Jump to content


Photo

Second Chinese Carrier


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#21 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,234 posts

Posted 07 January 2019 - 0301 AM

Their submarine force is a generation behind. OTOH, the USN still has a lot of 688's in service, and I hear numbers are going to fall before they start getting better. They Virginnia's are probably far better than any Chinese Submarine. But they cant be several places at once. Even worse, the USN's FFG fleet is currently non existent, other than a couple of trials ships.  If they started a commerce war, America would have to lean heavily on its allies to stop them.

 

Im not sure its as easy to sink carriers as the Chinese think. It may well be possible to sink carriers using hypersonic weapons. OTOH, nobody has yet demonstrated an ability to do so. It one thing to use a hypersonic missile against a static target. Carriers move. The only really reliable way to do it is still a nuclear warhead, and doing that is going to cause a number of problems to put it mildly.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 07 January 2019 - 1300 PM.

  • 0

#22 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,656 posts

Posted 07 January 2019 - 0415 AM

 

China and Chinese will likely use the second carrier to increase the quality and quantity of their training in fixed-wing carrier operations, unfortunately.

 

Allowing them to have caught up, and to have potentially exceeded, Japanese carrier operations expertise is almost unforgivable in various ways.

 

How good is Chinese ASW?

 

How good are the Japanese in offensive submarine operations?

 

Why the seeming need to match China carrier with carrier when one can sink the carrier by other means?

 

 

ASW is the part the PLA Navy hasn't mastered yet and is farther from getting a grip on. There's a lack of fixed wing aircraft, its helos are mostly torpedo carriers and their sonars are an unknown quantity but I have yet to find a US submariner that fears the Chinese (in books or the net), so they appear to be run of the mill. At the same time, the IJN is putting a lot of money and thought in their subs, so they won't catch a CV running away but are very likely to catch one that is sailing around.


  • 0

#23 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 07 January 2019 - 1211 PM

Apart from the added military capability that ownership of offensive carrier striking capability provides a nation, apart from the political benefits of such ownership on the movement toward constitutional revision, and apart from the added pressure such ownership will apply to any potential opposing navy, the reasons are clear: because Japan and Japanese have the skill, the technology, and, perhaps most importantly, the economic means by which to do so.

 

An interesting question to ask would be why Japan and Japanese would ever not decide to.

 

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." -- John F. Kennedy


Edited by Nobu, 07 January 2019 - 1216 PM.

  • 0

#24 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,481 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 1333 PM

 

 

China and Chinese will likely use the second carrier to increase the quality and quantity of their training in fixed-wing carrier operations, unfortunately.

 

Allowing them to have caught up, and to have potentially exceeded, Japanese carrier operations expertise is almost unforgivable in various ways.

 

How good is Chinese ASW?

 

How good are the Japanese in offensive submarine operations?

 

Why the seeming need to match China carrier with carrier when one can sink the carrier by other means?

 

 

At the same time, the IJN.....

 

 

:D


  • 0

#25 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,027 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 1341 PM

Hey, Japan has still an Emperor.


  • 0

#26 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,656 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 1353 PM

 

 

 

China and Chinese will likely use the second carrier to increase the quality and quantity of their training in fixed-wing carrier operations, unfortunately.

 

Allowing them to have caught up, and to have potentially exceeded, Japanese carrier operations expertise is almost unforgivable in various ways.

 

How good is Chinese ASW?

 

How good are the Japanese in offensive submarine operations?

 

Why the seeming need to match China carrier with carrier when one can sink the carrier by other means?

 

 

At the same time, the IJN.....

 

 

:D

 

 

Ken Estes maintains that calling the Japanese Navy the Self-Defence Force is just a cover for the real name. I fully agree. :D


  • 0

#27 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 12 January 2019 - 1925 PM

Reason No. 7 for a Japanese offensive carrier strike capability: the existence of 2 Korean "Dokdo" class amphibious assault ships, themselves offensive in various ways.


  • 0

#28 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,665 posts

Posted 12 January 2019 - 2115 PM

I would argue that tentacle porn is offensive enough that the Japanese need not worry about an aircraft carrier:P
  • 0

#29 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,225 posts

Posted 12 January 2019 - 2243 PM

Hey, Japan has still an Emperor.

And there is a guy in the USA who thinks that he is.


  • 0

#30 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 0827 AM

JHC7MWK.jpg​


  • 0

#31 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,155 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 1251 PM

Nice graph. They are getting pretty big. Although by the end of 2019, 4 Type 55 might yet to enter service, but in any case, 4 have been launched, with one or two of those 4 already are at sea trials. And 4 more are being made for a total of 8 accounted for. And they are not stopping at the 13 depicted Type 52Ds since as of now, up to 23 of them might be made, assuming they stop at that. And not long ago they finished a new submarine production facility. So in time even the quantity of the good stuff in that graph is going to be dwarfed :ph34r:


Edited by JasonJ, 13 January 2019 - 1251 PM.

  • 0

#32 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 1301 PM

I would argue that tentacle porn is offensive enough that the Japanese need not worry about an aircraft carrier:P 

 

You will receive no argument from me on that point. The Japanese porn industry is both offensive and worthy of contempt in various ways. What makes it even worse is that neither the Koreans nor the Chinese have succumbed to the compulsion for creating this phenomenon.


  • 0

#33 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,665 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 1437 PM

I was just kidding; Im hardly one to begrudge a culture its vices.
  • 0

#34 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,155 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 0040 AM

Related to the discussion about the J-20 vs FC-31 competition in the first page of this thread, a naval version of the J-20 looks like to be developed.

Military insiders say the aircraft appears to have beaten the FC-31 in the race to become the PLA Navys fighter of the future

A military source close said it would be almost impossible to develop both aircraft over the next few years given the risk of an economic downturn

Chinas military is likely to pick the countrys first active stealth fighter, the J-20, for its next generation aircraft carriers, according to military sources and a recent report on state media.

The J-20, made by the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC), appears to have a won a head-to-head contest with the FC-31, a fighter made by another company which is still undergoing testing.

A military insider told the South China Morning Post that the Central Military Commission, the Peoples Liberation Armys top decision-making body, now favoured adapting the J-20 for its new carriers.

The Chengdu Aerospace Corporation will announce some new products, which will include a new version of their J-20. You can guess what type it will be, the military insider, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said.

The FC-31 was independently developed by CACs sister company Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC), which also produced the J-15 the jets currently in use on the countrys only active aircraft carrier, the Liaoning.

Both aerospace firms are subsidiaries of the state-owned giant Aviation Industry Corporation of China, which specialises in designing and developing military aircraft, and were set up to ensure benign competition between manufacturers.

However, the SAC has faced criticism from some military leaders and experts for being too conservative and failing to innovate because of its bureaucratic structure.


A recent programme aired by the state broadcaster China Central Television also suggests the J-20 will be chosen.

An episode of Military Documentary shown on August 16 reported how the PLA Navy was selecting candidates for pilot training and illustrated the feature with a mock-up of jets that looked like J-20s taking off from a carrier.
Ground-based J-20s also known as Powerful Dragons entered service with the PLA Air Force in 2017. Mass production of the stealth fighters began late last year as China stepped up its efforts to counter the deployment of American F-22s and F-35s in the Asia-Pacific region.

If the selection of the J-20 is confirmed it will mark the end of a lengthy debate between its supporters and advocates of the FC-31 as to which would make a better carrier-based fighter.

Those who favoured the J-20 said it was more advanced and reliable than the FC-31, but its supporters said it was more light and nimble.

Both the J-20 and FC-31 have their advantages. The size of the J-20 is similar to the J-15 since both are powerful heavy fighters, Song Zhongping, a military commentator for Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television, said.

Song said the lighter FC-31 could be developed into a medium-sized carrier fighter that would complement the J-20 in future.

But another military source close to the PLA Navy said it would be almost impossible to develop both aircraft over the next few years given the risk of an economic downturn as the trade war with the US continues to escalate.

The source said Chinas next generation aircraft carriers would be with equipped electromagnetic catapults similar to those used on the US Navys Ford-class supercarriers.

These enable the use of heavier fighters because they are more powerful than the older diesel systems used on older carriers.

The key problem of the J-20 is not weight, but length. If it wants to be a carrier-based fighter jet, it needs to be made shorter.

Military insiders have previously said that CAC engineers are working to produce a shorter version of the J-20 that will work with the new launch system.

At present both the J-20 and F-31 still rely on Russian engines. The WS-15 engine that has been purpose built for the J-20 has undergone hundreds of hours of testing but has yet to meet reliability targets while the F-31 prototype does not have a purpose-built engine.

Chinas navy plans to build at least four carrier battle groups by 2030, three of which will be active at any given time.

Miliary analysts say China will need at least a decade to develop its new generation carrier-based fighters, so the J-15 will remain in service for at least a decade, if not two.

The J-15 made its maiden flight in 2009 and has been in service since 2012. They are the only fighters based on the Liaoning and will be used by its sister ship the Type 001A when it enters service, probably later this year.

https://www.scmp.com...fighter-jet-job

Edited by JasonJ, 01 September 2019 - 0108 AM.

  • 0

#35 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,031 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 0208 AM

Next step is a 'battlecruiser' able to carry DF-21.  A naval version is under development, but putting it on a big surface ship is a fanciful suggestion.


Edited by KV7, 01 September 2019 - 0209 AM.

  • 0

#36 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,989 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 0356 AM

What I find pretty depressing, in 2019, is the fact that people in charge feel they have to counter whatever the other side has by buying the same thing themselves. In this day and age that's just silly.


  • 0

#37 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,234 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 0428 AM

China doesnt want to counter America. They want to be a big power like America and do as America does. To do that, they are going to require a certain amount of emulation of what America has.

 

I strongly doubt they are going to stop at 2. Or whether they are going to be happy to remain with ones at this size. They are already starting to emulate LHA ships like the Tarawa. I dont suppose its going to stop there.


  • 0

#38 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 1100 AM

The fear is that they want to dominate their coastline, whose vulnerability was put to good use by Japan, versus wanting to play 5 ocean navy everywhere at once.
  • 0

#39 Leo Niehorster

Leo Niehorster

    Meow

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,644 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 1624 PM

A strong navy certainly won't hurt their territory grab in the South China Sea.


  • 0

#40 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 01 September 2019 - 1812 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.


  • 0