Jump to content


Photo

Second Chinese Carrier


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#41 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,195 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 1853 PM

Both the Chinese and Taiwanese Republic of Chinese have considerable coastlines on that body of water, unfortunately. Their joint territory grab is anchored on them.


There has been consistency in yearly made surveys about identity which always resulted in roughly 10% Chinese, 10% Chinese and Taiwanese, and 80% Taiwanese. By now, you should be aware of that so stop spreading disinformation. Maybe you would also want to know that among those that identify as Chinese don't all mean pro-Beijing since at minimum some 1,000s of them are those that moved out of HK and to Taiwan since 1997.
  • 0

#42 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,148 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 2331 PM

According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, the Spratly Islands which form the most extreme bulge of the Chinese SCS dashed line claim, as well as Scarborough Shoal, are claimed entirely by the Taiwanese/Republic of Chinese. 

 

It makes no mention of Taipei's claims on the Paracels, but the Taiwanese/Republic of Chinese government itself clarifies this omission on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chinese (Taiwan) as follows:

 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (Taiwan) reiterates its position on the South China Sea Date: 2011/05/25    Data Source: 公眾外交協調會
No. 167 May 25, 2011 On May 19 this year, the government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam claimed the Shisha Islands (Paracel Islands) and the Nansha Islands (Spratly Islands), which belong to the Republic of China (Taiwan), to be an integral part of Vietnamese territory. Then, on May 23, the presidential spokesperson of the Republic of the Philippines stated that Reed Bank, which is part of the Nansha Islands, is in Western Palawan and therefore an integral part of the territory of the Philippines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of the Republic of China (Taiwan) reiterates its position as follows: 1.Reed Bank is part of the Nansha Islands. Whether looked at from the perspective of history, geography or international law, the Nansha Islands, the Shisha Islands, the Chungsha Islands (Macclesfield Islands) and the Tungsha Islands (Pratas Islands), as well as their surrounding waters, sea beds and subsoil, are all an inherent part of the territory of the Republic of China (Taiwan). These archipelagoes therefore fall under the sovereignty of the Republic of China (Taiwan), and the government reasserts that it enjoys all rights over the islands and their surrounding waters, and that it does not accept any claim to sovereignty over, or occupation of, these areas by other countries.

  • 0

#43 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,195 posts

Posted 02 September 2019 - 0023 AM

Even if Taiwan was to officially end its agreement to the one-China policy (which would risk a huge backlash that even the US would want to avoid) and thus end the argument of claiming the SCS on "China" basis, the Tsai government has been talking up a narrative that could still be used as a diplomatic argument basis for a claim over the South China Sea. That narrative is that Taiwan has historically been a sea faring country even way before its time when part of the Qing dynasty. That line of argument is also used as leverage for engaging with Japan regarding the Senkaku islands or Okinotori.

But thinking from their perspective, the PRC is never going to let go of the 9 line dash claim. If the PRC was to succeed in turing the South China Sea into a China defacto-controlled sea, it means a worse strategic situation for Taiwan since it would strengthen naval encirclment of Taiwan itself by being buttressed at the south end.

Of course it does complicate any efforts to diplomatically resolve the claims in the SCS. But even if Taiwan was to remove its claim, could anyone fancy the PRC would abondon the 9 dash line claim too? Of course not.

So meh on Taiwan's claim.
  • 0

#44 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,148 posts

Posted 02 September 2019 - 0047 AM

Ing-wen's insistence on asserting the Taiwanese Republic of Chinese claims in the South China Sea is revealing. There may be a limit to the usefulness of an anti-Chinese proxy that clings to the talismans of shared identity in the form of Taiping Island in various ways.


  • 0

#45 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,783 posts

Posted 14 September 2019 - 1556 PM

The Chinese Navy fits best the model written in the 20th C about a very similar case: The title was first coined by WS Churchill.

 

Holger Herwig. Luxury Fleet: The Imperial German Navy 1888-1918 (London, 1980).

 
  • 0

#46 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 0157 AM

China has no love for its Su33 copy.

https://defensemaven...bkyuqUmPrBi7cA/

 

With a barely disguised touch of schadenfreude, Sputnik News delved into the woes of the J-15. "Love for the fourth-generation J-15 jet is seldom shown in Chinese circles," said the Russian news site. "The Asia Times noted that Chinese media has disparaged the plane in numerous ways, including referring to it as a 'flopping fish' for its inability to operate effectively from the Chinese carriers, which launch fixed-wing aircraft under their own power from an inclined ramp on the bow of the ship. The J-15's engines and heavy weight severely limit its ability to operate effectively: at 17.5 tons empty weight, it tops the scales for carrier-based fighters. The US Navy's F-18 workhorse, by comparison, is only 14.5 tons."


  • 0

#47 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,148 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1119 AM

What alarms me to a certain extent is that they are even able to tell the difference between what is a quality carrier aircraft and what is not.
  • 0

#48 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,666 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1158 AM

Beggars can't be choosers. They went with what was available and then made a second copy to rectify what could be rectified but are trying to solve a problem that is unsolvable, the Kuznetsov class was designed to operate within a Soviet fleet that relied on missiles for its offensive punch and used fixed wing aircraft as interceptors only (which is what the Su-27 was intended to be only).

 

Trying to build a multipurpose carrier out of that is complicated because the shoe will always be tight. Building a completely new naval aviation infrastructure as they are doing now it's neither easy nor cheap.


  • 0

#49 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,007 posts

Posted 15 September 2019 - 1708 PM

China has no love for its Su33 copy.

https://defensemaven...bkyuqUmPrBi7cA/

 

With a barely disguised touch of schadenfreude, Sputnik News delved into the woes of the J-15. "Love for the fourth-generation J-15 jet is seldom shown in Chinese circles," said the Russian news site. "The Asia Times noted that Chinese media has disparaged the plane in numerous ways, including referring to it as a 'flopping fish' for its inability to operate effectively from the Chinese carriers, which launch fixed-wing aircraft under their own power from an inclined ramp on the bow of the ship. The J-15's engines and heavy weight severely limit its ability to operate effectively: at 17.5 tons empty weight, it tops the scales for carrier-based fighters. The US Navy's F-18 workhorse, by comparison, is only 14.5 tons."

 

I would not read too much of it. Reports which come to Russian and Western medias via Chinese and Indian sources are often very distorted. Obviously J-15 is going to be temporary solution for PLAN, something to get the ball rolling while long-term development of domestic carrier fighter aircraft takes place. Also writer of the article doesn't come across as too knowledgeable - so J-15 weights 17.5 tons compared to 14.5 tons of Super Hornet. So what? It's a different aircraft. F-14D weighted almost 20 tons.

 

That they have some kind of operational fighter aircraft at all is impressive, if anything. Look at how well Naval LCA has gone over. And Indians have decades of experience operating carriers.


  • 0

#50 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 0139 AM

F14D had swing wings, so had a good approach speed. You have to wonder what one of these is going to be like in a light breeze when its coming back aboard heavily loaded.


  • 0

#51 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted 16 September 2019 - 0140 AM

Beggars can't be choosers. They went with what was available and then made a second copy to rectify what could be rectified but are trying to solve a problem that is unsolvable, the Kuznetsov class was designed to operate within a Soviet fleet that relied on missiles for its offensive punch and used fixed wing aircraft as interceptors only (which is what the Su-27 was intended to be only).

 

Trying to build a multipurpose carrier out of that is complicated because the shoe will always be tight. Building a completely new naval aviation infrastructure as they are doing now it's neither easy nor cheap.

 

Thats a pretty good observation. I think you certainly have a point here.


  • 0

#52 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,007 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 0328 AM

F14D had swing wings, so had a good approach speed. You have to wonder what one of these is going to be like in a light breeze when its coming back aboard heavily loaded.

 

Su-33's approach speed is about same as F/A-18's, I don't think it's much of a problem. Takeoffs in heavy loads might be more serious limitation, especially in warm climates. Also affects sortie rate as you're forced to use back launch station for longer takeoff run.


  • 0

#53 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 0330 AM

Yeah, the lack of a cat must be a real restriction for a non STOVL type.

 

An idle thought, I wonder if it would be viable to have a catapult AND a ski ramp?


  • 0

#54 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,670 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 0445 AM

What would be the point? Also, is J-15 rated for a cat launch? But yes The biggest issue with the Flanker family as a embarked a/c are size and weight. I think they can take full fuel load and carry useful weapons from the back launch position but I think the two forward positions require significantly less fuel. The size of the aircraft will limit the numbers and the use of the back launch point limits sortie rate, as well as blocking the landing cycle.

 

ETA: given the small number of aircraft carried, it seems likely only 2-4 a/c would ever be launched as a CAP at any given time anyway.


Edited by Josh, 17 September 2019 - 0953 AM.

  • 0

#55 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 0827 AM

What would be the point? Also, is J-15 rated for a cat launch? But yes The biggest issue with the Flanker family as a embarked a/c are size and weight. I think they can take full fuel load and carry useful weapons from the back launch position but I think the two forward positions require significantly less fuel. The size of the aircraft will limit the numbers and the use of the back launch point limits sortie rate, as well as blocking the landing cycle.

 

Because its fun? :)

 

I was just thinking with a ramp you wouldnt need a catapult with the power you would need say, as on a US supercarrier. Wholly irrelevant, but I just struck me as technically interesting.


  • 0

#56 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 1653 PM

 

What would be the point? Also, is J-15 rated for a cat launch? But yes The biggest issue with the Flanker family as a embarked a/c are size and weight. I think they can take full fuel load and carry useful weapons from the back launch position but I think the two forward positions require significantly less fuel. The size of the aircraft will limit the numbers and the use of the back launch point limits sortie rate, as well as blocking the landing cycle.

 

Because its fun? :)

 

I was just thinking with a ramp you wouldnt need a catapult with the power you would need say, as on a US supercarrier. Wholly irrelevant, but I just struck me as technically interesting.

 

Yes, you would need less strengthening of the airframe in that case.


  • 0

#57 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,007 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 1715 PM

Yeah, the lack of a cat must be a real restriction for a non STOVL type.

 

An idle thought, I wonder if it would be viable to have a catapult AND a ski ramp?

 

Unfinished Soviet carrier Ulyanovsk would have had both ski jump and catapults: however latter only for Yak-44 AEW aircraft. Su-33's would have operated STOBAR as in Kuznetsov.

 

640px-%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%

 

In theory I suppose it would be possible to have a weaker version of catapult to support STOBAR operations. However, building steam catapult into the ship is such a hassle that for the trouble you might just as well go full monty CTOL and not bother with limitations of ski jump operations at all. With EM catapults it might be slightly more practical.


  • 0

#58 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,007 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 1736 PM

What would be the point? Also, is J-15 rated for a cat launch? But yes The biggest issue with the Flanker family as a embarked a/c are size and weight. I think they can take full fuel load and carry useful weapons from the back launch position but I think the two forward positions require significantly less fuel. The size of the aircraft will limit the numbers and the use of the back launch point limits sortie rate, as well as blocking the landing cycle.


I suppose Flanker could be modified to bridle style launch (steel cables) with relatively little work. Modern shuttle style launch would require considerable modifications, might not be practical at all.

Su-33 has large folding part in wing, so it actually doesn't take much space in that dimension (less than MiG-29K for example). Obviously length of the aircraft is still a complication.
1098345as.jpg


  • 0

#59 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,670 posts

Posted 17 September 2019 - 1744 PM

The PLAN is going full cat on Cv3, so the rumor goes. I suspect they will use the first two for experience and their third will be more of an operational CV with equivalent aircraft- something cat launched, probably still J-15.
  • 0

#60 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,007 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0355 AM

It's same plan as India, STOBAR is easier and cheaper to start with and once you already have one that type of carrier, you might just as well build another for commonality and expanding the knowledge base and then you move to bigger and better carrier. Russia's problem is that with just 1 carrier which is often out of operations, personnel has nothing to do meanwhile and you can't plan operations or presence around it much.


  • 0