open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked China's first battlestar
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.08.10 05:33:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 10/08/2011 05:35:03
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

The aircraft carrier left its shipyard at Dalian Port in northeast Liaoning Province on Wednesday morning to start its first sea trial. Military sources said that the first sea trial was in line with schedual of the carrier's refitting project and would not take a long time. After returning from the sea trial, the aircraft carrier will continue refit and test work

I am a amateur naval geek and like big things. China had no previous experience of constructing a modern aircraft carrier so they used the hull of the incomplete soviet carrier Varyag. In WW2 cruisers were converted to carriers. But nowadays a dedicated carrier frame is needed with a multitude of systems operated by a lot of crewmen. The aging US Nimitiz carriers now have power issues as they have to feed so many newer systems. The replacement Gerald Ford carriers have better provision for power.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.10 06:15:00 - [2]
 

I'm still waiting for (nearly) unmanned, remote-controlled and partially autonomous, self-maintaining and massively redundant seafaring supercarriers with oversized nuclear reactors and a huge fleet of drones, preferably with drone fabrication lines right there on the ship.

...yes, I have probably been playing too much Total Annihilation // Supreme Commander Twisted Evil

Sturmwolke
Posted - 2011.08.10 06:26:00 - [3]
 

According to this report, there will be at least one circa 2166.
If you're still around that is.

Kara Books
Posted - 2011.08.10 11:18:00 - [4]
 

It will be a fail.

Now, if their Totalitarian Slavgov says it was a fail, then I will be scared, 100% of the time they always tell the opposite.

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2011.08.10 12:41:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Akita T
I'm still waiting for (nearly) unmanned, remote-controlled and partially autonomous, self-maintaining and massively redundant seafaring supercarriers with oversized nuclear reactors and a huge fleet of drones, preferably with drone fabrication lines right there on the ship.

...yes, I have probably been playing too much Total Annihilation // Supreme Commander Twisted Evil


I believe that would go something like this:

"Sir, we've lost communications with the supercarrier.

We had the boys analyze the last data transmissions before she went dark, runtimes were corrupted. Looks like the Chinese hacked her"

Doomed to be remembered as the U.S.S. Facepalm?


Caldari Citizen20090217
Posted - 2011.08.10 12:48:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Akita T
I'm still waiting for (nearly) unmanned, remote-controlled and partially autonomous, self-maintaining and massively redundant seafaring supercarriers with oversized nuclear reactors and a huge fleet of drones, preferably with drone fabrication lines right there on the ship.

...yes, I have probably been playing too much Total Annihilation // Supreme Commander Twisted Evil


Firstly, you can never play enough TA/Supcom.

This is almost certainly the future of warfare anyway. Think of Supcom like free training for tomorrows army. YARRRR!!

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.10 13:01:00 - [7]
 

Never pass up the opportunity to tweak the noses of your enemies, err... misguided renegade brothers.

"Jane's Fighting Ships states that Varyag may have been named Shi Lang and assigned pennant number 83. Jane's notes that both the name and pennant number are unconfirmed. Shi Lang was a Ming-Qing Dynasty admiral who defeated Koxinga's navy and conquered Taiwan in 1681."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag



Spookyjay
Caldari
Animosity.
Posted - 2011.08.10 13:37:00 - [8]
 

looks like its being decommissioned not built lol that things needs a paint job already.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.10 13:57:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Spookyjay
looks like its being decommissioned not built lol that things needs a paint job already.

The rust streaks are part of camouflage scheme. Laughing

Captain Tavius
Picon Fleet
New Eden Research.
Posted - 2011.08.10 15:48:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Captain Tavius on 10/08/2011 15:48:05
Originally by: Akita T
I'm still waiting for (nearly) unmanned, remote-controlled and partially autonomous, self-maintaining and massively redundant seafaring supercarriers with oversized nuclear reactors and a huge fleet of drones, preferably with drone fabrication lines right there on the ship.

...yes, I have probably been playing too much Total Annihilation // Supreme Commander Twisted Evil


Until you mention Supreme Commander I thought you were talking about Cylons.

Damn it! Now I have to go play Forged Alliance.. thanks Akita.. /sarcasmtothemax

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:12:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Akita T
I'm still waiting for (nearly) unmanned, remote-controlled and partially autonomous, self-maintaining and massively redundant seafaring supercarriers with oversized nuclear reactors and a huge fleet of drones, preferably with drone fabrication lines right there on the ship.

...yes, I have probably been playing too much Total Annihilation // Supreme Commander Twisted Evil



Funny I was researching drone tech for a paper I had to write for naval/history of warfare class. And one the ideas is have "Swarming" drones launched from subs either aircraft or mini subs/ long range torpedoes.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:23:00 - [12]
 

I don't get why aircraft carriers are still used at all. Even if China doesn't have things like the Aurora yet, they could pick up a few from their debtor nation, the US.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.10 17:07:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
I don't get why aircraft carriers are still used at all.

Projection of firepower.

Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.10 17:14:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Caleidascope
Originally by: Bane Necran
I don't get why aircraft carriers are still used at all.


because jet fuel is expensive and because carriers are awesome.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.10 17:20:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Caleidascope
Originally by: Bane Necran
I don't get why aircraft carriers are still used at all.

Projection of firepower.



But there is no need anymore. Military satellites scan the entire world constantly. They've even got satellites now which can launch attacks on the ground from orbit using high powered lasers or microwave radiation. Also, supersonic jets in the upper atmosphere can travel across the globe in mere hours, completely undetected, with nuclear or conventional payloads.

It just seems so 50's era to be using aircraft carriers and short range planes.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.08.10 17:21:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 10/08/2011 17:25:58
Edited by: RAW23 on 10/08/2011 17:25:16
I thought this one wasn't a proper carrier but one of the Soviet heavy cruiser variants designed for protecting a pocket for sub-based (nuclear) missile strikes, rather than the traditional carrier power-projection role? Did the Chinese rebuild it to take more planes?

Edit - Having checked up it looks like it was a cruiser in the same sense that the UK's last batch of carriers were originally labelled 'through-deck cruisers' and is (or was) comparable to that type of small escortish carrier (c. 14 fixed wing planes). So I guess you can still do power projection with those (at least that's what my Argentinian friends tell me Wink).

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.10 17:26:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Ayieka
because jet fuel is expensive and because carriers are awesome.


Jet fuel is just kerosene. And anyway, the Aurora uses some kind of wacky methane fuel. Probably because of the conditions in the upper atmosphere.

But i agree that carriers are awesome, however dated they may be.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.10 17:34:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Caleidascope
Originally by: Bane Necran
I don't get why aircraft carriers are still used at all.

Projection of firepower.



But there is no need anymore. Military satellites scan the entire world constantly. They've even got satellites now which can launch attacks on the ground from orbit using high powered lasers or microwave radiation. Also, supersonic jets in the upper atmosphere can travel across the globe in mere hours, completely undetected, with nuclear or conventional payloads.

It just seems so 50's era to be using aircraft carriers and short range planes.

I want to hit an enemy bunker.

You are proposing to sterilize an area the size of a large city. ur mad bro?

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.10 17:53:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Caleidascope

I want to hit an enemy bunker.

You are proposing to sterilize an area the size of a large city. ur mad bro?



You seem to be a little behind in your tech. The US government has gone public about satellites with capabilities much more precise and deadly than that. Makes one wonder what the new secret ones can do.

I think maybe, for the corporations in the military industrial complex anyway, there's simply more money to be made using older tech for warfare. Things get blown up easier and need to be replaced, which means more money rolling in.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:03:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Caleidascope

I want to hit an enemy bunker.

You are proposing to sterilize an area the size of a large city. ur mad bro?



You seem to be a little behind in your tech. The US government has gone public about satellites with capabilities much more precise and deadly than that. Makes one wonder what the new secret ones can do.

I think maybe, for the corporations in the military industrial complex anyway, there's simply more money to be made using older tech for warfare. Things get blown up easier and need to be replaced, which means more money rolling in.

A. Satellites in low orbit eventually fall down into gravity well.
B. Satellites in orbit are extremely difficult to reload.

While satellite warfare is fascinating, I doubt it will be used much, if ever.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:07:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 10/08/2011 17:25:58
Edited by: RAW23 on 10/08/2011 17:25:16
I thought this one wasn't a proper carrier but one of the Soviet heavy cruiser variants designed for protecting a pocket for sub-based (nuclear) missile strikes, rather than the traditional carrier power-projection role? Did the Chinese rebuild it to take more planes?

Edit - Having checked up it looks like it was a cruiser in the same sense that the UK's last batch of carriers were originally labelled 'through-deck cruisers' and is (or was) comparable to that type of small escortish carrier (c. 14 fixed wing planes). So I guess you can still do power projection with those (at least that's what my Argentinian friends tell me Wink).

This carrier was the proper kind. You might be thinking of earlier Kiev class ships.

Good pick of this Chinese carrier:

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:17:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Caleidascope
A. Satellites in low orbit eventually fall down into gravity well.
B. Satellites in orbit are extremely difficult to reload.

While satellite warfare is fascinating, I doubt it will be used much, if ever.


Once again, you're a little behind on things. There's no reloading microwave or laser weapons, and for quite awhile now satellites can correct or even change their orbits when needed. When they finally run out of power, which only really happens with the oldest models, they are moved to what is called a 'graveyard orbit' instead of sending them hurtling towards Earth.

Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:23:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Ayieka
because jet fuel is expensive and because carriers are awesome.


Jet fuel is just kerosene.


oh wow, yeah. google says the its only like 3 bucks a gallon.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:23:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Caleidascope
A. Satellites in low orbit eventually fall down into gravity well.
B. Satellites in orbit are extremely difficult to reload.

While satellite warfare is fascinating, I doubt it will be used much, if ever.


Once again, you're a little behind on things. There's no reloading microwave or laser weapons, and for quite awhile now satellites can correct or even change their orbits when needed. When they finally run out of power, which only really happens with the oldest models, they are moved to what is called a 'graveyard orbit' instead of sending them hurtling towards Earth.

Are that simple? Really?

A. Firing lasers and microwave emitters will wear them out. And let us not forget other junk that floats in space and various forms of radiation, they will degrade the systems too.
B. Corrections use fuel. When fuel is gone, no more corrections unless you refuel.

Yes, you can do satellite warfare, have fun paying for it.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:44:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Once again, you're a little behind on things. There's no reloading microwave or laser weapons, and for quite awhile now satellites can correct or even change their orbits when needed. When they finally run out of power, which only really happens with the oldest models, they are moved to what is called a 'graveyard orbit' instead of sending them hurtling towards Earth.


Satellites need fuel to change orbit, of which they carry a finite amount.

We don't have energy weapon satellites. The weapons technology isn't there yet, the power technology to fire the weapons isn't there yet, the ability to hit a target through that much atmosphere isn't there yet, and there's a pesky treaty about not weaponizing space to consider.



Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:45:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Bane Necran on 10/08/2011 18:47:24
Running out of fuel is seldom a concern. It only takes a very tiny bit for a major correction in those conditions. There are deep space sats that have been making constant course corrections for decades now. One in orbit would use considerably less. There's also ion thrusters that can keep going as long as there's power, which can be a rather long time considering most satellites use radioactive decay for power.

And you'd be surprised how many military sats are up there already, and how many more are added each year.

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:50:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Edited by: Bane Necran on 10/08/2011 18:47:24
Running out of fuel is seldom a concern. It only takes a very tiny bit for a major correction in those conditions. There are deep space sats that have been making constant course corrections for decades now. One in orbit would use considerably less. There's also ion thrusters that can keep going as long as there's power, which can be a rather long time considering most satellites use radioactive decay for power.

And you'd be surprised how many military sats are up there already, and how many more are added each year.

I think your version of reality is a bit different from mine.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:52:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Caleidascope
I think your version of reality is a bit different from mine.


Maybe because it's a subject i've spent a good amount of time researching.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:56:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Edited by: Bane Necran on 10/08/2011 18:47:24
Running out of fuel is seldom a concern. It only takes a very tiny bit for a major correction in those conditions. There are deep space sats that have been making constant course corrections for decades now. One in orbit would use considerably less. There's also ion thrusters that can keep going as long as there's power, which can be a rather long time considering most satellites use radioactive decay for power.

And you'd be surprised how many military sats are up there already, and how many more are added each year.


Ion thrusters require fuel (aka reaction mass.)

There plenty of military satellites in space, just none of them are carrying energy weapons capable of carrying out orbital strikes.


Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:09:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
There plenty of military satellites in space, just none of them are carrying energy weapons capable of carrying out orbital strikes.




Don't be so sure about that. And strike isn't the best term to use. They don't deliver powerful large scale attacks unless you count EMP, and last i heard that was in the testing stages, but you never know. They're mainly more precise and target individuals or buildings. One of the touted benefits of satellite weapons is the plausible deniability of them. Something catches fire or someone drops dead suddenly and it must have just been some freak occurrence, right?

As for the fuel of ion thrusters, what i should have said is that the reaction mass needed is far more efficient than conventional fuel, and your power is more likely to give out before it does.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only