News China lands jet on first aircraft carrier.

[Notebook]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20484592

Should come in useful in the next few years...

N.

 

[Artlav]

The jet is a copy of our Su-33, the aircraft carrier is the Varyag, an old Soviet vessel being refubrished.

Copycats.

 

[Notebook]

Must admit I'm surprised this is China's first carrier.

 

[RisingFury]

The jet is a copy of our Su-33, the aircraft carrier is the Varyag, an old Soviet vessel being refubrished.

Copycats.

China: Military force on the cheap! :lol:

 

[boogabooga]

Sole use of an aircraft carrier (since about 1945) is to bully developing/underdeveloped countries with inadequate means to defend themselves. Whether the "victim" had deserved to be bullied is a question for the basement.

They will make very expensive coral reefs if faced against a modern military, especially one with nukes. This goes for aircraft carriers from all countries.

 

[Hielor]

Sole use of an aircraft carrier (since about 1945) is to bully developing/underdeveloped countries with inadequate means to defend themselves. Whether the "victim" had deserved to be bullied is a question for the basement.

They will make very expensive coral reefs if faced against a modern military, especially one with nukes. This goes for aircraft carriers from all countries.

...what.

The aircraft carrier is the backbone of modern naval fleets. The ability to launch strikes hundreds of miles away without actually bringing your own ship into range is hugely valuable.

You've got it completely backwards. A navy without an aircraft carrier is completely at the mercy of one with one--they wouldn't even be able to get in range to fire their more traditional weapons before the aircraft from the opponent's carrier tear them apart.

 

[tl8]

Does anyone know which Carrier Ops procedures they are using?

I didn't think the Russians had Catobar.

I would guess they might use the French ones...

 

[Hlynkacg]

Sole use of an aircraft carrier (since about 1945) is to bully developing/underdeveloped countries with inadequate means to defend themselves. Whether the "victim" had deserved to be bullied is a question for the basement.

They will make very expensive coral reefs if faced against a modern military, especially one with nukes. This goes for aircraft carriers from all countries.

Wait whu???

The primary recon and strike abilities of almost all modern militaries (not just navies) are based around aircraft. In fact, one could argue that the main distinction between a "modern military" and a primitive one is "does it have air support?". This makes an air-field/maintenance facility that can be strategically re-positioned (AKA a Carrier) is an incredibly valuable asset.

...as for the Nuke issue.

If somone's seriously chucking nukes in anger all bets are off, enjoy the apocalypse.

 

[statickid]

...what.

The aircraft carrier is the backbone of modern naval fleets. The ability to launch strikes hundreds of miles away without actually bringing your own ship into range is hugely valuable.

You've got it completely backwards. A navy without an aircraft carrier is completely at the mercy of one with one--they wouldn't even be able to get in range to fire their more traditional weapons before the aircraft from the opponent's carrier tear them apart.

I agree. no one is going to start flinging nukes at aircraft carriers without fear of SEVERE backlash from pretty much the entire planet. I think the current advantage of military power lies in the point of impact defense. in machines like the Raytheon Phalanx and anti-missile missiles. If you can sit in one crucial spot while fiercely defending yourself, you become truly formidable

 

[FADEC]

The jet is a copy of our Su-33

Which in turn is a further development of the copy of the F15 (Su-27)

---------- Post added at 11:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 PM ----------

...what.

The aircraft carrier is the backbone of modern naval fleets. The ability to launch strikes hundreds of miles away without actually bringing your own ship into range is hugely valuable.

You've got it completely backwards. A navy without an aircraft carrier is completely at the mercy of one with one--they wouldn't even be able to get in range to fire their more traditional weapons before the aircraft from the opponent's carrier tear them apart.

That's the practical ability and theoretical justification.

Although it's fascinating machines they were used for pointless aggressive wars past WWII. Which is what boogabooga meant I think.

 

[Urwumpe]

Which in turn is a further development of the copy of the F15 (Su-27)

Not really. The F-15 might have been the reason for the development (though that is doubtful, since the Su-27 was not that much younger than the F-15), but in all aspects, the Su-27 is a different aircraft. Especially in terms of aerodynamics, where the Su-27 is still one of the best aircraft.

 

[FADEC]

Not really. The F-15 might have been the reason for the development (though that is doubtful, since the Su-27 was not that much younger than the F-15), but in all aspects, the Su-27 is a different aircraft. Especially in terms of aerodynamics, where the Su-27 is still one of the best aircraft.

Different features don't really make it no copy. But the word "inspiration" might be more correct. Just like China certainly is inspired by Russian jets. Much like they are inspired by Soyuz...

Buran and Tu-144 also were hugely "inspired" by the corresponding US innovations. But they were not as much advanced, sadly. The prototypes of the Su-27 provided ample food for concerns as well. But in the end the Su-27 indeed became one of the best jets.

 

[boogabooga]

I stand behind my comments.

...what.

The aircraft carrier is the backbone of modern naval fleets. The ability to launch strikes hundreds of miles away without actually bringing your own ship into range is hugely valuable.

You've got it completely backwards. A navy without an aircraft carrier is completely at the mercy of one with one--they wouldn't even be able to get in range to fire their more traditional weapons before the aircraft from the opponent's carrier tear them apart.

You will only be out of range if your opponent is, by modern superpower standards, underdeveloped. Between the top armed forces: the U.S., NATO, Russia, China, and India, (perhaps some others) all have enough goodies to retaliate fiercely against anything that was in range to attack them. There have been many advances lately in the goodie department. See for example Sizzler (3M-54 Klub), BrahMos, the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, etc. Not to mention good submarines, and land based air attack in large numbers (supported with modern ECM, etc.), drones, etc. Wasn't, for example phalanx, developed in the 70s? After all of that, then there are the nukes.

Also, all of those countries have to varying degree, the spysats to keep dibs on the carriers pretty much all the time. You can't really hide a 500 ft long vessel. Next, all those countries have sophisticated enough air defenses to make the success of any carrier borne strike on them very dubious to begin with.

Which in turn is a further development of the copy of the F15 (Su-27)

Which was in turn a "copy" of the MiG-25

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Does anyone know which Carrier Ops procedures they are using?

I didn't think the Russians had Catobar.

I would guess they might use the French ones...

STOBAR: ski-jump ramp for take-off, arrestor wires for landing.

Oh and don't expect the Chinese to get a full carrier strike force in action for the next 3-5 years... (by then they might have already completed their second carrier)

 

[FADEC]

Which was in turn a "copy" of the MiG-25

Rather an improvement and replacement for the F-4, which already flew when there wasn't any MiG-25 on the horizon. But the important point here is the Lockheed A-12. Russia wanted to catch up with something like that. And they did brilliantly.

The US didn't have to copy. They were up front in lots of cases regarding aviation and space flight since the Gemini era at the latest. But even the X-15 already did beat anything years before. In retrospect it was a great era of competition and innovation on both sides of the ocean. The skies and orbits certainly would look different today without the Cold War. And in comparison to China these days, I agree to Artlav. It's just a try to have/copy toys as welll, but not really innovative. It's actually freaking boring. But China actually has the power to really design something new. Sadly they don't.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Although it's fascinating machines they were used for pointless aggressive wars past WWII. Which is what boogabooga meant I think.

Hey, leave politics to politicians.

I stand behind my comments.

You will only be out of range if your opponent is, by modern superpower standards, underdeveloped. Between the top armed forces: the U.S., NATO, Russia, China, and India, (perhaps some others) all have enough goodies to retaliate fiercely against anything that was in range to attack them. There have been many advances lately in the goodie department. See for example Sizzler (3M-54 Klub), BrahMos, the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, etc. Not to mention good submarines, and land based air attack in large numbers (supported with modern ECM, etc.), drones, etc. Wasn't, for example phalanx, developed in the 70s? After all of that, then there are the nukes.

The first part of that paragraph is demonstrably false. Unless you're refering to ICBMs or sending your planes on a one way trip attack-aircraft have maximum range and a good chunk of the of the world is outside of it. This is why we have aircraft carriers and forward bases in the first place.

Likewise, Long-range cruise and ballistic missiles still need a spotter with LOS to provide targeting data. Aircraft & Drones are vulnerable to being shot down (either by the carrier's own aircraft or by it's escorts) and any Radar or ECM that can be mounted on an aircraft is going to be dwarfed by it's ship-mounted counterpart (as rule, a cruiser will have a lot more tonnage and wattage to spare than an aircraft). Yes, Phalanx, CWIS, Iron Dome, RBPDMs etc have been around since the 70s but their date of deployment is irrelevant because they fulfill their role quite well, namly slap very small very fast moving objects out of the sky with extream prejudice.

Yes submarines are a threat but that's why carriers have escorts and why modern navies spend billions of dollars on ASW and submarines of their own.

In short I think you are seriously overestimating the offensive capabilities of modern military powers while at the same time seriously underestimating their defensive capabilities.

As for the question of nukes, see my prior comment.

 

[boogabooga]

And I think you are seriously underestimating the offensive capabilities of modern military powers while at the same time seriously overestimating their defensive capabilities.

Lets agree to disagree.

 

[Ark]

If China tries to intimidate Taiwan by parking this thing off their coast, it'll make a nice fat target for that shiny new carrier-killer missile they tested not too long ago.

I think the US has vastly overvalued it's carriers after decades of pounding comparatively defenseless, poor countries. We haven't had a technologically even fight since WW2. If we actually picked a fight with Russia or China, the Nimitz class would fall victim to submarines and mach 3+ antiship missiles in fairly short order. They're targets that rely on aircraft and an entire task force to defend them. China wants some carriers so they can do the same thing the US does: Park them off the coast of a poor, probably oil-rich country and pound them into submission with low-risk air strikes.

 

[boogabooga]

Imagine the irony if China parks this thing in Yankee Station to intimidate Vietnam into giving up their claim to the disputed islands...

 

[Hielor]

Clearly some random folks on internet forums know more about naval strategy than people who are actually trained for it.

You guys should hire on as defense consultants.