What's new

PLA Navy Carrier/Fighters..

Myth_buster_1

BANNED
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
9,016
Reaction score
-1
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > The Flanker Fleet -The PLA's 'Big Stick'
The most important news to emerge from the Euronaval weapons show at Le Bourget field near Paris, October 23-27, was word that Russia had agreed to sell China two Sukhoi Su-33 carrier-based fighters, with the possibility of selling up to 48 or 50 of these fighters. These would arm the three carrier battle groups that, according to Chinese press reports, are on track to be ready in a little more than a decade.

Should these fighters receive a maximum Russian upgrade, then the PLA Navy could possess fighters that in important respects would be superior the U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F, the dominant U.S. Navy combat aircraft for the foreseeable future.

In addition, China would have more carriers available for operations within a thousand miles of her shores than would the U.S. plus her allies. Carriers, with their ability to create local air superiority and sea denial, may be particularly effective in attacks on island territories belonging to such states as Korea (Socotra island) or Japan (the Senkakus) or the Philippines (who already have a Chinese presence on Mischief Reef) or Indonesia (the Natuna group) or even Taiwan --Taiping island, the most important strategic position in the South China Sea.

The best response will be submarines, which Japan has in limited numbers and Korea is building, but which are otherwise not widely possessed by American allies, as well as advanced anti-ship missiles and air power of a sort that, absent some improvements, will be no match for the Sukhois.

But the Sukhois may represent the limit of what Russia can do; they have a 5th generation fighter program but with uncertain prospects for success. Moscow lacks the most advanced technologies, the sorts that have the greatest potential to destabilize the region, such as stealth. So Beijing is now looking to Europe for that next input of know-how.

Euronaval heard new calls by the French government on October 25, 2006 to lift the 1989 European Union (EU) arms embargo on China. New European naval platform and weapons technologies revealed at Euronaval ensure that once the EU embargo is lifted, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will seek to move quickly to gain access and cement industrial relationships. China clearly is looking to the EU to provide "next-generation" military technologies increasingly unavailable from Russia’s weapons combine, which is still struggling to recover from the demise of their well-funded Soviet customer

Sukhoi Su-33 Sale To PLA

Russian press reports about the sale of Suhkoi Su-33 naval fighters to China offer further confirmation of China’s ambition to develop carrier aviation. At the 2005 Moscow Airshow Russian sources had initially disclosed that China was interested in the Su-33, a much-modified carrier compatible version of the basic Su-27 heavy fighter.[1] At Moscow the Russian also demonstrated the larger twin-seat Su-33UB training and attack fighter for a PLA delegation. But in late October 2006 Russian reports in Kommersant and elsewhere revealed that China has made an initial purchase of two Su-33 fighters for evaluation, likely to be followed by an order for 12, and the possibility of additional sales that could lead to a total of 48 to 50 of these fighters, for about $2.5 billion.[2] If acquired, such numbers might outfit two regiments of the PLA Naval Air Force.



Sukhoi Su-33 Naval Fighter: On display at the 2005 Moscow Airshow, China may buy 2 and then up to 50 of these fighters to equip PLA Naval Air Force regiments to operate from new aircraft carriers. Credit: RD Fisher

A regiment of 24 to 25 would also be enough to outfit a Russian style carrier like the Varyag, which is now undergoing refurbishment in Dalian harbor. In Moscow one Russian source noted that purchased fighters would not equip the Varyag, but a carrier to be built in the future, so the purchase of two regiments might be an indication that China intends to build two more carriers about the same size as the Varyag. However, such can only be speculation; Russia is now developing a new class of aircraft carrier that it hopes to launch later in the next decade. While little is known about their new carrier design, concepts from the mid-1990s suggest Russian consideration of a much larger hull incorporating catapults for the first time, which would also support heavier aircraft like naval AWACS. As the PLA is also known to be developing at least one carrier AWACS aircraft design, it stands to reason that it would also be very interested in Russia’s new carrier design.




Russian Carrier Designs: China is consulting with Russia regarding future carrier designs, though these are previous designs from the 1980s and 1990s that could be guiding China-Russia consultations. Credit: Russian Internet

As for the Varyag itself, some in the U.S. Intelligence Community and others view it as a possible "transitional" ship to develop PLA carrier aviation, but with potential military applications as well.[3] The purchase of 2 to 12 Su-33s to start would be consistent with the more limited goal of assessing the aircraft and obtaining initial experience with carrier aircraft operations. Also, a Varyag with 12 Su-33s, a small number of Su-33UBs and supporting helicopters, would pose a formidable political symbol of Chinese strategic ascendance to Asian allies of the United States already wary of its declining influence vis-à-vis China. A Varyag so equipped would also allow the PLA to more quickly develop difficult combined-arms operations between PLA Navy, Air Force, Second Artillery and space forces to better combat U.S. aircraft carrier groups.



Sukhoi Su-30UB: Demonstrated to PLA visitors to the 2005 Moscow Airshow, this unique Russian fighter could be developed into an electronic warfare version capable of electronic attack, information attack and jamming missions. Credit: RD Fisher

But the purchase of just a small number of Su-33s may convey other intentions when considering another Russian revelation from the Russian press that China had managed to acquire from the Ukraine one of the T-10K prototypes for the Su-33.[4] This may indicate that while purchasing some Su-33s, the PLA’s real intention is to obtain the ability to produce their own version of the Su-33, to be based on the Su-27/J-11 now under co-production at the Shenyang Aircraft Company. Shenyang and KnAAPO, the maker of the PLA’s Su-27 and Su-30 fighters, have been at loggerheads since 2004 over the Shenyang’s desire to build a much-modified J-11 that would vastly reduce Russian content and potentially allow China to market their own version of yet another Russian fighter. KnAAPO and its parent company Sukhoi would like maximize their profits from future upgrade or modifications Shenyang may make to its J-11s. KnAAPO has also produced all of the Russian Navy’s Su-33s and would likely want to retain this business.

At Moscow in 2005 a Russian source was rather confident that China could not master all of the necessary modifications to turn their J-11s into carrier capable fighters like the Su-33. Compared to the basic Su-27, the Su-33 has a strengthened airframe covered with corrosion-resistant materials, much strengthened landing gear, the addition of "canard" lift devices and larger wing flaps to lower landing speed, folding wings, an aerial refueling probe, and a landing system that automatically controls the aircraft to land on the carrier deck.[5] The Su-33UB contains further aerodynamic refinements, uses more stealthy composite materials, and can carry a larger radar for attack missions. The Su-33UB has also been proposed for AWACS missions with the addition of a phased arrary radar atop the dorsal spine or under the fuselage. The Su-33UB demonstrated for the PLA in 2005 had also been modified with thrust-vectoring engines which greatly improve maneuverability.

But a year later it is possible to conclude that perhaps as far back as the late 1990s the PLA has been trying to develop an indigenous carrier capable J-11. Such a fighter may also benefit from Shenyang’s indigenized land-based J-11 program, which will likely incorporate new 13,200 to 13,600kg thrust WS-10A "Taishan" turbofan engines, new advanced PLA-developed radar and PLA-developed PL-12 advanced air-to-air missiles and new precision-guided ground attack weapons. A navalized J-11 based on this program would be decidedly superior to the Su-33 now in service with the Russian Navy.



Shenyang’s J-11 Ambitions: It is possible that for a number of years that Shenyang has been developing a carrier capable version of it J-11, benefiting from its program to create a new multi-role version of the J-11. Credit: Chinese Internet

To head off this program, and to appeal for future Russian Navy orders, Sukhoi is promoting upgrades for the Su-33. These will likely benefit from an upgraded version of the Su-35 that was marketed at the recent 2006 Zhuhai Airshow.[6] One major upgrade will be replacing the 12,500kg thrust AL-31F engines with 13,500kg thrust AL-31-F-M1 engines, which will allow for more rapid take-offs and larger weapons carriage. And while funding constraints have prevented radar and weapon upgrades, it is now possible to envision new Su-33s being equipped with new active electronic scanning array (AESA) radar like the Phazotron Zhuk-MFSE revealed in 2005. This radar can simultaneously track 30 aerial targets, two ground targets simultaneously, and locate naval targets out to 300km. Russian radar maker NIIP is also working on AESA radar. With additional development such phased array radar can themselves become weapons for delivering a range of electromagnetic attacks into enemy electronics. The Su-33UB’s ability to carry a much larger active array makes more attractive for such electronic weapons. The Su-33 can also be expected to carry the full range of Russian weapons, such as the Vympel R-77 active-guided BVR AAM, the 300km range Novator KS-172, the Kh-31 supersonic anti-radar/anti-ship, the Raduga 300km Kh-59MK anti-ship missile, and soon, air launched version of the unique 200km range Novator 3M-54E anti-ship missile and the 300km range 3M-14E land-attack cruise missile.



Phazotron AESA Radar: Revealed at the 2005 Moscow Airshow, the Phazotron Zhuk MFE is now undergoing testing. Credit: RD Fisher

Should China instead opt to fund a maximum Russian upgrade for the Su-33 instead of developing their own version, the PLA Navy could begin limited carrier operations by the middle of the next decade with a fighter competitive to, if not superior in some respects, to the U.S. Navy Boeing F/A-18E/F fighter bomber. In terms of range and maneuverability, it appears that the larger Su-33 with lower wing loading and higher thrust engines, will dominate the F/A-18E/F.[7] This advantage will multiply should the new Su-33 use thrust-vectoring engines. Such platform advantages may be regarded as obsolete considering the U.S. use of long-range off-board sensors like AWACS, UAVs and even satellites, plus the ability of new Helmet Mounted Displays for reducing the advantages of platform maneuverability. However, the Russian and Chinese investment in counter AWACS and anti-satellite systems could revive requirements for platform superiority, especially when both sides have Helmet Display systems.




Boeing F/A-18E/F and the Raytheon AN/APG-79 ASEA radar: The U.S. Navy is betting this combination will sustain the superiority of its carrier combat fighters, but an upgraded Su-33 could radically alter this projection. Credit: RD Fisher

In terms of electronic systems, the U.S. Navy is leading by fitting current and future F/A-18E/Fs with the Raytheon AN/APG-79 active electronic array radar (AESA), but Russian AESA radar may soon be available for the Su-33. Regarding weapons there may be rough parity, with the Su-33 having access to more and longer-range anti-ship missiles than the F/A-18E/F. While it is due to be supplemented by the stealthy attack mission oriented Lockheed-Martin F-35C in the next decade, the F/A-18E/F will remain the numerically dominant U.S. Navy combat aircraft for the foreseeable future. Although the U.S. would retain a commendable advantage accrued from generations of professional carrier operations and development, it would be an unwelcome development for PLA to begin its carrier aviation era with a combat aircraft competitive to superior to the F/A-18E/F.

Strategic Impact of the PLA Flanker

The configuration of in service PLA Flankers should not be seen as the end state of fleet capability. With modest flying hours accrued, the fleet has a useful service life – driven by structural fatigue and corrosion – into the 2030-2040 period. The high fraction of titanium alloys will guarantee longevity. By 2015 a good fraction of the fleet will be due for mid life upgrades.

The Flanker is a large and robust airframe, with good internal volume, and considerable capacity for avionics power and cooling. As its history to date demonstrates, technology insertion upgrades incur little difficulty. Therefore a PLA Flanker in 2015-2020 is likely to be significantly different in engine and avionics technology to current variants.

There are a number of candidate upgrades which can be predicted with a high level of confidence, given known development activity in Russian industry:

1. Supersonic cruise 40,000 lbf class AL-41F engines replacing the AL-31F. A derated AL-41F was being trailed in a Russian Su-27 in 2004.

2. Thrust vectoring (TVC) engine nozzles with 2D or 3D capability. Indian Su-30MKI is equipped with a TVC nozzle.

3. Digital Flight Control System (DFCS). Trialled in the 1990s Su-37 and later supplied to India, this technology will become standard for late build Flankers. The Su-37 included redundant sidestick controls for the pilot.

4. Canard foreplanes for enhanced high alpha agility. Production hardware on Su-33 and Su-30MKI.

5. An active phased array (AESA) fire control radar replacing the N-001 series. Russian industry has supplied the hybrid array N-011M to India, built AESA prototypes, and given availability of GaAs MMIC technology globally, will have no difficulty in manufacturing an AESA over the next decade.

6. A two color band FLIR/IRST sensor replacing the OLS-30, using QWIP imaging array technology. Russian industry has been negotiating to licence EU QWIP technology, which is based on mass production GaAs MMIC technology.

7. COTS based computer hardware running COTS based software. Given the use of this technology in the current N-001VEP upgrade, we can expect its use to extend across all systems over the next decade.

8. A Helmet Mounted Display with FLIR projection capability. Such an upgrade was being discussed some years ago, and would be easily accommodated with a FLIR/IRST sensor.

9. Full glass cockpit based on digital technology. Given the current delivery of first generation glass cockpits in Su-30MK and Su-27SKM, this is a natural progression.

10. Heatseeking and anti radiation variants of the R-77 Amraamski, and extended range ramjet powered variants of the R-77. All are in advanced development and actively being marketed.

11. Advanced digital variants of the R-73/74 Archer close-in air to air missile. These have been actively marketed.

12. AWACS killer long range missiles in the 160 to 200 nautical mile range category. The R-37/AA-X-13 Arrow remains in development for the Su-35, the R-172 was recently reported as the subject of licence negotiations with India. Su-35 upgrade marketing literature depicts the use of such missiles.

13. Cruise missiles for standoff attacks. China acquired Kh-55SM/AS-15 Kent cruise missiles from the Ukraine, and is manufacturing indigenous designs.

14. Advanced jam resistant fighter to fighter and fighter to AWACS datalinks and networks. India used the Russian TKS-2 datalink to effect in the Cope India exercise against the F-15C. Further evolution of protocol software will see this technology grow to match current US capabilities.

15. Radar absorbent materials for radar observables reduction. Numerous Russian unclassified papers detail a range of technologies for surface wave suppression and edge signature reduction, with a specific aim of reducing legacy aircraft observables.

16. Aerial refuelling probes, pylon plumbing for drop tanks, and buddy refuelling stores. Production hardware available off the shelf.

These technologies will appear over the next decade on PLA Flankers, either as upgrades or as part of new build aircraft. It is a 'when' question rather than an 'if' question, and any analytical predictions which devalue the PLA Flanker on the basis of the limitations of the early build Su-27SK/J-11 deny the reality that Russian industry and the PLA are following the US pattern of ongoing continuous technology insertion.

It is illustrative to compare a notional 'Flanker-2015' configuration, equipped with these upgrades, against representative aircraft operated by the US or US aligned Pacrim nations.

A) Boeing F-15 Eagle variants (Air Force, Japan, South Korea, Singapore). All will be matched or incrementally outclassed by the 'Flanker-2015'. While the latest AESA equipped F-15SG currently outclasses in service Su-27/30 by virtue of the AESA and newer avionics, this gap vanishes. In range payload, supersonic and agility performance, the 'Flanker-2015' outclasses the F-15.

B) Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (Navy/Marines). The AESA equipped F/A-18E/F has 4,000 lb more internal fuel over the F/A-18C, more pylons and better avionics, but retains the basic agility and performance limitations of the F/A-18C. It will be outclassed by the 'Flanker-2015' in all cardinal parameters, especially payload range. The author flew an F/A-18F in 2001, the aircraft being equipped with the APG-73 radar and then latest block of the DFCS software. The aircraft exhibited excellent high alpha manoeuvre performance and handling, competitive against reported Su-27 capabilities. Principal limitations observed were in clean supersonic acceleration, limited by the wing design, and radar footprint, limited by power aperture performance.

C) LM Joint Strike Fighter (Australia). The JSF will be outclassed in all cardinal parameters by the 'Flanker-2015'. The only clear advantage the JSF will hold will be in observables, with the caveat that Flanker support by lower band AWACS and GCI radars, and good FLIR/IRST capabilities will significantly narrow any margin of survivability produced by the JSF's reduced observables. While the JSF is being marketed as a Very Low Observable (VLO) design, its actual design indicates that at best it has potential for VLO performance in the forward hemisphere, and at best Low Observable capability in the aft hemisphere. The serrated circular engine nozzle is band limited in effect, and the absence of canopy frame serrations suggests that VLO performance in the forward hemisphere is borderline at best.

D) LM F-22A Raptor (Air Force). The F-22A is the only US combat aircraft with a clear margin of superiority over the Sukhoi in all cardinal parameters, with the additional advantage of excellent wideband all aspect stealth capability, and sustained supersonic cruise capability.
 
A few things:

1) Link please.

2) If the PLAN is indeed constructing three carriers, it would have been detected via satellites.

3) Operating a carrier isn't a joke; one needs a comprehensive flotilla to protect the mother-ship. One also needs doctrines, officers, and protocols to operate the CBG efficiently; this the PLAN does not have and is decades away from developing.

4) The PLAN's current focus is on submarines and destroyers.

4) Frankly, I see no sense in buying license production rights for an Su-27 and then going in for an Su-33.

5) EU ain't going to help PRC with high-tech weapons.

Conclusion: The article is too much exaggeration and speculation for reasons unknown.
 
This sounds very much like a cut/paste of Carlo Kopp's work. The Flankers are no doubt an excellent platform, of which the Su33 is by far the most limited and problematic one (on account of its stripping down for STOBAR operations). Nonetheless, its going to be a while before anyone is going to compete head on with the US when it comes to aerial warfare.

Kopp has the tendency to overstate the capabilities of the Flanker given that he is lobbying for Australia to get out of the JSF program and pursue the F22 (an export version at least) instead.

In a conflict close to China's shores, the MK and the MKK flanker variants are a far greater threat to an adversary than the Su33.
 
A few things:

1) Link please.

2) If the PLAN is indeed constructing three carriers, it would have been detected via satellites.

3) Operating a carrier isn't a joke; one needs a comprehensive flotilla to protect the mother-ship. One also needs doctrines, officers, and protocols to operate the CBG efficiently; this the PLAN does not have and is decades away from developing.

4) The PLAN's current focus is on submarines and destroyers.

4) Frankly, I see no sense in buying license production rights for an Su-27 and then going in for an Su-33.

5) EU ain't going to help PRC with high-tech weapons.

Conclusion: The article is too much exaggeration and speculation for reasons unknown.

ok i am going to sleep but i will just leave a quick reply..
China has bought 2 Su-33 for evaluation purpose and i probably think that China may eventually strike a deal of purchasing around 50 Su-33 straight from russia worth over $ 2.5 billion and then eventually earing the rights to reverse engineer its most of Flanker fleet to Su-33..
And as for you having a dough about China's capability to operate 3 AC is just a hard cookie for you guys to swallow!! :sick:
this is one of the three AC...
84f38b9086dee422678f78826c6fb783.jpg
 
Varyag is almost finished refitting and will be used for training purpose only; The real 1st indigenous AC had its steel-cut ceremony this January at Shanghai Baosteel and is under construction at Jiangnan Shipyard at Changxing island, it won't be available until at least 2011; The 1st generation naval fighters will be Shenyang J-11BJ(J-15?), similar to F/A-18E/F in terms of capability, and the 2nd generation will be 5th gen. to counter F-35B/C.
 
A few things:

1) Link please.

2) If the PLAN is indeed constructing three carriers, it would have been detected via satellites.

3) Operating a carrier isn't a joke; one needs a comprehensive flotilla to protect the mother-ship. One also needs doctrines, officers, and protocols to operate the CBG efficiently; this the PLAN does not have and is decades away from developing.

4) The PLAN's current focus is on submarines and destroyers.

4) Frankly, I see no sense in buying license production rights for an Su-27 and then going in for an Su-33.

5) EU ain't going to help PRC with high-tech weapons.

Conclusion: The article is too much exaggeration and speculation for reasons unknown.

Well interesting points

1) THE Chinese (unlike the Indians) don't feel a need to tell everyone what they are doing. Despite that here are a few reports for you.

China's Reform Monitor, May 10:

Citing "high-ranking military officials," Hong Kong's Wen Wei Po
reports that China's military has confirmed plans to build an aircraft carrier fleet. The People's Liberation Army will also boost its development of anti-aircraft-carrier weaponry, and has reopened its production lines for making Hong-6M bombers, the so-called "aerial aircraft-carrier killers." The news follows a report in the Qingnian Cankao Bao claiming that Russia's Defense Ministry is mulling the sale of Su-34 bombers to China, and could collaborate with Beijing in the development of Moscow's fifth-generation fighter jets.



And another one form the herald tribune

BEIJING: As China builds a military to match its growing economic power, its neighbors and potential rivals including the United States have puzzled over a key question: When will the Chinese Navy launch an aircraft carrier?

For decades, senior Chinese military and political officials have argued that for the country to become a great power, the People's Liberation Army Navy needs to add these potent warships to its fleet.

However, the major obstacle to this ambition is that aircraft carriers are hugely expensive.

The two 50,000-metric-ton conventionally powered carriers now under development for Britain's Royal Navy are expected to cost a minimum of $2.5 billion each. To outfit them with aircraft could cost that much again.

And, aircraft carriers do not operate alone. They need a fleet of warships, submarines and supply vessels along with advanced electronic surveillance for support and protection.
Today in Business with Reuters
Fed leaves U.S. interest rates unchanged
Trichet reinforces expectation of ECB rate rise
Barclays lines up overseas investors

For these reasons, most experts assumed a Chinese carrier was decades away.

But after double-digit increases in defense spending over much of the past 15 years, evidence is now emerging that China has a more ambitious timetable.

"I am convinced that before the end of this decade, we will see preparations for China to build its first indigenous aircraft carrier," said Rick Fisher, the Washington-based vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center and an expert on the Chinese military.

Fisher and other analysts note that extensive work now appears to be under way on a carrier purchased from Ukraine, the Varyag, now moored in the northern Chinese port of Dalian.

They speculate that the Varyag, fresh from the dry dock and, according to recent photographs, now painted in the navy's gray, could be used for training or even upgraded so that it was fully operational.

Not surprisingly, the Taiwan military has also been monitoring activity on the Varyag.

At a briefing in Taipei on Jan. 19, a Taiwan military spokesman, Liu Chih-chien, pointed to satellite photographs of the carrier at anchor in Dalian, where he said it had been under repair.

"Although China claimed that the Varyag will be used as a tourist attraction, the aircraft carrier would actually be used as a training ship in preparation for building an aircraft carrier battle group," Liu said.

Analysts also report that at recent international air shows, Chinese military officers have been showing strong interest in strike aircraft suited to fly from carriers.

As with earlier reports that the Chinese Navy intended to acquire aircraft carriers, Beijing denied Taiwan's claim.

"We don't know where the Taiwanese authorities got their so-called intelligence," said Li Weiyi, a spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs Office, according to a report carried last week by the official Xinhua news agency.

Whatever the timetable, most naval experts agree that China will almost certainly build or buy aircraft carriers.

"Given China's strategic ambitions, it's a logical move," said Sam Bateman, a maritime security expert at Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies.

"I am sure the PLAN has carrier aspirations," he said, referring to the People's Liberation Army Navy.

Bateman said that, like the United States, two of China's neighbors, India and Japan, would be anxious about the prospect of carriers in the Chinese fleet.

What is clear is that China has already invested decades of effort in its bid to gain the technology and skills needed to build and operate these warships.

Admiral Liu Huaqing, vice chairman of China's Central Military Commission before his retirement in 1997, is widely regarded as the father of the navy's aircraft carrier program.

Heavily influenced by his exposure to top Russian naval experts during his studies in the Soviet Union as a young officer in the 1950s, Liu advocated that China should have aircraft carriers as the backbone of a "blue water" navy that could deploy beyond the country's coastal waters.

In military journals published in the 1990s he wrote that aircraft carriers would ensure China's control over Taiwan and territories it claimed in the South China Sea and match the growing military power of neighbors including Japan and India.

Liu, along with other senior Chinese defense analysts, also recognized that China was becoming a major trading power and would become increasingly dependent on secure sea lanes to carry its imports of energy and raw materials and exports of manufactured goods.

They argued that aircraft carriers would give the navy the ability to keep these sea lanes open in times of conflict or international tension.

Other analysts also say that a carrier would be symbolically important as evidence of Chinese power in the same way that U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier battle groups serve as a reminder of America's global reach.


Ok so that should be enough proof that there are gonna be carriers for the PLAN forces.

2)Satellite imagery needed huh to confirm? Got some imagery to show that IAC is being built? Or are we supposed to just take your word for it?

3)Only Sheer arrogance would claim that the Chinese would not be able to learn them without carriers to hand. For example practicing with a large vessel to simulate a carrier for tactics practise etc. After all India has only operated STOVL aircraft on their carriers. Its a whole other ball game to learn STOBAR
Should we assume that ti wil take decades for the Pn to learn? Maybe Chinese pilots may get seconded to the Kuznetsov for training. Imagine fo the IAF gos for a non Russian aircraft. They might be prepared to offer the Chinese all kinds of incentives to continue to buy Russian including doctrine tips and clues.

4)As far as you know.......

4 x 2) The SU-33 is the navalised variant of the SU-27 with reinforcement in the relevant areas etc. I could use the same argument about the Indian purchase of the navalised Mig when they already fly the MIG-29.

5)Actually the French and Germans are pushing for the embargo to be lifted so I guess you are kinda wrong there.

'France and Germany Move to Resume Arms Sales to China''

n January 27, French President Jacques Chirac held a joint conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao to celebrate the "Year of China" in Paris. Chirac used the occasion to publicly call for the lifting of the European Union arms embargo on China. France and Germany have succeeded in pushing the E.U. to review the embargo and have urged the E.U. to take action before the March entrance of ten new members. On February 4, Javier Solana, the E.U. foreign policy chief, was quoted in the Geneva newspaper Le Temps as saying, "It seems to me, after discussions we had a few days ago … [that] the E.U. is ready to do it."
 
ok i am going to sleep but i will just leave a quick reply..
China has bought 2 Su-33 for evaluation purpose and i probably think that China may eventually strike a deal of purchasing around 50 Su-33 straight from russia worth over $ 2.5 billion and then eventually earing the rights to reverse engineer its most of Flanker fleet to Su-33..
And as for you having a dough about China's capability to operate 3 AC is just a hard cookie for you guys to swallow!! :sick:
this is one of the three AC...
84f38b9086dee422678f78826c6fb783.jpg

Oh please, pure speculation here.

I doubt all of that and I'll only believe it when I see it (which will be quite a while before you I might add:lol:)

Realistically when the PLAN hasn't even sorted out exactly which DD it wishes to build and has not even begun to build at least 4-5 escorts then why would they even want to build a CV?

Look for when they decide to mass build a certain class of DD before you even begin to speculate on when.
 
Varyag is almost finished refitting and will be used for training purpose only; The real 1st indigenous AC had its steel-cut ceremony this January at Shanghai Baosteel and is under construction at Jiangnan Shipyard at Changxing island, it won't be available until at least 2011; The 1st generation naval fighters will be Shenyang J-11BJ(J-15?), similar to F/A-18E/F in terms of capability, and the 2nd generation will be 5th gen. to counter F-35B/C.

J-11 similar to F-18E/F in terms of capability?

I hope the J-11 pilot has his ejection seat primed. They have similar roles but NOT capability as even a brief bit of research will show you.

"2nd Generation" to "counter" F-35 will show up 20-30 years down the track and still won't be as capable as incremental block spiral upgraded Lightnings.
 
By "similar to Super Hornet" and "counter lightening II" I mean having a fair chance of winning or bringing into a draw in confrontation, not exactly equal or better in terms of capability.
 
Not surprisingly, the Taiwan military has also been monitoring activity on the Varyag.

The Taiwanese have excellent assets on the Mainland and provide superior HUMINT. Not surprisingly they should know first if it isn't us or the Americans lurking off the coast.

Ok so that should be enough proof that there are gonna be carriers for the PLAN forces.

No direct proof as of yet to confirm carrier construction. Likely though due to "renovations" to the Varyag.

Maybe Chinese pilots may get seconded to the Kuznetsov for training. Imagine fo the IAF gos for a non Russian aircraft. They might be prepared to offer the Chinese all kinds of incentives to continue to buy Russian including doctrine tips and clues.

At this rate the Russians won't be offering the Chinese anything due to propensity of the Chicoms to copy key technologies, license or not. For example take the 636 Kilos the Russians sold back in the late 90's. In 2005 the Yuan class suddenly pops out and surprise-it incorporates several unlicensed Russian quieting and sensor tech.....not to mention being several times quieter but sharing a SIMILAR acoustic signature. Then the Russians tell us exactly what was copied (yes they actually informed us!) and are now threatening to sue if the Yuan gets exported anywhere outside the Mainland.

Hows that for Tot?=)

The SU-33 is the navalised variant of the SU-27 with reinforcement in the relevant areas etc. I could use the same argument about the Indian purchase of the navalised Mig when they already fly the MIG-29.

Different variants-IAF Fulcrums are baseline while these In Fulcrums are 'M' version, kind of a step below the Mig-35 the Russians are offering for the MRCA.

The EU Arms Embargo is old news (2005). In the current situation it will never be lifted as the PRC ramps up the military spending and continues to block transparency.
 
By "similar to Super Hornet" and "counter lightening II" I mean having a fair chance of winning or having a draw in confrontation, not exactly equal or better in terms of capability.

No chance-except in a aerial confrontation over Taiwan where the F-18s may take some attrition due to PLAAF numbers-except your air assets in the theatre will be completely wiped out by the time that happens.
 
No chance-except in a aerial confrontation over Taiwan where the F-18s may take some attrition due to PLAAF numbers-except your air assets in the theatre will be completely wiped out by the time that happens.
If that happens are you sure those Super Hornets will have a AC to return to?
 
The Taiwanese have excellent assets on the Mainland and provide superior HUMINT. Not surprisingly they should know first if it isn't us or the Americans lurking off the coast.



No direct proof as of yet to confirm carrier construction. Likely though due to "renovations" to the Varyag.



At this rate the Russians won't be offering the Chinese anything due to propensity of the Chicoms to copy key technologies, license or not. For example take the 636 Kilos the Russians sold back in the late 90's. In 2005 the Yuan class suddenly pops out and surprise-it incorporates several unlicensed Russian quieting and sensor tech.....not to mention being several times quieter but sharing a SIMILAR acoustic signature. Then the Russians tell us exactly what was copied (yes they actually informed us!) and are now threatening to sue if the Yuan gets exported anywhere outside the Mainland.

Hows that for Tot?=)



Different variants-IAF Fulcrums are baseline while these In Fulcrums are 'M' version, kind of a step below the Mig-35 the Russians are offering for the MRCA.

The EU Arms Embargo is old news (2005). In the current situation it will never be lifted as the PRC ramps up the military spending and continues to block transparency.

Yup its amazing I keep hearing the same nonsense spouted everywhere ....

There is no threat to sue at all and frankly if the Russians thought that way they wouldn't work with the Indians either. After all the Indians are talking about changing the design specs of the Brahmos missile. After all as one blogger said if you are not using lessons learned from TOT you are wasting your time. (Or trying to re-invent the wheel as the Indians regularly try to do.)

If the Russians were gonna sue they would have done when they heard about the J-11 being produced. (They did nothing) Or when the rumours abounded about possible sale to PAK (Still nothing said)

Its amazing with all the so called copying going on the Russians still keep selling.........

The French are doing business with the Chinese after all they are not suing for the copyright infringement upon the design for the Z-9 for example. Or the ss-12 sonar

Basically change the tune......Its getting old and stale
 
ok i am going to sleep but i will just leave a quick reply..
China has bought 2 Su-33 for evaluation purpose and i probably think that China may eventually strike a deal of purchasing around 50 Su-33 straight from russia worth over $ 2.5 billion and then eventually earing the rights to reverse engineer its most of Flanker fleet to Su-33..
And as for you having a dough about China's capability to operate 3 AC is just a hard cookie for you guys to swallow!! :sick:
this is one of the three AC...
84f38b9086dee422678f78826c6fb783.jpg

All this is speculation. PRC has bought two Su-33s for "evaluation;" this implies that they are copying it as we are posting.

The picture you have posted says nothing about the PLAN's AC programme.

Basically, what you have said is nothing but speculation.
 
Varyag is almost finished refitting and will be used for training purpose only; The real 1st indigenous AC had its steel-cut ceremony this January at Shanghai Baosteel and is under construction at Jiangnan Shipyard at Changxing island, it won't be available until at least 2011

Link please.

The 1st generation naval fighters will be Shenyang J-11BJ(J-15?), similar to F/A-18E/F in terms of capability, and the 2nd generation will be 5th gen. to counter F-35B/C.

J-11 equivalent to the F-18; you kidding right?

An F-35-level aircraft? More speculation on your part.
 

Back
Top Bottom