Military Review

Recognized as successful. China has completed the test of aircraft carrier

44
The first fully Chinese and the second aircraft carrier of the Chinese Navy completed five-day running tests, according to state television channel CCTV.


Recognized as successful. China has completed the test of aircraft carrier


During the five-day test, launched on May 13, the task of testing the aircraft carrier's equipment was successfully completed.
- noted in the report. After adopting this aircraft carrier will become the second ship of this class in the Navy of the People’s Liberation Army of China.

The aircraft carrier returns to the port of Dalian, from the shipyard of which he went out to test the power plant 13 in May. The 001А project ship, which is the first aircraft carrier fully built in China, has not yet received its name, but the press sometimes calls it "Shandong." It was launched in April 2017 of the year after four years of construction. Launch aircraft carrier planned no earlier than 2020 year. By this time, he will be able to carry X-NUMX fighters J-36 (a copy of the Soviet ship-based fighter Su-15, the prototype of which was bought from Ukraine).

According to reports by the Hong Kong press, China last year began construction of its third aircraft carrier at the shipyard in Shanghai, which will be equipped with an ultra-modern electromagnetic system of catapults to accelerate the take-off of aircraft.
Photos used:
https://twitter.com/PDChina
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Greg Miller
    Greg Miller 18 May 2018 11: 33
    +2
    For 5 days, sea trials ??? Somehow too fast somehow ....
    1. MPN
      MPN 18 May 2018 11: 42
      +9
      Quote: Greg Miller
      For 5 days, sea trials ??? Somehow too fast somehow ....

      This is some kind of intermediate ... That's what worries me. Why don't we have money for an aircraft carrier? After all, to buy an aircraft carrier from themselves is the same contract, albeit without profit. Immediately, he transferred from one wallet to another, which again will return and industry is developing, people live and work ... And we do not buy this feeling from ourselves, but from the aligarchs ... who will not sell without profit ... asking why !!!
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 18 May 2018 11: 47
        +3
        Quote: Greg Miller
        For 5 days, sea trials ??? Somehow too fast somehow ....

        and 4 years of construction is not fast? you are just used to our "rubber" construction time ...
        1. Shurik70
          Shurik70 18 May 2018 12: 58
          0
          Here! In China, aircraft carriers with a springboard rather than with a catapult are preferred. The throughput is higher and, unlike the catapult, the springboard does not break.
          Why, then, is the Russian model of a “promising” aircraft carrier in imitation of the Americans with a catapult?
          https://topwar.ru/141606-neskolko-variantov-osk-p
          redostavit-minoborony-dorabotannye-proekty-novogo
          -avianosca.html # comment-id-8251375
          1. Ripap
            Ripap 18 May 2018 13: 06
            +1
            Let's be honest. This is a complete copy of our aircraft carrier, only without anti-ship missiles. The Chinese can not yet design ships of this class from scratch. Therefore, a springboard instead of a catapult (they stupidly do not have it, and is not yet expected)
            1. Shurik70
              Shurik70 18 May 2018 13: 08
              0
              That's it. The springboard is more efficient, more reliable, and we have already worked out.
              The transition to a catapult is a step into the past.
              1. Ripap
                Ripap 18 May 2018 13: 16
                0
                There is one problem, without a catapult the AWACS plane will not take off. And without it, an aircraft carrier is only suitable for bombing the Papuans, who have neither anti-ship missiles, nor submarines.
                1. Shurik70
                  Shurik70 18 May 2018 13: 23
                  0
                  An airship is better for AWACS. It eats less fuel, it can hang for weeks, the conditions for crews are more comfortable, and you can cram the antenna inside very well.
          2. donavi49
            donavi49 18 May 2018 13: 29
            +3
            Not. They consider this a dead end. But - at the same time they are pragmatists.

            They had a Varangian - on which they trained their competencies.

            They have a lot of money in the fleet. There is a J-15 / 17 aircraft - which does not need a catapult. It is possible to build another AB in Dalniy before the Type-002 is designed, so why not build it?

            On Tip-001, equipment and new products that will be on Tip-002 are maximally rolled in. They will have an identical energy part for example.

            Tip-002 will be without a springboard and per group in 60 aircraft. In fact, it will be their Kitty Hawk version.
          3. dgonni
            dgonni 18 May 2018 15: 53
            0
            Do not write heresy! I have a mustache :(
          4. MPN
            MPN 19 May 2018 10: 16
            +5
            By the fact that without a catapult you can only launch Mig and Su, you won’t launch AWACS ..
          5. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 19 May 2018 22: 29
            0
            Quote: Shurik70
            Higher throughput

            higher throughput at the catapult. Especially if there are several, and not one springboard. In general, the carrying capacity (the time of raising the wing) is also provided by the places of preparation of the aircraft, the number of aircraft lifters and the layout of aircraft in hangars. The Chinese do not have a working catapult, and there is nothing to feed them (if there are three) (there are no YaU), and therefore an aircraft carrier with a springboard. Do not confuse cause and effect ...
      2. Greenwood
        Greenwood 19 May 2018 06: 20
        +1
        Quote: MPN
        and the aligarchs ... who will not sell without profit ... Dispose of money without asking why !!!
        "We do not have oligarchs. We have socially responsible businessmen." (C)
  2. Sailor
    Sailor 18 May 2018 11: 35
    +3
    Well done, what else to say. They are aircraft carriers building faster than we corvettes.
    1. Ripap
      Ripap 18 May 2018 13: 09
      0
      Well, having a bunch of dough, almost free and enough skilled workers, and bought from the ruins of the Soviet model for copying, why not build)
  3. Same lech
    Same lech 18 May 2018 11: 35
    +2
    The Chinese are walking far ... but from my point of view, aircraft carriers with the further development of hypersonic weapons in the future will become a very vulnerable target and putting huge amounts of money into this business is a big risk.
    1. Oleg14774
      Oleg14774 18 May 2018 11: 38
      +2
      I agree with you. This is for local conflicts with third countries. If for a war with the USA, then they will not even come in handy, other systems will be involved.
    2. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 18 May 2018 11: 41
      +3
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      from my point of view, aircraft carriers with the further development of hypersonic weapons in the future will become a very vulnerable target and investing huge amounts of money in this business is a big risk.

      I agree with you. But still I feel envy ...
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 20 May 2018 02: 49
      0
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      and investing huge amounts of money in this business is a big risk.

      let's build only boats - but each with 10 hyper-missiles. This will be the power! laughing
  4. Oleg14774
    Oleg14774 18 May 2018 11: 36
    +2
    Straining electromagnetic catapult. It can be used successfully in the northern latitudes, it is not steam!
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 20 May 2018 02: 48
      0
      Quote: Oleg147741
      Straining electromagnetic catapult. It can be used successfully in the northern latitudes, it is not steam!

      Yeah, if it does not suffer the fate of the railgun ....)
  5. Lavrenti Pavlovich
    Lavrenti Pavlovich 18 May 2018 11: 37
    +2
    Well done, the Chinese, have already begun the construction of the third aircraft carrier, while ours are still playing toys, the models are gluing, but they caught up with noise.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 18 May 2018 11: 48
      0
      while ours are still playing toys, the models are gluing but they have caught up with the noise.

      Why is Russia an aircraft carrier now ... what ?
      An aircraft carrier is a weapon of blackmail ... who can they blackmail our country in the world ... Russia's Armed Forces are capable of destroying any state in the world ... if only an aircraft carrier is built for local conflicts ... but how justified is its use, for example, in the same Syria what ?
      After all, for example, Americans cannot use their AUGs to the full in the Syrian conflict because of the high risk of receiving a dozen Granites as a gift for their super-duper aircraft carriers.
      1. spektr9
        spektr9 18 May 2018 16: 07
        +3
        In the 90s, such personalities yelled "why do we need an army - we are friends with everyone"
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 20 May 2018 02: 47
        0
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        After all, for example, Americans cannot use their AUGs to the full in the Syrian conflict due to the high risk of receiving a dozen Granites as a gift for their super-duper aircraft carriers

        yes, that’s why))) And they don’t fly over Syria because of the risk of getting a couple of other S-400 missiles in their belly, for example .... Storytellers, damn it ....
  6. yaros
    yaros 18 May 2018 11: 52
    +2
    Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
    Well done, the Chinese, have already begun the construction of the third aircraft carrier, while ours are still playing toys, the models are gluing, but they caught up with noise.

    But how many atomic icebreakers do they have? If there was a task to conquer the Papuans and we would start to build with a creak, this nagging on VO was tired. Under the USSR, it was justified to have a fleet for the expansion of socialism in the Papuan countries, and the protection of the Allies, now what the hell is it? If one missile with hypersound makes it a mass grave. And the Chinese with their troubles with the disputed islands and Taiwan, these aircraft carriers are needed .....
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 18 May 2018 12: 19
      +2
      But how many atomic icebreakers do they have? If there was a task to conquer the Papuans and we would start to build with a creak, this nagging on VO was tired
      I fully support you. The Chinese need to dictate their rights in the seas of the Indian and Pacific Oceans where they have problems on islands with many countries.
    2. Greg Miller
      Greg Miller 18 May 2018 12: 25
      0
      And how much the Chinese need atomic icebreakers today, so much they have ....
      1. Ripap
        Ripap 18 May 2018 13: 11
        +1
        And how much Russia needs aircraft carriers, we even have one more than we need.
        1. spektr9
          spektr9 18 May 2018 16: 09
          +1
          Russia generally does not need a weapon, you personally will throw all the invaders with hats laughing
          1. Ripap
            Ripap 18 May 2018 18: 30
            0
            That's what Russia definitely does not need, because these are giant aircraft carriers. UDCs are needed, BDKs are needed, Cruisers and destroyers are needed, corvettes, an underwater fleet, that's what we need, not aircraft carriers.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 20 May 2018 02: 44
              0
              Quote: RipRap
              UDC needed, BDK needed, Cruisers and destroyers needed, corvettes, submarine fleet, that's what we need, not aircraft carriers

              and who will provide air cover for all this your beauty? Or do you want to turn them into tin targets for enemy missiles? Everything is needed, and AB cannot be thrown away. It turns out that they set up a bunch of tanks of any other usefulness, and put them into battle without air cover. Maybe they themselves under the tribunal, without waiting? ...
  7. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 18 May 2018 12: 22
    0
    Mdya ... The pace of construction, envy .. If you save them, the US Navy will soon not be comfortable in the Pacific
  8. Greg Miller
    Greg Miller 18 May 2018 12: 24
    +6
    Quote: MPN
    Quote: Greg Miller
    For 5 days, sea trials ??? Somehow too fast somehow ....

    This is some kind of intermediate ... That's what worries me. Why don't we have money for an aircraft carrier? After all, to buy an aircraft carrier from themselves is the same contract, albeit without profit. Immediately, he transferred from one wallet to another, which again will return and industry is developing, people live and work ... And we do not buy this feeling from ourselves, but from the aligarchs ... who will not sell without profit ... asking why !!!

    This is because in Russia the ruling class are foreign traders. They do not care about the interests of Russia itself as a state, they are only interested in free trade and unhindered export of capital abroad. All this Russian ruling class does not live in Russia, but in the West and treats Russia as a trough, from which it simply eats ... Yes, it protects this “trough” to the best of its ability, does not at all take care that everything around is clean and beautiful because devouring from this "trough" he goes home, to the West, where everything is clean and beautiful ...
  9. yaros
    yaros 18 May 2018 12: 29
    0
    Quote: Greg Miller
    And how much the Chinese need atomic icebreakers today, so much they have ....

    And how many nuclear submarines are needed in Belarus? She has so much, if the nuclear icebreakers wouldn’t hinder the Chinese, they squint on our Northern Trade Route
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 18 May 2018 14: 17
      +2
      Antarctica - Xue Long 2 is now building an even larger ship to explore the southern continent. But overall, they have priorities in East Africa, dominance in Southeast Asia.
    2. spektr9
      spektr9 18 May 2018 16: 11
      +1
      It will be necessary to set up, it’s not for you the Russian Federation which is giving a promise
  10. Troubadour
    Troubadour 18 May 2018 14: 00
    0
    And someone yells that Kuzya is old! The concept itself is still alive! Why not build a heel and not tumble into the insanely expensive Storm and build just 1 pc. and then sell again for next to nothing ??
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 20 May 2018 02: 40
      0
      Quote: Troubadour
      And someone yells that Kuzya is old! The concept itself is still alive!

      Kuznetsov is a premature bearer. Whether you like it or not. If you look soberly, then there are at least two minuses:
      1. There are no catapults, as a result, there is a limitation on the take-off mass of cars and there is no AWACS. Without which the Aircraft Carrier is nothing more than an almost helpless aircraft carrier.
      2. Granites gobbled up so much that the air group could be increased by a third. Kuznetsov is not so small, but how much does LA and Nimitz take? Take an interest.
  11. yaros
    yaros 18 May 2018 17: 04
    0
    Quote: spektr9
    Russia generally does not need a weapon, you personally will throw all the invaders with hats laughing

    Wretched logic that aircraft carriers are the only weapons? Moreover, after March 1, they generally have nothing to scare the Papuans at all .... "Dagger" or an expensive aircraft carrier, choose
    1. spektr9
      spektr9 18 May 2018 22: 39
      +1
      Yeah, but in fact 100 daggers per aircraft carrier group, it’s not a fact ...
  12. Е2 - Е4
    Е2 - Е4 19 May 2018 00: 09
    0
    China, he is China, without Russia, China is a dummy. All the power of China is based on China's support for Russia. Therefore, China without Russia is nothing. The Chinese themselves understand this very well. Therefore, it is necessary to talk with China as a junior partner, it was as it should be
  13. yaros
    yaros 19 May 2018 12: 59
    0
    Quote: spektr9
    Yeah, but in fact 100 daggers per aircraft carrier group, it’s not a fact ...

    This is for what fact? What was the precedent already? If the rocket, in principle, cannot be intercepted, then one is enough for the main purpose .....
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 20 May 2018 02: 37
      0
      Quote: yaros
      if the rocket in principle cannot be intercepted

      who told you this?
      Quote: yaros
      then one is enough for the main purpose

      and this is where whose tales?
      Can't the rocket carrier be intercepted?
      Learn to think soberly .... rather than throwing bonnets ....