The PLAN Receives It's First Carrier

#1
Burhead

Burhead

God-Emperor of Politics
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
26,302
Likes
10,103
#1
BBC News - China's first aircraft carrier enters service

The People's Liberation Army - Navy has got it's first aircraft carrier (ex-Soviet Varyag). While it is only going to be used as a training ship it is still a pretty big development. The timing also seems very interesting since the island dispute going on right now between China, Japan, and Taiwan.
 
#2
#2
from the video on there it looks like they have a lot of work left to do. Of course a lot can be accomplished with stolen tech and slave labor
 
#3
#3
It is a training tool for their sub fleet. You know the sub fleet they didn't have in 2000 but now is a viable threat to our carriers in the Pacific. China is on track to control us economically and be able to establish hegemony in the Pacific without fear of our military being able to stop them.

Do we have a foreign policy that involves anything besides the M in the DIME model?
 
#4
#4
Will be a while before they are actually able to use this for combat, but a fleet of J-10s or the newer variant of the J-10 aircraft on a few of these carriers would be scary.
 
#9
#9
BearCat204 said:
Will be a while before they are actually able to use this for combat, but a fleet of J-10s or the newer variant of the J-10 aircraft on a few of these carriers would be scary.
Click to expand...

The Associated Press: China says first aircraft carrier entering service
China is developing a carrier-based fighter-bomber, the J-15, derived from Russia's Sukhoi Su-33, along with a prototype stealth carrier fighter, the J-31.

China can't buy Sukhoi fighter jets - UPI.com
At this time, it seems China has an aircraft carrier without any carrier aircraft. vm

China's J-15 New Carrier Based Fighter Get Ready for More Test Flights | Defense Update Portal
China copied the Russian Su-33 and is expected to deploy it in 2015 as the J-15. vm
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
Vol Main said:
The Associated Press: China says first aircraft carrier entering service
China is developing a carrier-based fighter-bomber, the J-15, derived from Russia's Sukhoi Su-33, along with a prototype stealth carrier fighter, the J-31.

China can't buy Sukhoi fighter jets - UPI.com
At this time, it seems China has an aircraft carrier without any carrier aircraft. vm

China's J-15 New Carrier Based Fighter Get Ready for More Test Flights | Defense Update Portal
China copied the Russian Su-33 and is expected to deploy it in 2015 as the J-15. vm
Click to expand...

Thank you
 
#11
#11
From that link:

So far the trial runs of the aircraft carrier have been to test the ship's propulsion, communications and navigation systems. But launching and recovering fixed-wing aircraft at sea is a much trickier proposition. It will take years to build the proper aircraft, to train pilots to land in adverse weather on a moving deck, and to develop a proper carrier battle group.
Click to expand...
 
#12
#12
BearCat204 said:
Thank you
Click to expand...
You're welcome.

There is some talk about the Chinese developing a naval variant of the J-10, perhaps with two engines. That seems unlikely, and of course it would no longer be a J-10. The Chinese developed the J-10 from the Israeli Lavi, a derivative of the F-16. Reinforcing the airframe for naval operations would significantly increase its weight, which would also reduce its maneuverability, range, and payload. That is particularly true if launched from a ski-ramp type carrier instead of a catapult equipped carrier. For whatever reasons, the PLAN appears committed to using the J-15 or Su-33 clone, which is too heavy for a ski-ramp carrier. Even with reduced armaments, the J-15's range is only about 250 miles off a ski-ramp.
 
Last edited:
#13
#13
Just a question, are'nt we still the only country in the world that conducts night time carrier operations?
 
#15
#15
hog88 said:
Just a question, are'nt we still the only country in the world that conducts night time carrier operations?
Click to expand...

There are only 22 active carriers in the world.....The US has 11 of them. The most anyone else has is Spain with 2......we are the only ones that we know of that perform night time carrier ops.
 
#17
#17
YorkVol said:
It is a training tool for their sub fleet. You know the sub fleet they didn't have in 2000 but now is a viable threat to our carriers in the Pacific. China is on track to control us economically and be able to establish hegemony in the Pacific without fear of our military being able to stop them.

Do we have a foreign policy that involves anything besides the M in the DIME model?
Click to expand...

The flip side of our economic dependence on China is China's economic dependence upon America. Without America, China's economy would collapse. As for Chinese hegemony in the Pacific, the U.S. Navy rules the sea. That won't change any time soon. Besides Pakistan, what real allies does China have in the world? It is encircled by unfriendly countries. America is not encircled, and we have allies all around the world.
 
#18
#18
Vol Main said:
The flip side of our economic dependence on China is China's economic dependence upon America. Without America, China's economy would collapse. As for Chinese hegemony in the Pacific, the U.S. Navy rules the sea. That won't change any time soon. Besides Pakistan, what real allies does China have in the world? It is encircled by unfriendly countries. America is not encircled, and we have allies all around the world.
Click to expand...

Delusional. China's soft diplomacy in the Pacific is directly impacting our influence across the region. In less than 25 years they've developed real and threatening countermeasures to PACOM's capabilities. And, they are building markets in the region that will eventually surpass the revenue the get from us. China has a long term plan that we are ignoring to our detriment.
 
#19
#19
YorkVol said:
Delusional. China's soft diplomacy in the Pacific is directly impacting our influence across the region. In less than 25 years they've developed real and threatening countermeasures to PACOM's capabilities. And, they are building markets in the region that will eventually surpass the revenue the get from us. China has a long term plan that we are ignoring to our detriment.
Click to expand...

China is expanding its economic relations with a lot of countries, as you say. But many of China's neighbors(Pakistan excepted) view China's military rise as a serious threat. They are strengthening their own military forces and their defensive ties to other countries, viewing America's presence in the Pacific as a reassuring force. If there comes a time when China's neighbors rely on China for their weapons, then your concerns would become more real. At this time, that is not happening.

I'll stand on my statement that the U.S. Navy rules the seas. That won't change for a very long time, if ever. Our Air Force rules the air, but the bad decision to cancel F-22 gravely threatens that continued superiority.
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
Vol Main said:
Our Air Force rules the air, but the bad decision to cancel F-22 gravely threatens that continued superiority.
Click to expand...

The termination of the F-22 program wasnt a bad decision imo. The platform has had several issues since production including a pretty bad oxygen issue with its system. A fleet of 180+ is suitable for where we are right now and the operational readiness that we are required to have at this point. Not to mention that the flight hour to maintenance hour ratio is terrible with that airframe...over double of the F/A 18 Es and Fs
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
BearCat204 said:
The termination of the F-22 program wasnt a bad decision imo. The platform has had several issues since production including a pretty bad oxygen issue with its system. A fleet of 180+ is suitable for where we are right now and the operational readiness that we are required to have at this point. Not to mention that the flight hour to maintenance hour ratio is terrible with that airframe...over double of the F/A 18 Es and Fs
Click to expand...

All new aircraft have issues. The F-22 uses virtually the same oxygen system as the F-18. After spending a national fortune on R&D for the F-22, canceling it over a workable problem like that seems irrational. The USAF might be all right where it is right now, but that situation is changing by the minute. Our teen series of fighters no longer provide our pilots with qualitative superiority. They are decades old and getting older, having worked more flight hours than expected. 4th generation fighters designed in the 1970s, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s are going forward into a 4.5/5th generation fighter environment.

They need to be replaced, but the F-35 was not designed to replace our fighter fleet. It was designed to operate in the ground attack role with limited fighter capability, under the CAP of the F-22. The F-35's survivability in air combat with aircraft now in production by Europe, Russia, and China is doubtful. F-35 lacks the required combination of fuel capacity, range, speed, maneuverability, and payload. And they use the same radar absorbing skin which causes so much downtime on the F-22, so replacing F-22 with F-35 will not solve that problem. It will exacerbate the problem because of higher loss rates in the event of air combat.

F-22 is ready for mass production now; F-35 clearly is not. It is still undergoing redesigns while its costs skyrocket, as everybody should have expected. So we cancelled a superior fighter aircraft after paying for its development costs...because of its development costs, in order to pay development costs for an inferior aircraft. Makes no sense to me.

F-35 will be a fine aircraft, in the role it was designed to fulfill. It was not designed to be an air superiority fighter.
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
Vol Main said:
China is expanding its economic relations with a lot of countries, as you say. But many of China's neighbors(Pakistan excepted) view China's military rise as a serious threat. They are strengthening their own military forces and their defensive ties to other countries, viewing America's presence in the Pacific as a reassuring force. If there comes a time when China's neighbors rely on China for their weapons, then your concerns would become more real. At this time, that is not happening.

I'll stand on my statement that the U.S. Navy rules the seas. That won't change for a very long time, if ever. Our Air Force rules the air, but the bad decision to cancel F-22 gravely threatens that continued superiority.
Click to expand...

All of that is changing rapidly and has been part of a focused effort that we've been overlooking.
 
#23
#23
Vol Main said:
The F-22 uses virtually the same oxygen system as the F-18. After spending a national fortune on R&D for the F-22, canceling it over a workable problem like that seems irrational. The USAF might be all right where it is right now, but that situation is changing by the minute. Our teen series of fighters no longer provide our pilots with qualitative superiority. They are decades old and getting older, having worked more flight hours than expected. They are 4th generation fighters designed in the 1970s, going forward into a 4.5G/5G fighter environment.

They need to be replaced, but the F-35 was not designed to replace our fighter fleet. It was designed to operate in the ground attack role with limited fighter capability, under the CAP of the F-22. The F-35's survivability in air combat with aircraft now in production by Russia and China is doubtful. F-35 lacks the required combination of fuel capacity, range, speed, maneuverability, and payload. And they use the same radar absorbing skin which causes so much downtime on the F-22, so replacing F-22 with F-35 will not solve that problem. It will exacerbate the problem because of higher loss rates in the event of air combat.

F-22 is ready for mass production now; F-35 clearly is not. It is still undergoing redesigns while its costs skyrocket, as everybody should have expected. So we cancelled a superior aircraft after paying for its development costs...because of its development costs, in order to pay development costs for an inferior aircraft. Makes no sense to me.

F-35 will be a fine aircraft, in the role it was designed to fulfill. It was not designed to be an air superiority fighter.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, the F22 OBOGS is not the same as the F/A18's....they are even built by two different companies. The F-22 was a money pit and continued to be a money pit and it was at the point that the cost per flight hour exceeded anything we had in our current squadrons. The JSF is more equipped as for an air superiority role than anything inexistance, with exception to the F22 and at a much lower operational cost of the F-22. There is a limited role for air-to-air combat right now, especially with the Chinese and Russians so far behind in fifth generation fighters. Its a matter of cost and versatility that make the JSF a better direction for us to go.



ps, we are wayyyy off subject here
 
#24
#24
BearCat204 said:
Incorrect, the F22 OBOGS is not the same as the F/A18's....they are even built by two different companies. The F-22 was a money pit and continued to be a money pit and it was at the point that the cost per flight hour exceeded anything we had in our current squadrons. The JSF is more equipped as for an air superiority role than anything inexistance, with exception to the F22 and at a much lower operational cost of the F-22. There is a limited role for air-to-air combat right now, especially with the Chinese and Russians so far behind in fifth generation fighters. Its a matter of cost and versatility that make the JSF a better direction for us to go.

Good catch, but please note that virtually means in effect if not in fact. Both planes use OBOGs as their primary system instead of LOX. Both planes have had problems with their OBOGs. The OBOGs in the F-18 is faulted as the cause of hypoxia at a 4 to 1 ratio of all other causes, and two F-18 pilots are believed to have died because of its OBOGs.

Many authorities simply do not agree with your claim that F-35 is more equipped for the air superiority role than any other fighter besides F-22. That sales pitch does not bear up well under scrutiny. I'll stand on my statement that the F-35 will not provide the USAF air superiority into the future, and I find no comfort in your assertion that air combat is no longer an important role for the USAF. There is real concern that F-35 is not survivable in close air combat with extant 4.5G aircraft now in mass production by a number of countries. My belief is that air squadrons operating with F-22 CAP and 4G attack aircraft would be far more survivable than pure F-35.

ps, we are wayyyy off subject here
Click to expand...

Maybe VN should open a military board.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top