their elevators are being used to launch while the landing deck and other elevators are being used for incoming fixed-wing aircraft, rotary wing operation, and replenishment

>>64286175
faggot
>>64286352
pointless AI slop

>>64282657
they wouldn't let you to land to begin with if the deflector was up I mean come on that's just comically stupid

>>64282544 (OP)
>US does the same
what the fuck was america thinking!!

>>64286672
That's the waist catapult. OP is talking about the bow catapult.

>>64286672
Are you fucking retarded, american carriers have 4 catapults.

The 2 on the front don't interfere with the elevator nor the landing zone.

>>64282584
>"In the middle of"
Is a kind of modern turn-of-phrase colloquialism people use to refer to anything that is in the way. No, it doesn't mean exactly scientifically measurably at the 50% mark.

Chinese/Mandarin is fucking LOADED with colloquialism that is complete nonsense if directly translated, btw.
Offhand example - like, it's a bullshitting example but the meaning is there,

In chinese sometimes you'd say some shit like:
>Horse wind mountain, dog water
and it means
>Go to the store and buy some bread
It's no small wonder why they can't get anything done and have to lie, cheat and steal.

So fuck off. :)

>>64282544 (OP)
It looks like they just copied their previous Kuznestov class carrier except they added catapults and got rid of the ramp. Bottom of picrel is their Shandong carrier, top is the Russian Kuznetsov carrier

>>64282789
The PLAN's sole purpose is to soak up some of the incoming missiles while the rest of their military tries to figure out how to cross a 100 mile trench.

>>64286692
>>Horse wind mountain, dog water
>and it means
>>Go to the store and buy some bread
Flurting must be impossible!
>hey babe, wass ur name?
>boot nose lick high

>>64286797
I mean hell...if she's hot enough...I'd lick all day. Depends on how she reacts after a half hour of being called a little piggy yellow whore and having her throat choked.

>>64282544 (OP)
Yes you fucking retard, the PLAN are also smarter than you.

>>64284122
You're posting an old training video where they're training for a catastrophic failure, that's why the door opens inwards.

>>64286692
Xi Jinping literally means "cleaning a golden bottle."
Translate 洗金瓶 and use text to speech if you don't believe me.

>>64282740
>to put things in perspective, they went from the Liaoning to the Shandong in less time than it went from the USN to go from Langley to the Yorktown's
Ok, let’s put it in perspective for you. Take a 14 year old kid. Give him a go cart with a clapped out Briggs and Stratton motor. He tinkers with it, gets it running, cleans it up, and spends weekends running circles at the local go cart track. Fast forward 2 years. Kid turns 16 and gets his drivers license. And then jumps behind the wheel of a Formula One racecar. How competitive do you think that kid is going to be on the F1 circuit?

>>64286667
Yeah but the problem remains the same anon. If you either can't launch aircraft from your two forward catapults at the same time, or can't land aircraft while launching them, you've weakened your capacity

I'm not assuming the Chinese Navy is so retarded they'd say "Yeah land while the JBD is up!" but the problem is that you have to account for the JBD being up while performing landing ops, which is more shit to account for on a very busy ship. Especially in wartime where waiting an extra 10 minutes for the plane to land could mean you've missed your window for a successful strike

>>64284456
surly that tactic wont be used again

>>64287117
This

But the retarded anon will insist.
>B..bbut all they have to do is wait for the airplanes to land, and then take off. No problems.

Imagine this:
>Chinese Captain: -This is the chinese captain, we are asking you, our enemy, to wait in your positions, while our returning aircrafts are landing. So we can sortie a squadron to hit you where you are now. We can't do both at the same time, sorry.

>>64287286
I mean both the Japanese and Americans ran into the problem in WWII, the 'better' choice for most of them was to delay landing until the aircraft sortied, but it ran the risk of running out of fuel and ditching. Even if you can recover the pilot you've now lost a plane. Also you had the problem of if an enemy attack showed up while you were recovering aircraft (See: Battle of Midway)

Its funny watching that anon argue "Oh you can just wait!" like motherfucker we had this problem and the Royal Navy Solved it, everyone else adopted it, and here's China going BACK a step.

God bless Dennis Royle Farquharson Cambell, they don't name em like him anymore. And god damn the Chinese Design Bureaus who looked at that and said "Nah we got it." And don't have it.