As it is we're mil-to-mil'ing like crazy...

Even their aircraft are based on old USSR designs. Again, China, build something from scratch and then we'll talk...

Thanks for the heads up!

I went to look at the whole story & this was on the page bottom.......

BEIJING, November 26 (RIA Novosti) – China gave high praise on Monday to the head of the Shenyang Aircraft Corp. (SAC), who died while witnessing the first successful deck landing of the new carrier-based Shenyang J-15 fighter jet, Xinhua reported.

Luo Yang, who was in charge of the research and development of China's J-15, died of heart attack at 11:am Sunday morning.

Whe you build one from scratch and make it operational, then I'll be impressed.

I wonder if the deck is ringed with suicide nets, like the Foxconn factories?

I suspect they could build their own aircraft carrier if they chose spend a few billion on one.

A Chinese company originally bought this carrier from Ukraine, saying they were going to use it as a floating casino. Surprise!

The design is slightly newer than the F15, not much but a little. This was the thing we need the F-35 to combat. Thing is these would cut a F-35 to shreds. In a F15, F16 or FA18 it is all about who jumps the gun & gets a firing solution first, the F-15, F-16-FA-18 are faster, carry more weapons, handle better & I can not see one thing the F35 does better than any of our older fighter a/c.

The existing Fighters we have now are aging but they are as good or better than the F35. Boeing & Lockheed could easily fire up production for them & new ones would last 30+ years & we could save money, lots of it.

Oh yea, Lockheed saved the tooling for the F22 a very very expensive a/c with no mission so someday if martians or something show up we could start wasting money on them.

I am "not a big fan" of that program, either

Some Canadians have figured the whole program is a scam & are doing all they can to cut all canadian ties to a swindle.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/09/runaway-fighter.html

These Canadian journalists kick the crap out of lying liars, here are a few dozen examples: https://www.google.com/search?q=cbc+f-35&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

They have no stealth & for VTOL they have small wings & corner like a F-104 & accelerate like an F-80.

My take is a Vietnan era F-4 Phantom could out dogfight one & with new Sparrow & AAMRAM missiles, blow it out of the air & still carry more bombs than a B-17.

The Stealth is a big selling point & stealth is a myth, they pulled the F-117 out of service cause it was slow, defenseless & easy to detect.

The internal stations are for B-61 nukes which are in need of a $20,000,000,000 upgrade, I do not think we will ever need them.

This link http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/09/web-interview-sprey.html is the man who designed the F-16 & thought the F-15 was heavy, big, expensive & not a great bargain.

SHit, I was looking for b-61 upgrade costs & found in Oct 24 2012 the US has deployed a bunch of B-61's to Turkey in case we need to nike people?!?!? Kind of pisses me off nothing is worth Nuclear War, NOTHING.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/10/us-deploys-70-nuclear-bombs-in-turkey-2484966.html

Back to the point the CBC show & docs answers almost any questions you may ever have about the flying turkey turd aka F-35.

What really annoys me is the f-35 is called a Lightning II and it stole its name from the P-38 Lightning a great fighter. It should have been called the (f)B-36 turdblossum II, it is more like a B-36 than a P-38!

All of our planes are superior than any closest production of another country's plane.

The JSF project is way overbloated, costly at 12.5 billion dollars ANNUALLY, and continues to have _PROBLEMS_.

Fuck that. This is where DoD needs to cut - big time. Just continue to support the other jets at a lower cost.

The problem is, Robert fucking Gates ordered 2,443 JSF's - we do not need that many. Maybe 300-500 should suffice. 10 per state for NG's use only, and the rest split equally to USAF, Army and Navy. The rest can stay in the boneyard in Arizona for regeneration.

but that ain't happening. I am hoping a few hundred F-16, FA-18 could replace any that are so worn they are unsafe.

I would like to see money saved used for a combo infrastructure & jobs for vets program.

The F-16 had a great experimental version the F-16XL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL



And in 1986 Northrop had developed an updated F-5 called the F-20 Tigershark, at the time F-15 was $60,000,000 F-16 was $30,000,000 and F-20 was $15,000,000!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark




As far as I am concerned we can scrap 99% of our nukes and at least 75% of the Navy, 20 carrier battle groups seems like a lot of overkill.

The F-20 was reliable and easy to maintain. Based on comparisons with the average of contemporary international fighters, the F-20 consumed 53 percent less fuel, required 52 percent less maintenance manpower, had 63 percent lower operating and maintenance costs and had four times the reliability.

So much for the policy of "engagement" to make them play nice; aaannnd, if US named multinationals can rake in some bucks along the way........................

Chinese Aircraft Carrier



U.S. Aircraft Carrier

or against one of these.



Seawolf class submarine.

Once that mission is accomplished, well the rest is secondary like surviving an attack for a place for those launched planes to land. Kind of expendable after the strike is launched. Also the biggest target in the ocean. But they used to tell me those little tug boats all around us would protect us..

This thing is aimed at India and much better than the one India currently has.

but how fast would India or other asian nations call on a US Carrier if it came down to it?

China may be gambling that the US will tire of protecting other countries at some point in the future.

I really don't think that China will take on India, they also have nukes that will reach China. What China will do is what they're doing to us, buy up their debt and flood their markets with cheap goods.

Just like a whole lot of people here on DU would also like (50-90% cut). Or it could be a complete economic collapse of the US.

Go China!

Be afraid, be very afraid!

We can't possibly cut our DoD budget, in only 40 or 50 years the Chinese will have the sea power necessary to conquer the Japanese fishing fleet!

So they landed a plane on a boat, with an empty deck, in calm seas. Maybe. Given the Chinese reputation for dishonesty, I'm gonna say "video, or it didn't happen". I wouldn't doubt for a minute that the Chinese sent the ship to sea with that J-15 in the hangar bay.

Carrier ops require soooo much more than simply landing a plane on an empty deck in calm seas; it's almost hard to conceive. Night ops. Bad weather ops. UNREP (underway replenishment). VERTREP (vertical replenishment). The real trick is doing all of those things with a full compliment of aircraft onboard. Those are just SOME of the things that have to be mastered in order to become an efficient carrier battle group. They're also things the US mastered over 50 years ago.

Imagine a 1100 foot long ship next to an 800 foot long ship, less than 100 feet apart while traveling around 20 mph. As if that feat isn't in itself seemingly impossible, imagine the two ships being connected by steel cables and hoses and transferring fuel, food, weapons, parts, mail, etc. for a few hours with NO MISTAKES. Make mistakes in that situation and people will die.

Yeah. Have them call us when they've had the experience of landing 10-15 aircraft on a pitching deck at night in the rain while being too far away from the nearest shore based landing strip to send a plane to if something goes wrong.

This isn't worrisome in the slightest...

Let's see them do it in heavy seas, at night, under combat conditions with aircraft on the deck and then I might be impressed.
We've been doing it for over 60 years now and China is nowhere close to US Carrier Ops. nor is their Carrier.
Plus, Chinese pilots are under no circumstances equal to US pilots, in a combat situation, there would be a lot of Chinese pilots punching out and riding the silk down.

While they may not have the same capabilities that we and other NATO forces have, this marks their entry into Naval Aviation with the Big Boys. Have you ever know the Chinese to NOT catch up very quickly on everything they do?

Have you ever served on board an aircraft carrier? I have. You, and everyone else should be impressed. This is quite an achievement.

what's so hard about landing a jet in calm waters, broad daylight and no other jets on the deck as compared to landing on a pitching deck in the dark under combat conditions? When they do that, then I'll be impressed. Also, they're pilots are have nowhere near the capability of US pilots.
No, I've never been aboard a Carrier, although I did spend a night at a Holliday Inn Express.

I was in the Army.

(In my best Company Commander (you call them Drill Instructors) voice))... Since you have no idea what you are talking about grunt, this squid is not impressed by your ignorant pontifications on matters of Naval Aviation.

On edit: Do I need to add that this is a tounge-in-cheek reply to a fellow brother-in-arms and Armed Service rival and not meant as a personal attack? I hope not.

I said compared to.

I also added a little something to my prior post to clear up any misconceptions of my intent.

you obviously have far more experience on Carriers than I do, considering my experience consists of nothing. All I'm saying is that landing a jet in calm waters, broad daylight, empty deck, (I guess thats the correct terminology) under peaceful conditions is nothing compared to what the US is capable of and has been doing for over 60 years.
When they can match US Carrier Ops, then I'll be impressed.

Compared to what we can do after 70 years of practice, they can do nearly the same. Sure, they are not Operational or combat ready, but it will take them only a few years to have operational squadrons operating on this thing in all-weather conditions, and THAT fact, to me, is a Herculean feat.

This is just another example of the loss of dominance in yet another area the US is experiencing. Not only should we be impressed, we should be a bit worried...

But the only time China or America will be a real threat to each other is if they can somehow make the Pacific safer to travel, and that will not be done by big, bulky, visible carriers that scream "please shoot missiles at me so I can lose a few billion worth of Jets as I go down."

That work will be done with the only modern boats that mean jack; submarines. The day somebody makes a base from which submarine can be maintained and dispatched, that nation will rule the sea.

Now before people laugh, do consider something:

http://rt.com/usa/news/drug-us-submarines-guard-900/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine

Now, keep in mind, this whole sub thing started when the cartels bought Soviet-era subs from the Russian Mafia, but guess where most of the components for these things come from now? Hint: they have Pandas. Currently they are often assembled by FARC, which is either condemned by or loved by Chavez, depending on his mood and needs.

So, homemade subs or the aircraft carrier, which is worse? Aircraft carriers are a lot harder to move across the ocean, whereas now, China effectively has a group of people able to carry out submarine warfare, and they can even operate as "terrorists", with is pretty much the old game of "Privateer" that ruled our waters once.

And let's not even ponder when someone gets the knack for leaving supplies in the water that can be picked up and used. So much shipping occurs between China and America, it is not hard to drop care packages, not to mention what Mexican cartels can do in the Pacific, once they learn subcraft.

On the fourth try, I caught the wire (albeit not the 3 wire) and pissed the Training Officer off by saying I didn't think it was too hard.

Basically all I did was keep the nose up and chop the throttles once I was over the fantail.

I know of what I speak.

For what it's worth, it was MUCH harder trying to bomb a ground target and I got to porpoising so bad I almost made myself sick and motion sickness is as alien to me as menstruation. Flying the ball wasn't near as hard.

Again, have the Chinese call the US Navy when they have about 50 more years under their belt.

named Chunx & maybe 1 time out of 20 I would win, F-86 Vs MiG 15.

I also flew F4F, F6F, F4U in IL-2 1946, landing (on a/c carrier) took a few hours to get be able to do.

Janes had FA18 & F-15 Strike Eagle, FA18 on a carrier was easy.

Falcon 4.0 had 200 pages in the manual on how to use the radar!

EF2000 had the best Radar & was a joy(came w/ my VOODOO1 card, those were the days).

With ILS landing on carriers is easy & FA18 can land it self.

My hands are shot from CAD drafting & flying is a once in a while event.

I used to also fly Warbirds 6 hours a night & finally when getting so wrapped up I could think of nothing else I gave it up.


Hitting stuff on the ground with anything but a maverick missile is hard as hell esp if u are trying not to crater yourself.

This was daytime ops in calm seas with an empty deck. See my earlier post about UNREP, VERTREP, night ops, bad weather ops etc.

If this marks their "entry into Naval Aviation with the Big Boys", it's comparable to putting a go kart Champion into a Sprint Cup car and telling the driver he's going to compete in the Daytona 500.

While it might mark a milestone for China, it's operationally inconsequential for the next 20 or so years.

but I'm not holding my breath.

Have they reached an important milestone? Sure. Are they close to matching U.S. capabilities? Not even.

landed jets on them. When did we do that like 50 or 60 years ago? We better quadruple our defense budget before they catch up.

Now maybe they will spend their money to keep the shipping lanes open. Its all their stuff being shipped so why should we pay for it?

Don

Ummm...did anyone else notice the "Ramp like" feature at the front of the carrier? Is this a functional feature? Do they need a ramp to get the planes off?

So have the French. Not new nor unique.

Every one else has (except Brazil and the US).

I was in a hurry when I posted that and I didn't do the proper research. I honestly thought the Charles DeGaulle had a ski jump on its bow.

Thanks for the correction.

Thanks for the info though...I never knew. I almost thought it was photo-shopped to add some humor.

All they have left is one helicopter carrier

but none in active service

The HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales.

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



Also, when looking for followup info on a previous post, I found this list of photos. Pretty interesting;

http://grandlogistics.blogspot.com/2009/11/queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers.html

Easier to build and maintain but not as efficient.

Rather than copy 30+ year old designs.

The Chinese Red Army used to own many manufacturing companies in China, as of a few years ago. I haven't seen a recent report on the matter.

Did not say Wal Mart built it just that they and other companies have made it possible for them to buy or have it built. The enrichment of their economy also enriches the government and that also means their military.

China considers: Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, Myanmar, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and Taiwan all China territory.

Formerly Varyag under construction by the Soviet Union. Being as she was being built in Mykolaiv near Odessa, Ukraine inherited her on the breakup.

He and others like him.

I think this is impressive and a big step for the Chinese Navy. However, it will take an enormous amount of time until the Chinese can be declared a real carrier nation. This will benefit them hugely because they can train pilots and technicians in carrier functionality, skills easily transferred to larger carriers under construction. They should be taken seriously, even if the capability takes a long time to materialise. Statistics in 2012 do show that Chinese military power is viewed as a threat by most Americans.