An AP story at Military.com reports that the Chinese Navy has successfully landed one of their J-15 (the carrierized version of the Su-33) aboard the Liaoning aircraft carrier.
We here at DT figure there are two ways of looking at this development: You can say that this proves the threat in the Pacific Rim is real and the defense budget needs to be adjusted accordingly, which means a shift from a ground war focus back to the good ol’ days of wars at sea.
OR you could say that all the Chinese have done is land a jet on a carrier, something the Brits first did on December 3, 1945. Now launch and recover 35 well-armed aircraft per cycle around the clock for three or four days. And then add another carrier or two in the AOR and try to make the airwings play nice together.
Remember — although the economics are different — the navies of the former Soviet Union all attempted to embrace convential carrier operations in the late ‘90s. The net-net of their efforts was a fundamental understanding that flying off of the boat is harder than it looks — and it looks hard. As a result they sold one of their carriers to another country — China.
{ 198 comments… read them below or add one }
"Now launch and recover 35 well-armed aircraft per cycle around the clock for three or four days. And then add another carrier or two in the AOR and try to make the airwings play nice together."
DT,… what are you saying… DT… STAHP….
Sigh…
Everytime you say something like it ain't ever gonna happen, it happens.
Anyways, there are really only two kinds of ships. Subs and targets.
And in the '50s we were sure that after bombing Japan to ruin they would never grow industrially in a way that would scare the living daylights out of American electronics manufacturers.
technically though that in hindsight is one of the most erroneous assumption because given that Japan is a small nation with limited raw resources, it makes sense to develop industry that produces a very high density of value per material and space required.
I mean what else could they develop for their industry?
When space is in incredibly short supply, there's not much else they can pick to make the best use of their available resources that gives the best return.
What would be more curious is what exactly was the idea back then that lead to such assumptions from the USA.
A sub is a target to – from a VP Aviator
Duuude – just one correction to your comment. There aren’t two types of ships, they are all targets.
Madman…madman….. Weapon away
From a Retired VP CAPT Tacco and CO
Aren't subs boats not ships? I'm not in the Navy, but the way it was explained to me, subs are boats because they used to be launched from ships…
The second way of looking at this seems like famous last words.
Meanwhile, on the Harry Truman, the USN prepared for the world's first unmanned launch and recovery of a jet aircraft on an aircraft carrier. Just sayin'.
I don’t think a ‘Sea Vampire’ is in quite the league of a J-15, and I’m sure HMS “Ocean” is hardly comparable to “Liaoning”. The Japanese ‘Zero’ was regarded, pre-1941, as ‘all bamboo & ricepaper’, but proved for some while to be remarkably effective.
Pearl Harbor, underestimation carries human toll.
Amen brother!
My father was educated in 1930s London (and then on to Cambridge and then worked for Watson-Watt developing radar).
He was taught that the Japanese were congenitally short-sighted and so could never fly fighter planes.
Then they turned up at Pearl Harbour and they even interrupted the cricket in Singapore.
Clearly, we need to increase our defense budget until it is larger than China's.
Oh, wait …
The thing is, we don't know exactly how large China's defense budget is; they're well known for not reporting exact or truthful figures and under reporting their defense budget numbers. You also have to remember that there are several different ways of reading a country's defense budget numbers; there's as a straight dollar figure (which doesn't tell the whole story), as a percentage of the budget, and as a percentage of GDP; the latter two are the more accurate way of determining the true size of a nation's defense, or any other part, budget. Going by a straight dollar amount our defense budget looks massive but when viewed as a percentage of our overall budget or GDP it's not all that massive and, in some cases, actually smaller than some nations.
yeah, yeah, we've all heard that story before when the military goes to the congress asking for more money.
Just count the number of ships/subs launched and number of new jets deployed each year, factor in cheaper labor/material/R&D cost and you have your answer.
If you sacrifice the life of your own population such as you had it in USSR, until it collapses, you will have an enormous budget, any democracy or country that values human life cannot compete with.
Imagine it as a fundamentalist mentality of self sacrifice to destroy the west, you got ALL the investment you need, even human.
When comparing straight dollar amounts, you have to look at what a dollar buys in America vs China. A Chinese one-star makes $1600 a month while a Shanghai citizen makes around $500 a month. This is poverty level for the US, but both salaries are upper class in China. An American one-star makes $12,000 a month.
Not to mention what Chinese generals make in graft.
The point being exchange rates and standards of living matter when you debate budgets.
Wow, $1600 a month… Not nearly enough to take on a mistress like Petraeus.
Dear DT,
You forgot to post the picture of a J-15 flying off the carrier.
DT never said they were able to actually launch aircraft, from the carrier, only land them!!!
I give them credit for what this was, its was a single land and takeoff on a refurbished ship in very calm seas with the ship apperantly under its own power. That said, remember the lessons the Japenese learned about building carriers? Like the time they built the Shinano, the worlds largest carrier (of its time) only to have it sunk 10 days after launch by a single US submarine…… This carrier is a training/learning platform, no more, no less. There is no need to worry about anything until they can show they can project military power from a complete carrier strike force. You have to learn how to do that, and this is how they will learn. They will show that after they build their own carriers, put them in full operation and train for a few years. It takes time to learn carrier ops, they have made fast progress but they still have a long ways to go.
So yes, this is a major milestone for the Chinese but something to loss sleep over, it is not.
Yesterday maybe, day after tomorrow, they can build 5 more.
Maybe nothing to lose sleep over now, Usain Bolt had to first learn to walk before he became the fastest human.
The title of this article is very biased.
However, I'll start worrying only when China assembles their first carrier battle group and only if it's comparable to one of ours in terms of training, size, and equipment. They are no where near being able to do that as of yet and still have no way of projecting their interests abroad. This article also says nothing about the intense training our Navy pilots go through to be more lethal than any Air Force pilots of the countries we fight. It doesn't mention that we use a NUCLEAR powered carrier that can remain on station for a long period of time with a combined team of multiple warships, each with enough precision firepower to destroy a good portion of an entire enemy army. Let's also not forget the complex Aegis defense shield we made to keep the whole thing safe. The Aegis system alone took decades to make it as good as it is.
Even if the Chinese make one battle group we will still outnumber them by a long shot since we have several and our guys have been doing it for much longer. I see no reason to fret over this and this is not a justification to increase spending. I do, however, think that more funds should be shifted within the Navy's budget to our fast-attack submarine force. Chinese submarines and their Russian-made supersonic cruise missiles are currently the only conventional weapons that are a threat to us.
Agreed,
People like to underestimate the value of world class training. You need look no further than the famous Mig V Sabre battles of the Korean war to see the result. Thanks to better training we used a lesser aircraft in combat, and I believe the technical term for what we did to the NORKs AF and the MIG-15 is called "an ass kicking."
The Migs were doing the ass kicking with Soviet pilots against the shooting star and the sabres until the Supers were available, and in numbers far in excess of what the Soviets were willing to put on the line.
But the Soviet pilots were few and far between, which was my point. Doesnt matter if you have equipment, its how you use/train to use it.
Further digging suggests MiG-15's were provided to the PLAAF in 1950, raising the possibility of PLAAF and/or VVS/PVO advisors participating in the Korean War against Americans, presumably with differing levels of experience. The numbers are also unknown, but /presumed/ to be lesser in quantity than American fliers for the Soviets, but whether this is true of the PLAAF is even harder to tell. And as far as I can tell, the North Korean Air Force didn't have MiG-15's.
There's also some trickiness involved in gauging the quality of the American flier at the time. After demobilization I wonder if the same quality problems that hit the army hit the Air Force as well…it is well-known that the land army was in a decrepit state, where by contrast the Soviet military did not demobilize, and the PLA continued to accrue military experience in combat. At the same time, combat-experienced KMT fliers may have defected with their equipment when caught and forced to surrender (which happened to their land armies as well). This would give the PLAAF and the VVS fairly modern aircraft and the combat-experienced infrastructure in contrast to the demobilized military machines of the UN coalition forces and the South Korean military.
Don't forget you need top class hunter killer subs for a carrier battle group also,and by all reports China is still far behind in that aspect also.
By ALL reports you have.
Count their nukes, fail to succeed.
While that is partly true…
i'd recommend we avoid this " I'll start worrying only when China assembles their first carrier battle group and only if it's comparable to one of ours in terms of training, size, and equipment." scenario
because it is TOO LATE when that has occurred.
the worrying part needs to start much earlier, from around the time they at least posses half or even a fraction of the capability because be it USA, EU, Russia or what not needs time to adapt and adjust to the progress China make and anticipate their development.
We can't wait until their capability rival our own forces before we start taking the steps to counter it, we have to start BEFORE that becomes a fully materialized threat so we actually have the chance to mitigate it.
Actually, they have cyber warfare abilities that are more critical than the Pricey exploding weapons. I still think China as the "bad guys" is still Tom Clancy fiction. This is more about a power play toward her neighbors than the USN.
fhere will be no direct war among u.s. , china and russian because it would mean the end of civilization as we know it.
what china wants it's rightful place in the world which u.s. doesn't want china to be.
that's all this game is about.
A long time to deploy? Maybe maybe not. Remember 2016 is coming and the Democrats want Hillary to run for President. The Chinese couldn't hit space with a rocket until Bill Clinton arranged for them to acquire missile guidance systems from us. I wonder and worry what the other Clinton might offer China to get election contributions from the same Chinese generals Bill did.
All well and good guys, and well said by all however, we best not under estimate
China. clearly they are doing some serious military growing.
You have to have Oilers to refuel those things..that is NOT a Nuc..That is an operation in itself to steam at 12 knots and shoot lines over and hoses and refuel at sea…Takes some doing! Does China have this down seeing they are a shallow water navy!! It is cause for concern though…don't underestimate your enemy!!
Sometimes I wonder if we're talking to ourselves . . . . I would be surprised if the Chinese consider this carrier as something that they can use to project power against the U.S.
My desktop jockey analysis says that the more interesting – and perhaps more relevant – question is how this affects their territorial claims in the SE Pacific.
How would a Chinese CAG fare against JPN subs in the (shallow?) waters around Sengaku Islands? How are ASW capabilities of the Chinese? Seems that the Chinese ASW capabilities is the key determining factor as to whether we have another retreating ARA Veinticinco de Mayo in a PRC-JPN conflict a la Falklands.
As for the Vietnamese or the Fillipinos, they probably don't have much in the way of a undersea navy, if any, and the carrier probably could be use to have useful loiter time over the islands.
Just food for thought.
Agreed, but I dont think the Chinese think the US will remain out of the fight. If we do, then yes they could pick and win the fight. If we get involved they do not have the capability to challange us on anything but land combat, and even then they are going to loss millions of troops (something that I dont think modern day China would be willing to do). So yes they could pick a fight in the region, but that is a huge gamble to make knowing that you have no ability to counter the US Navel threat if we get involved.
I don't know about millions…
if Korean war taught us anything, it's to not assume they only have numerical superiority… and to not assume that our tech can solve everything.
it also taught us how dangerous it is to be complacent and underestimating a foe.
It's highly unlikely still that such scenario will go down, but in either case, we don't need to underestimate them more than once… back then they were ancient comparatively and they bloodied our nose, now we're far more advanced than we were back then and arguably the most advanced overall for an armed forces, but China hasn't exactly been sitting around doing nothing either so making assumptions on the outcome there is quite premature.
In the Korean War, the People's Volunteer Army used a ton of old KMT surplus. They were short tanks, tube artillery, proper logistics and winter gear, but it's not like the UN forces did not have similar supply issues.
I suspect events like Gloucester Hill helped create the impression of endless waves of enemies, and that over-extended UN units surprised by an guerrilla army which built its bread and butter on infiltration, encirclement and local superiority attributed the speed at which they lost positions to numerical superiority.
It's not too different from WW2: where the French were probably blaming better-equipped troops when they were outgeneralled and failed to Know Thy Enemy.
Ch'ongch'on River is acknowledged as the real beginning of the counterpunch, and in the big picture it seems that they were numerically matched, which when you throw in the traditional force multipliers for the west, hands the advantage to them. Like a well-trained guerrilla force, they went for the jugular instead of duking it out WW1-style, which is "good" for them and was bad for the UN.
Chosin Reservoir was the same: though the PRC did have more troops, an attack in winter without proper gear, shortages of weapons and the like reduces overall effectives.
Agreed, in either case though… our best outcome have always come when we expect the most of our enemy and prepared for the worst, and our worst have always come when we assumed prematurely that they will capitulate in the face of overwhelming firepower (and then they don't because if there's one trait some of our foes exhibit regularly, it's that they can be very stubborn and persistent)…
I am quite wary of any notion like DRG said that assumes our foes can only do X, or that they will certainly fall in the face of our Y because time and time again things don't go that way and then we stare in the face of the fact that things did not follow the script we expected and that we have no reliable plan B to salvage the situation.
Pretty much where my mind is. If I am not mistaken, the South China Sea is relatively shallow, and difficult for submarines to operate in undetected, more so for our larger nuclear subs. Combined with shore based assets, diesel subs, their recently organized "Marines" for amphibious assault, their "carrier killer" missiles for keeping US Carrier Strike Groups out far at arms length, and it seems obvious to me how they intend to use this carrier if they ever use it as more than a training ship. Area denial, and regional force projection. The Philippines, Vietnam, all their other neighbors in that area have no carrier strike capability, leaving the Chinese with a clear edge to pursue their territorial claims.
The Vietnamese are buying 6 Kilos, which will provide a very useful deterrent to Chinese surface warships.
The Chinese know the Kilo inside out
I wonder if this will prompt the Philippines and Vietnam to invite the US back and start basing ships and planes there again. China is already starting to flex it's new found powers with the new passports that have the maps including islands right off Vietnam as part of their territory.
I suspect the United States would be a little wary of sea-bases in land conquerable distance from the PRC. However, setting up a joint forces base that could potentially be used as a logistical hub for a land attack would be beyond provocational, and might set up Vietnam for a decapitation strike to prevent its use as a staging point. And anything in such a staging point would be at risk as well…may well be in conventional ballistic missile range; though I'm not sure if Chinese conventional BM's would have the CEP to be effective, short of saturation or powerful warheads.
The Philippines has already given green light for US Marines and Navy to take up camp in country.
It wouldn't surprise me if China was getting help from ex western carrier pilots and carrier deck personnel. China does very little without either stealing it or paying someone for their expertise.
Same with a Jet and Space flight program after WWII, and the Abomb one in the US, where FOREIGN labour was paid including war criminals to build it.
We should offer to build them a top of the line carrier and stock it with planes for 16 Trillion dollars. Then pay off our National debt.
not if that means they get to supercharge their naval projection capability and help claim their interest around the area that will then pay back that 16 trillion investment down the line and probably more if they get to hold them…
16 trillion may sound a lot even for a nation that big, but given how much time and money it takes to develop a modern carrier design (some of which have to be learned the hard way with loss of lives) and how much power projection they create still (even in this age where so many things can knock them out of the equation)… that technically could well be a bargain for them.
Sell the Big E to the Chinese for 16trillion instead of scrapping it.
I'm surprised they don't just buy off workers at the yard that scraps CVN's, let alone overhauls and builds them.
Or worse, put a guy in Newport News and get the plans for the Fords. Unless Newport News is better at counterespionage than Lockmart and Northrop?
You're assuming that, if handed 16 trillion, Congress would actually use it to pay off the debt.
"Our constituents in Ohio need–!"
Seriously, those guys spend money like I did when I was 20 and stuck on swing shift.
I'd say all they've done is land a plane on a carrier a-la 1945. Next year we'll be looking at the Chinese doing naval air as in 1955, then a year later 1965, and so forth. In other words, in seven years they'll be operating on par with the US.
I thought that although the US has ‘operational’ 9 carriers since the Enterprise has been scrapped that at least two are always in long refit/refueling periods while others work up for deployment or are in rest periods after coming off deployment. So the reality is that generally there are five or six carriers available to be deployed across the the five fleets.
Those fleets have specific areas of responsibility and taskings so are not all available to go off piling into the Pacific? Thus phrases like ‘we’ve got 11 carriers’ doesn’t seem to match the reality of what’s actually available for operations in the Pacific or have I missed something? Granted China only have one carrier (which is one more than the UK and more aircraft sat on it, we only own two carrier aircraft full stop and they are stuck in the US with no carrier to put them on) but I thought China’s doctrine is fleet protection cover/CAP type stuff securing home waters and not power projection.
That's true for now but this carrier is representative of China's desire to change that and get into the power projection game. Granted that this carrier is almost certainly nothing more than a training vessel for them to learn from it's a start although it will take them a pretty good while before they can begin to rival our capability much less be a serious threat but we'd be fools to ignore the future potential threat this carrier represents.
That's is why US got Air bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam….plus Air Forces of other Asian countries China is pissing off….soo the carrier strike group is one part of a wider force projection in the Pacific…actually South China Sea.
The Enterprise has not been scrapped – it has been decommissioned. It will likely be scrapped later, but for the time being, it has not been scrapped. Please differentiate.
Then by the same logic, China's carrier, even assuming it was fully operational, would only be available to them a few months a year…
Not real shocked. They copied everything now the Russian did in the late 80s for there carrier. Dont forget the Indians now have carriers and MiG-29K to fly from them. Don't forget the UK has crriers now but with no Harriers they have no planes for them.
All I think its time to sell US allies like Taiwan Philippines and even Japan more fighters.
Aww seems the Indian may outpace the Chinese in Carrier use they get a ex-Russian next year they have 3 MiG-29K squadrons and is already building more carriers.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121126/DEFRE…
I personally believe that all carriers, American or Chinese, will be missile fodder in any serious war involving major powers.
That aside, all those Flanker derivatives look great; much better looking than the F35 and the Super Hornet. So I'm rooting for them.
I think the same. Carriers are outdated.
Maybe so. But, if the major powers start throwing around big missiles – we won't be left to judge.
Exocet for a start, worked since Falklands.
Have people just MISSED the entire last few decades of missile defense and other systems in the works?
There is a reason we have AA cruisers, and destroyers, and fighters…..
Jesus why do i try.
Alot of people here don't like naval assets apparently.
No I agree a Chinese carrier is a BIG target. Taiwan's new carrier killer missile will be used.
Any carrier is a big target thats why no ship acts alone except for subs. A subs 1 defense is stealth. For surface ships its fleets which complement each others strengths and weaknesses.
Taiwan needs some Brahmos…
Apparently, you have never served aboard a carrier, I have, to know that it can defend itself from missile threats. Please close your mouth when you have no accurate knowledge of a subject.
It looks a lot like the F14 which the Navy retired 20 years ago.
Su-33 is a little to do with F-14
What is AOR?
Area Of Responsibility, or, a fleet replenishment ship
Thank you.
Area of Responsibility
A aingle Chineses carrier may not seem very intimidating or worrisome to the USN and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but if it was circling off of the coast of Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea, it might make some of those folks a bit nervous.
On the positive side – the entire Chinese carrier cost the equivalent of one BAE Hybrid-Electric fighting vehicle.
Sad but TRUE!
I believe it's more of a region seas power show than an International show of power. They are more interested in showing India, Japan, S Korea etc that they're getting into the game and they'll redraw their maps and include as many uninhabited islands as they want. In a few years they'll start to include Vietnam, and a larger chunk of India without any notice.
It's already starting to happen but Internationally they're not in the same ballpark and won't be for a couple decades. But that's my uninformed guess.
"An AP story at Military.com reports", yeah like the entire world is unaware until Military .com reports it LAST.
I've sent you a video, but of course since in your head it is still 1943, and you cannot absolutely give credit where it is due, you can only mock a country that tries to technologically bring themselves up, because that is high and mighty reserved for retarded bunch of Eisenhower freaks that sprung up since the WWII, going around bombing democracy out of every nation in the world for OIL.
You are two ways looking alright, say it cross-eyed looking, I mean we have maglev catapults we are building a carrier around that overreached the budget plenty of times, and we've have not even proven they WORK, but hey it is the U S of A, and we can do it, because we have stupid tax paying sheep that will work for it, and support the cause, even if it ultimately FAILS.
Don't know why you use Eisenhower's name – he did precious little bombing of other nations once he got us out of Korea. Kennedy and Johnson were the worst offenders, but no President of either party has seemed to keep us out of foreign wars.
While i in some ways agree with the post all over this page. There is one thing you are ALL missing. We as Americans to often see things as we, AMERICANS. Afte all havn't we all been told that everyone is basicly the same as us?! SO everyone thinks just like us, like how how the MB in eqypt now has its own "Temporary" King…just the same right?
We arent the same. A quick thing to think about. The PLA is atm growing and modernizing at a frightening rate. And while there ships, planes, subs, and other weapons arent the equal of ours they have a hell of alot more of them. And if you that doesnt matter ask the germans how easy it was to deal with the far inferior Sherman M4.
Quantity has a quality all its own. And this is still true.
The last thing to think about….20 years ago the chinese were 40 years behind us…now they are only 10. As we have a ever increasing poor class which gets more and more entitlements they have a middle class larger…..THAN THE ENTIRE US POPULATION.
I think china is more at risk in the next couple of decades for a collapse from within this doesn't mean i assume it will happen. You cant assume with the fate of a entire nation on the line. So plan for the possible and even the improbable.
Also remember this. The chinese above all things admire hard work over anything else even natural talent. They will work their asses off taking chances that would have any US military buried under legal BS and political pressure.
So they WILL become competent in Carrier usage and the things they need, Failure is after all still seen as bad there. And if the current figures hold up they could have as many carriers if nor more than us by the middle of the next decade. They will also have the surface fleets to guard it.
The fools always yammer their superiority to the world sitting arrogantly in their thrones until pulled down….will we follow the same fate as britain? No their is no US to counterbalance the chinese USSR.
I agree, 180+ F-22's won't do much good when 100's of J-20's & 100's of J-31's & 1000's of J-11's & J-10's come out after them. Your WWII analogy was right to the Point. A few Tiger's couldn't stop 100's of Sherman's and a few ME-262's couldn't stop the 100's of P-51's. The best Tech in the world in limited numbers will be over run by Larger numbers of those Inferior opponents. Hopefully we have Learned from History, If not we are Condemned to Repeat It.
The russian tactic.
Take M-4's and go running a tiger shoot out its treads then bring in a russian made heavy (which tend to be slow and inaccurate) to finish it off. Took a lose of 5-1 bu it worked and the russians didnt care.
Do you mean T-34's ( the 76mm version ) then the big JS1's come in for the kill. You are correct on the 5-1 kill ratio from both fronts Western & Eastern. The British Sherman Firefly and a later version of the Comet both had the17 LB guns which was equal to the long barreled 75mm of the Panther. The US had the Hellcat that shot some of the first Heat rounds designed for Anti-Tank work, but until the Pershing with it's 90mm gun went to Europe in the last weeks of the war the US only had the Hellcats & M-10's that could take on the German armor from the front. The M-4's 75mm gun just bounced off the front of the Panther's and Tigers.
"100's of J-20's & 100's of J-31's & 1000's of J-11"s & J-10's"?!?!?!__Put down the crack pipe and take a few steps back toward reality!__People who think the PLAAF and PLAN greatly outnumber us need to read a book. Of course *local* numerical superiority is certainly possible, and even probable in the most likely scenarios (particularly at the onset). However, the idea that the total size of the PLAAF and PLAN outnumber USAF/USN/USMC by many times is an outdated stereotype.
They'll definitely have local superiority. If there's a shooting war, we have forces in the Middle East and AfPak that still have to be supported.
It would take time for the Navy to reinforce from Pearl Harbor or the Middle East. But at least we can count on the bombers arriving in 35 hours…
Exactly. Assuming we actually decide to join in, China has to win within a few days whatever fight they start before we show up and attrit them to hell.
China has their own version of Top Gun training and has been utilizing it for over 20 years now. Their Pilot training is getting pretty good.
.
The Chinese School For Aces
.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/2…
Let's face it the J-15 is a Copied Aircraft.It is copied after the Soviet Su-33 and The Su 33 is copied after the f-14 Tom Cat without the varible swing wing.
Soviets had swing wing aircraft as well, though the limiting factor for Soviet navy aviation was the ability to operate from ski-ramp aviation cruisers. That limitation alone makes it difficult to conceive that the Su 33 or the Mig 29k would be directly "copied after" by the heavy fighters of the USN.
"The Su 33 is copied after the f-14 Tom Cat without the varible swing wing" – And what alternate reality would this be?
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
‘Erewhon’, I suspect.
the Flanker was made more after the F-15, not the Tomcat…
In terms of intended role, yes. In tems of aerodynamics, the Su-27 is a super sized F-16 with F-14 elements – intakes, widely-separated engines used to create substantial body lift.
For obvious reasons, the designers of aircraft in the US and USSR designed their aircraft in response to each other. Designing aircraft in a vacuum is a terrible idea.
Until powerful engines became available, swing-wing was the compromise needed for acceptable performance at a variety of ranges. The Soviets did it and so did American designers.
The MiG-29 and the SU-27 were the premiere Cold War fighters of the Soviet Union, contemporary to the -14 and -15.
Both the F-14 and F-15 were two-engine aircraft with wide spacing between the two engines (unlike the Foxbat, where the engines are side-by-side).
Wikipedia suggests that it was the ATF (that led to the F-15) that led to the SU-27/MiG-29 hi/low combo. However, the F-14 is a little older than the Air Force's ATF, so either the Soviets took cues from the -14 or the -15, or both, but missed out on -16; though the Soviets had considerable experience with combat-tested single-engine designs.
There is almost no space between the F-15 engines. There is nothing at all in the Su-27 from the F-15, save for the air-brake arrangement (deleted entirely on the Su-35). If anything, it looks like an early rejected conventional-wing F-14 proposal.
The reason why the MiG-29 has two engines is because there was no confidence in turbofan technology. This was proven correct, as early Soviet (and even American, but to a much less extent) military turbofans were very troublesome. The MiG-29 is an overly complicated design for what is essentially a point-defense fighter. It should have been like an F-16.
This is a start and the Chinese think long term, 100 yrs or more. It may be target practice for a space base real time ship targeting system. How can they track ships at sea and how to guide missiles to them.
Finally, an intelligent comment here. You are very perceptive, Commander.
One thing I learned, while living a few years in the orient, was never under estimate those folks
This is a result of US lax on military defense , more importantly offensive military technology. Chinese military improvements will keep us in check and hopefully wake us up.
"OR you could say that all the Chinese have done is land a jet on a carrier, something the Brits first did on December 3, 1945".
Sorry, the Brits were the first to fly an airplane off of a ship that was underway. Commander Charles Samson flew off HMS Hibernia on 4 May 1912 in a Short Improved S.27 biplane.
That aside and more importantly they are exercising military gains and improvement is the point—–regarding the feedback of this article I say we took notice! Definitely made us blink, hopefully so does the US Gov.
Ranger,
You must READ the article…it didn't say aircraft it said JET! If, they were talking first aircraft that would be the US in 1911. Nice try, though.
Semper Fi
Yes about the jet. And while the US did fly an airplane off a ship in 1911, it was the Brits that flew one off a ship that was at sea and underway. I guess we all miss stuff. Hooah.
“…land a JET on a carrier….”
Yup. You're right. Hooah.
Media has not made it clear what China's intention is with this carrier at all.
Correct me if wrong but carrier groups are the big fish of the sea and when look at China's coast line ..Koreas to the north, Taiwan to the East, Japan just behind these and the southern soup of sea disputes.
I believe this is a test to learn from, being that they used an older carrier design. I feel China will design a better carrier before they even think about using it to assist a war.
Online, the Chinese constantly dispute Japan openly in games and some forums.
Their government seems to continually censor them from certain sites but with that, a large amount that use proxies to access anyways, also exploit money from the west, hackers or worse.
Even some of their own citizens wonder if their government prepares to war us.
3.8 million people in America are of Chinese descent and coincidently or not, China is trying to put schools in my state for Chinese only. For their countrymen from anywhere to learn. Their way.
Otherwise I feel, in a force level, this carrier, even fully loaded is no threat to our naval dominance. Especially when combined with allies.
I think we a safe until we admit we cannot pay the debts we owe them $$$ so shhhh… opps
Uh, our Allies want no part of a fight with China. In other words, they will not let you use bases in Japan Or Korea.
Let's face it we have no plans to attack China but if China attacks us, allies will help. Maybe not all, but most will. Japan will never help China.
I think you have the horse on the wrong end of the cart. The US of A will assist in defending its allies, not intentionally offend a country like China. There is no political, financial, or any other reason for our US of A to be an offensive or agresssive force against China.
The countries in question will not prevent or disallow us from using their facilities, they will all but beg us to use them.
china's intention is always clear: to serve and to protect, yes, that is correct. to protect china from uncle sam.
remember, uncle sam is the 1 behind all the trouble that china faces internationaly, from taiwan to japan to singapo….., you name it. and uncle sam doesn't need any reason to cause trouble, simply because uncle sam's moto is: screw you because i can.
so china's massage is clear: your days are numbered, uncle sam.
not to worry, china would never attack u.s. soil unless u.s. attack china first. but the days u.s. interfere with china are limited.
the game will change to the old fashion way, win some, loose some instead of u.s. takes it all.
No country is perfect.
China illegally mines precious metals and more in various countries.
They have inner corruption, and conflicting groups within them just as well.
Many of them make money from us online too so have no interest to fight us.
There is no proft for China to take over America. Debt or not, they made more money then this debt just from our lifestyle
If they were hurting that bad economically, I do not think they would be building stealth or a carrier.
How does a country mines its own mineral resources illegal? Well, it's better than bombing other countries back to the stone age, sell them overpriced goods and services, shoved self-styled "democratic principles" down their throat, and "buy" their mineral resources at cut rate prices.
Is any one else looking forward to the Chinese version of Top Gun? All kidding aside we keep talking about the military implications of this carrier to the rest of the world but could this mean much more to the Chinese politburo propagandists? Chinese culture is very much about face value so having a shiny new (ish) Potemkin carrier to toss into ideal photogenic situations waving the Chinese flag might be of more value to them than an effective carrier air wing. Average Joe blow (and his Chinese equivalent for that matter) on the street has no clue of what that carrier is capable of despite what many articles like this one keep reiterating. Maybe a good Top Gun type propaganda play gets them everything they want. Carrier experience, notoriety from the rest of the world, and another national achievement to put on their refrigerator door.
"And if you screw up just this much, you'll be flying a Gulfstream full of drunk gamblers to Macau!"
"…we just happened to see a F-28 do a negative 4G dive!"
"You need to have canal knowledge of committee member on the premises this time, no exceptions"
"I think she's lost that Party feeling…"
But what would their call signs be? Lets see… It could'nt be, "Mavrick and Goose". It would have to be more along the lines of, "Chow Mein and Peking Duck, or maybe Chop Suey and Kung Pao Chicken".
I'd lean towards callsigns Proletariat and Great Leap, but I think they're too Maoist.
This would be a tricky one…
They have the "Golden Helmet" award. Very interesting competition… the J-10A's seem to have the measure of both Su-27's (Russian build) and the J-11A (clone of the Su-27) and J-11b (improved clone).
There is a very conscious analysis and immitation of US best practises. It can go a bit far (take a look at the shooters on CV-16). That means much more combat relevant training than in the past, and lots and lots of new gear.
I would say a fully equipped, ready for battle carrier group is four years away. Most of the pieces are in place now… just needs integration and practise.
We usually don't see this much discussion unless we discussing the merits of the LCS :-P
But anyway, the first rule of war: is to never underestimate your enemy (disclaimer-China is not our enemy now, but we aren't exactly allies either)
The second rule of war is-he who learns quickest wins (The Chinese are quick learners and great at copying and/or stealing, and we are very poor at protecting our stuff)
The third rule of war is: if someone "says" they are your enemy and they are making preparations to fight you then more than more than likely are are "Your" enemy (but you are just in denial)
The forth rule of war is: he who has the biggest treasury chest can have more soldiers and weapons (right now China has the bigger chest and ours is shrinking)
The fifth rule of war is: the deep thinkers win (here we currently have the advantage)
The sixth rule of war is: he who fight for honor fights harder (The Chinese, from their point of view, are defending their "turf" i.e. South China Sea, islands, etc.)
The seventh and final rule of war is: it is always better to attack than to defend (The Chinese offense is currently much better than their defense, we are somewhat balanced toward defense)
Strange considering Sun Tzu said fortifications are hardest to defeat
And what did General Patton say?
Too right, mate.
Sun Tzu would have advocated bypassing and encircling fortresses, rather than to waste combat power surrounding a fortified city and be forced into a dangerous position like Caesar at Alesia. He isn't a frontal assault kind of guy…the frontal attack has its place, but not without the serious danger that comes with such a strategy.
Sun Tzu said that from the perspective of the attacker. He specifically said conducting a seige costs 1000 times more than attacking an army in the field. Being heavily fortified might win you a battle, but it never wins the war.
To your last point, I would say the ability of the US to project power around the world makes the US much more efficient on offense than the Chinese…and since you're talking about a hypothetical US China showdown, China's emphasis on area denial seems to suggest that they have a more defensive strategy in mind when planning for a potential conflict with the US…
Nobody has mentioned that this is the first of three carriers that the Chinese plan for. Non are rehabs, they are all brand new. Yes, they will have problems with this first one, but so did we with the Langley, and the Saratoga. Remember the first rule of war, never under estimate your enemy.
The Liaoning is not a new construction Chinese Carrier, She is the retro-fitted Soviet Varyag. The ship was purchased in 1998 by the People's Republic of China
Meanwhile……….. The USAF Crashes Another F-22.
"November 23, 2012: A fifth U.S. Air Force F-22 fighter has crashed. This occurred on November 15th in Florida during a training flight. The pilot safely ejected. Two of the five crash losses were during testing and in three of the crashes the pilot survived. The first crash occurred in 1992, destroying the first YF-22 prototype. The first production F-22 lost was in 2004. That was followed in 2009, by the loss of an F-22 during a test flight. Another was lost in 2010, during a training flight.
The 187th, and last, F-22 fighter was completed on December 13th 2011. This last aircraft was sent to a squadron in Alaska which lost one in an accident in 2010. The manufacturer is not going to scrap or sell off the tools and equipment used to produce the F-22 but will store the stuff for a while in the hope that production may resume eventually. There were also eight development prototypes built, for a total of 195 F-22s. With the five crashes, that leaves 190, but most of the remaining prototype aircraft are out of service. Currently 182 production aircraft are in service with 15 squadrons (three of them for training).
With the recent accident, the F-22 accident rate is a little over 6 per 100,000 hours. Note that the accident rate refers to any incident that costs more than a million dollars to repair, not just total loss of aircraft. F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate of 3-4 per 100,000 flight hours. India, using mostly Russian aircraft, has an accident rate of 6-7 per 100,000 hours flown (compared to 4-5 for all NATO air forces.) The Indian rate had been over ten for many years, and it is still that high, and often higher, with other nations (including Russia and China), that use Russian aircraft designs. The B-52 has the lowest accident rate (less than 1.5 per 100,000 flying hours) of all American heavy bombers. The B-1s rate is 3.48. Compared to the supersonic B-1 and high-tech B-2, the B-52 is a flying truck. Thus the B-52, despite its age, was the cheapest, safest, and most reliable way to deliver smart bombs.
New aircraft always have higher accident rates, which is how many hidden (from the design engineers and test pilots) flaws and technical problems are discovered. The F-22 is expected to eventually have an accident rate of 2-3 per 100,000 flight hours.
Combat aircraft are becoming more reliable, even as they become more complex. For example, in the early 1950s, the F-89 fighter had 383 accidents per 100,000 flying hours. A decade later the rate was in the 20s for a new generation of aircraft. At the time the F-4, which served into the 1990s, had a rate of under 5 per 100,000 hours. Combat aircraft have gotten more reliable and easier to maintain, despite growing complexity, for the same reason automobiles have. Better engineering, and more sensors built into the equipment, makes it easier for the user and maintenance personnel to detect potential problems. Aircraft used the computerized maintenance systems, currently common on new aircraft, long before automobiles got them. Unless you have a much older car that still runs, or a real good memory, you don't notice the enormous increase in automobile reliability. But older pilots remember because such changes are a matter of life and death if you make your living driving an aircraft. And commanders know that safer aircraft give them more aircraft to use in combat and more aircraft that can survive combat damage and keep fighting."-Strategy Page
…while the Chinese have come a long way…trying to keep up with the American carrier task force…yea they have a long way to go….
Haven’t you heard? No need to worry, we can still scrap our entire Naval fleet with the exception of a few carriers and subs and still maintain our naval dominance. I mean there are after all fewer horses and buggies today than we had in the past. No need for MSC, or battle groups for that matter. We can get by with a handful of subs and carriers. So what if Red China has Nukes and now it appears they are making strides in a carrier program? The sun will still come up tomorrow, the sky is still blue, and everything is still hunky dory… So what if there is a clear and present threat looming in the pacific! S0 what if North Korea has a lunatic in charge! Life is fine! The U.S. Dollar is doing fine. We do not owe China any money, and THEY LANDED A MIG ON AN AIR CRAFT CARRIER!!! Nah, we have no reason to worry…
This is one 30 year old Russian carrier with copies of 30 year old Russian jet fighters. So they are still years (30 to 40) behind the US. The only other nations operating full carriers are the French and the Brazilians. So at this point the Chines have a Navy that cold compete with Brazil's Navy in a few years.. I would give the French upper hand for now vs the Chines. We have 9 SUPER Carriers with 5 to 6 available at any one time and ONE US Carrier carries 3 times the aircraft as the Chines carrier. Then there is the J-15 vs the F-18 Super Hornet and in a few Years F-35 Fighters…
It will be very funny if the Chinese suddenly launched one of their stealth fighter prototypes off their carrier, before the F-35C is launched from a US carrier.
Like their new J-31, which appears to be designed for carriers. I wonder what the Headline for that Article would say?
What good does it do to have so many carriers when two non-superpowers managed to kick your economy in the gut so hard that most Americans feel the pain?
The Roman Empire was the superpower of its day, but fell mostly due to political and economic instability enabling military impotence. Even crash military spending could not keep the enemy out, and they were numerous and from the west, the east and the south…
By forfeiting American heavy industry we put ourselves in this situation. How many shipyards does South Korea have compared to America? Or China? We would have to bootstrap the entire economy overnight if war forced us into self-sufficiency, and it would rely on an advanced military keeping the enemy at bay until then.
I think everyone is looking at this from the wrong perspective. Remember, the Chinese always play the long game, it's what their good at, it's what they do. The relevant question is: What do they see as their intermediate goals as these are what will tell us something. …
Remember, the Chinese now own the Panama Canal, control through lease the Port of Los Angeles and a number of equal and similar acquisitions world wide. They are pressing a campaign of territorial expansion among the island properties in the Seas of Japan, China and others. Does anyone think that is their end game? I hope not. …
We think in terms of elections and budgets while they think in terms of decades. That's why they always get what they want, they were decades ahead, decades ago.
The Panama Canal Authority in Panama has overall "control" of the canal; but has let an contract for port operations to Hutchinson Whampoa, a public hong kong-based company held by Cheung Kong Holdings, another Hong Kong holding company that ties together a large conglomerate. Cheung Kong used to be a plastics company and spun out to become a holding firm.
Cheung Kong (through HWL) is the largest operator of shipping terminals. It's a good business, especially if you are on the Pacific end that sends out all the goods to the consumer. Owning terminals on the receiving end is just vertical integration.
CKH is just another family-owned megabusiness conglomerate (perhaps not unlike Samsung in South Korea?) It might be what used to be called a Zaibatsu or a Keiretsu, but I'm leaning towards the former. Zaibatsus tend to have a holding company linking everything together, Keiretsu tend to be integrated subdivisions, or a financial company linked to something else.
Panama Ports the name Hutchinson Whampoa uses in Panama, they invested a lot of money with the idea of new larger ships ( Post Panamex size) will be to big to transit the canal and Panama Ports will unload them and put the containers on the Panama Rail road that goes from Pacific to the Gulf and back.
Surprise the addition to the canal which will be ready in 2014 will handle all but a few of the biggest container ships in the world. I do not know what they will haul with ships going thru the canal West to East & East to West.
They might have shot themselves in the foot.
Very true. They didn't anticipate the upgrades to the canal.
I suppose if you were serving central america it may make sense to offload at the canal and avoid paying duties to pass through the canal; or switch cargo to rail to move it across to a different ship. However, the cost of loading and unloading would have to be cheaper than passing through the canal, and it isn't.
CKH is a closely held family company. It differs markedly from the SK/Japan model. I don't personally think it will survive when the old man (Li Ka Shing) passes away.
He started out in plastic flowers, and got rich when everyone was bugging out of Hong Kong for fear of the Red Guards across the border. Man's a legend.
The Japanese zaibatsu used to be family owned business cartels, but were crushed post-WW2. I'd have to do more digging to do a proper comparison though.
Let me know when they have chiefs with 20 years of carrier experience.
I remember when defense tech post a picture of tire skidmark on China aircraft carrier, some people in this forum say it’s fake n PS thing! Wake up Dude!
I remember when defense tech post a picture of tire skidmark on China aircraft carrier, some people in this forum say it’s fake n PS thing! Wake up!
They may have just landed their first jet aircraft on a carrier. Next they will try to get it to submerg, then we will really be in "trouble"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder how many failures and loss of life it took to achieve this monumental feat. We all know that the US and British have lost many an aviator and flight deck personnel in carrier flight operations.
It would make sense to sell small carriers to the Aussies, and the Japanese. Japan has the institutional memory and ability to man, equip and pay for several battle groups but the Aussies could learn quickly. Providing Japan and Australia with nuclear attack subs would also add deterrence. We could build this stuff as joint projects. Doing this would lessen the burden on the US and our stretched out resources and it would also strengthen our alliances with our allies…while scaring the shit out the Chinese. Imagine Japanese Navy forces standing shoulder to shoulder with America! Wow!
Jack, that stuff costs money. The Aussies gave up flat tops decades ago. Japan, Still has a ton of tidal wave damage to repair. Nuke subs also require infrastructure to support them.
When Australia sold their carriers for scrap, to the Chinese IIRC, there was a great hue and cry about selling them technology (I was young then, so my memory not to clear on it).
Well here is how they roll… it looks like two birds
flying off the ski jump …then trapping…
http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/25/liaoning-lan…
Never underestimate the power of the Chinese, they will never run out of people and many of them are smart and can think, especially if are forced to work their butts off for the government. The old Chinese proverb goes something like this. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun……There is no doubt they want or maybe already are a world power. Remember, even great nations self-destruct and how about the USA? Do you think that we can afford to maintain our military power? Well, it looks like the administration and his allies will slash our budget to a point where we are a toothless tiger. It has happened before. What do you think?
I wanted a similar headline "Back to the Future, the USN returns to 1945" for the USS America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6)
China's Navy is the biggest joke in naval history. Ward Carroll is right, and that's assuming this carrier landing actually even happened, and wasn't another photoshop job like that 'stealth plane'.
China is not an enemy of the United States unless the United States wants to make it so.
The world does'nt belong to the U.S only its own territory. Stop being overly obessed about China. and its military capibilities when U.S spends a hell of alot more on its military than China does. Thats just my take on things. The only time to be worries about china is when they 30 carrier battle groups steaming towards the U.S which will or may never happen. One carrier, okay I get it.
The big threat will be chinas ability to mass produce these things once they have it sorted out.They have enormous manufacturing capacity like the US did in ww2… but if we are lucky they will agree to make some for us too.
China is very capable of producing world class military assets. The key to remember is that both US and China are economically connected at the hip. Our best reaction to this is to work on defensive weapons such as Iron Dome and Missile Defense. I also believe China has realized that carriers can diversify their abilities in their region. It only makes sense. Our biggest threats are Countries that are economically and politically unstable like Egypt, North Korea, and Iran.
Is anyone looking at history? When the Chinese see a need, they also find or invent a solution. There is absolutely no reason to think this carrier can't be deployed with a full fighter wing on board.
All I can think of is how quickly they built the great wall of China.
How quickly would that be, and which parts under which dynasties?
what are you guys worried about, china is not going to drop a bomb on its own checking account that the USA fills each month! it's all saber rattling as far as getting involved with the USA. china may do some damage to the PI, taiwan and japan but nothing serious enough to cause a deficit in their own checking account w/ the USA. like the man said "it's a different story when you make the carrier battle ready with trained personnel and birds ready for a mission".
Gosh, those pesky mutual defense treaties and basic human goodness might bring us to the aid of those countries, not only an attack on Pearl or the US mainland, or our pocketbooks..
I will say don't sell them short. Lets wait and see what they do with what they have befoe we fold out hand and say we are still the top dog. it might not work out that way. i hope we stay the top dog. i guess time will tell
reducing our military capabilities Now (to fix the budget, permit more social spending) will only Encourage more like this from the chinese. if you were paying attention, the exact same thing (for the same reasons) happened under J Carter and the cold war Escalated. it took a Reagan to get our military to where it could surpass the USSR threat. History Repeats, this should be no surprise
Soviets were always willing to outspend America. That was their problem.
Reagan may have outspent the Soviets, but they couldn't pay for a grinding war in Afghanistan, a military machine in Europe, subsidize the world's communists, buy grain from the west and keep the USSR together all at once.
We put men on the moon, pushed Great Society, paid for Vietnam, built the ARVN to the fourth largest army in the world before it imploded, built up South Korea and Japan, deployed bases all over the world, built up the Shah, sent money and military aid to Israel; all on "peacetime" economy.
and the very sad thing about the Chinese threat is Panetta has warned the military that we will increase our involvement in the pacific, yet he has done NOTHING to stop the decrease in our capabilities. like a typical Liberal, he believes one can just ORDER the military to get it done, at the same time defunding their support and ignoring morale issues
Author-
I viewed this test and was struck by how professional it all looked. Yep. I'm impressed. And appropriately apprehensive.
BTW, I've been worked in carrier Naval Aviation for the past 37 years flying, leading, testing and engineering.
You tell me you're not impressed? You think we're that good like we were in the late 80's early 90's? IMO, we're not. Our blue water capability sucks. Wrong platforms and more of same on the way. Can't may hay without gas and an airwing of 65 can't do what an airwing of 95 used to do….
We shed a lot of different types of airframes, but many of them were just darned old. That said, not sure if the Hornet/Super-Hornet can truly replace the Tomcat/Hornet…but that's water under the bridge.
The F/A-18 will never be a A-6.
We have nothing to worry about. Even if they could, the Chinese would never attack us. They would never risk damaging their investment.
Well first of all Ward Carroll, "wars" are fought and won on the ground, not at sea, battles are fought and won at sea. Second, The us has a Military, the Navy is a component of that Military, just like the Army, Air Force and the Marines,(some would say Coast Guard). To suggest the US can win the Next War with a Navy alone is irresponsible and ludicrous.
Nobody seems to get it. The dumbass Japs had carriers that were in everway inferio to ours from the placement of AA, to fire proofed hangar bays, and CO2 flooded avgas lines. Can anyone say Dec7th 1941? Look at what that cost us and we had real men then. This country is going to be at war with the Chinese in the next decades of this century; they are racist imperialists and if the wizards of P/C smart in the Pentagon don't see that instead of worrying about their consultancy fees post retirement, then we're going to lose our asses. Ya' fight like ya' train and Petraeus is symptomatic of the corruption at the huighest levels, the national command authority.
The Chinese are racist? Please look in the mirror.
You people are so damn paranoid. All the world's carriers in use today, you operate more half, and you're worried about the one with the newbie crew. You call the Chinese racist imperialist, which of your toes did they stepped on anyway? The term applies more appropriately to those morons who act like one.
Call me when they are making night carrier landings something the USA is the only country currently doing.
I object to the tone of the headline of this story. What purpose does it serve to taunt and belittle a rival – did you learn nothing from adolescence? Chinese soldiers have killed American soldiers before in war; I recommend respect even (or especially) when you're sure you're stronger than the other guy.
Give me all the Harriers the Brits can't afford, and 24 refurbished A4 Skyhawks with the latest glass cockpit and AIM-9 capability, and call me when you have a conventional war problem you want to solve.
Americans have long been a paranoid bunch! just because people around the world are trying to copy our way doesn't mean that they are going to attack us. There has been 155,000 request to purchase and own guns since the president won re-election. the question as to why this is happening? people say, he's going to take the right to own guns away. Why is it that this man (president)would attempt to change or re-write the constitution when he has so many other worldly important things to attend too? Paranoia? no! Keeping the watch? Yes!
It is good that we keep an eye on everyone around the world. we saw that the soviets tried so many things that they saw us do, such as "refueling a task force at 15 knots in choppy seas", bring food, ammo and mail aboard with a high-line. They would shadow us and take pictures of our operations for days on end but, yet today, they still bring fuel to a location, drop a platform and walk over to the receiving vessel. So, just because you see copy cats around the world it doesn't mean squat.
the watch was and has been set since December the 8th 1941.
An old sailor's way!
I am sure that the Chinese have some very good naval aviators in their midst. How do you find out how good they are? Let them land on the boat while underway, at night, in a storm. And let them do it day after day.
I am not an aviator. But I have had the very good fortune to launch and recover several times in not very nice conditons. I thanked God after each event for giving me a driver who wore XXL underwear to carry those massive gonads. Can't beat Naval Aviators.
This ship will train them to do just that.
” the navies of the former Soviet Union all attempted to embrace convential carrier operations in the late ‘90s. The net-net of their efforts was a fundamental understanding that flying off of the boat is harder than it looks — and it looks hard. As a result they sold one of their carriers to another country — China.”
Being self-condescending is one thing but afaik Ukraine never attempted to use this ship, which was basically a floating scrap of metal when China purchased it, I wonder what the **** you’re referring to.
I say… its all about operational experience. The chinese have no experience in carrier operations *or* at projecting power. These are not technological challenges, but *experiential* ones.
Now admittedly, "hot" wars, like WW2 are the crucibles where military establishments play catch up – which the US did in a very big way in WW2. However, even considering that, the Chinese military is *still* a generation behind us, and will remain so, for the foreseable future, and most important, their military planners know it.
If it ever comes to it (which I think profoundly unlikely) the Chinese will not project power using carriers; they will rely on some other venue, the nature of which I'm not certain of at this point.
Chinese carriers are not their to intimidate the US. They are there to intimidate regional minor powers. Frankly, for the Chinese, I think they are a major waste of time.
The only place I see them acting usefully is in some as yet unimaginable UN action, probably aimed at a nation not in their immediate vicinity, and not on their own. They may be able to make a useful contribution, but toe-to-toe, outside of their their own border, they'd be hard-put to deal with active resistance by even a 2nd rate military.
Patience is a virtue, my friend.
I would never underestimate a country as large and as populated as China… especially since the most powerful country in the world owes it lots and lots of money and depends on it for manufacturing. China has been very patient and watches ( and i feel learns) from everything. If they are smart their learning and patience can pay off . They are in the race now and once that giant gets a taste of power.. who knows. How to keep them in check? I cant tell you that, but I have to been there many times.. since 91 and have seen the development.. We have our waves of good and bad economics here but China has not stopped building… ever. They are still in the mode we were in 70 years ago when you saved every penny and they will starve their kids to get more. We lost that hunger long ago. Its something to think about. Rome fell thousands of years ago for the same reason… they got fat and bored.
Meh. Nothing a few Mark 48's can't handle.
Go back to the tower of Babel. God gave us a revelation of this creature HE had created. HE, said the speak the same language. Look what they have began to do. Now there won't be anything they can't do within their imagination.
In othe words, in today's world, the ones you should be wary of is the ones who are on the same page, have financial resources, and a purpose. I need to add that as long as we have GOD as our source, we are alright. When we start worshipping weapons instead of HIM, we are alright. Read II Samuel chapters 6 and 7. If you don't know what that is, you need to get busy. I love you.
That is worshipping anything other than HIM is taboo.
DO NOT! count out China.
Sell them the Big E with retired or near retired a/c for the $16B then opps, it sinks. For all the Big E sailors out there I'm kidding of course.
"…oops, it sinks." ~sigh~
The US should awake and stop spending at Walmart !
I don't think we've ever tried using long range bombers from Whiteman to do bombing runs. We can probably do a few runs off of Guam until someone craters the runway.
That said, it requires considerable combat power to do more than attack. The PLAN has a ways to go, but if they have to defend, they have the capability to do so.