HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » china lands first jet on ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:36 AM

china lands first jet on it's aircraft carrier

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_AIRCRAFT_CARRIER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-25-01-37-46


This undated photo released by China's Xinhua News Agency, made available on Sunday, Nov. 25, 2012, shows a carrier-borne J-15 fighter jet on China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning. China has successfully landed a fighter jet on its first aircraft carrier, which entered service two months ago, the country's official news agency confirmed Sunday. The Liaoning aircraft carrier underscores China's ambitions to be a leading Asian naval power, but it is not expected to carry a full complement of planes or be ready for combat for some time. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Zha Chunming) NO SALES

BEIJING (AP) -- China has successfully landed a fighter jet on its first aircraft carrier, which entered service two months ago, the country's official news agency confirmed Sunday.

The Liaoning aircraft carrier underscores China's ambitions to be a leading Asian naval power, but it is not expected to carry a full complement of planes or be ready for combat for some time.

Xinhua News Agency said the landing exercise marked the debut of the J-15 fighter jet, a carrier-based fighter-bomber developed by China from Russia's Sukhoi Su-33.

The Defense Ministry's website carried photos of the jet taking off from and landing on the carrier.

71 replies, 6068 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 71 replies Author Time Post
Reply china lands first jet on it's aircraft carrier (Original post)
xchrom Nov 2012 OP
MADem Nov 2012 #1
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #2
Cooley Hurd Nov 2012 #4
jsr Nov 2012 #6
Cooley Hurd Nov 2012 #7
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #71
MyNameGoesHere Nov 2012 #41
Cooley Hurd Nov 2012 #3
pampango Nov 2012 #24
Romulox Nov 2012 #68
JPZenger Nov 2012 #50
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #5
Kolesar Nov 2012 #9
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #11
Kolesar Nov 2012 #12
Panasonic Nov 2012 #34
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #69
aquart Nov 2012 #8
Earth_First Nov 2012 #10
Populist_Prole Nov 2012 #28
glacierbay Nov 2012 #13
A HERETIC I AM Nov 2012 #15
glacierbay Nov 2012 #16
Panasonic Nov 2012 #36
MyNameGoesHere Nov 2012 #42
Angleae Nov 2012 #21
glacierbay Nov 2012 #22
pampango Nov 2012 #25
glacierbay Nov 2012 #26
Angleae Nov 2012 #45
HopeHoops Nov 2012 #14
TrueBlueinCO Nov 2012 #67
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #17
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #18
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #19
Angleae Nov 2012 #20
glacierbay Nov 2012 #23
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #30
glacierbay Nov 2012 #31
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #35
glacierbay Nov 2012 #39
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #40
glacierbay Nov 2012 #43
cleanhippie Nov 2012 #44
DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #60
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #56
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #66
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #55
PavePusher Nov 2012 #61
doc03 Nov 2012 #27
NNN0LHI Nov 2012 #29
leftstreet Nov 2012 #33
ti66er8pooh Nov 2012 #32
A HERETIC I AM Nov 2012 #38
Angleae Nov 2012 #48
A HERETIC I AM Nov 2012 #51
ti66er8pooh Nov 2012 #52
JPZenger Nov 2012 #53
juba Nov 2012 #57
A HERETIC I AM Nov 2012 #58
Angleae Nov 2012 #46
Pacafishmate Nov 2012 #37
BlueinOhio Nov 2012 #47
JPZenger Nov 2012 #54
BlueinOhio Nov 2012 #63
BlueinOhio Nov 2012 #49
demosincebirth Nov 2012 #59
Angleae Nov 2012 #62
aandegoons Nov 2012 #64
Franker65 Nov 2012 #65
JackRiddler Nov 2012 #70

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:43 AM

1. We'll be getting even friendlier with Australia, I'm sure...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:46 AM

2. Looks like an F-14 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:51 AM

4. It's design is based on the Russian Carrier aircraft Su-33...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:10 AM

6. You mean copied from the Russians

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20100604/159306694.html

China and Russia had been in negotiations on the sale of the Su-33 Flanker-D fighters to be used on future Chinese aircraft carriers since 2006, but the talks collapsed over China's request for an initial delivery of two aircraft for a "trial."

Russian Defense Ministry sources confirmed that the refusal was due to findings that China had produced its own copycat version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

In 1995, China secured a $2.5-billion production license from Russia to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, at the Shenyang Aircraft Corp.

The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems. The decision came after China had already produced at least 95 aircraft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:12 AM

7. Oops! You're right - the design made its debut in 1995 - after the fall of the USSR...

Thanks for the heads up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:42 AM

71. Designer dies from heart attack watching landing......

 

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.



http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121126/177748951.html

If I was any arms dealer China would have to buy a lot of anythings & cash in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:55 PM

41. Ok this is just weird? Luo Yang,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:49 AM

3. Good job with that recycled, old carrier from the former USSR, China!

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:43 PM

24. China has put astronauts into space and has its own space station

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:24 PM

68. Not surprised that you're a fan of the PRC. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:11 PM

50. Their own new carrier is to become operational in 2014 or 2015, which they are building from scratch

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:06 AM

5. They are a little bit better than a F-15

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:54 AM

9. Does the F35 have a smaller bomb load--is that what you are saying?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:21 AM

11. Yup almost nothing under wing & 2 internal stations..............

 

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-USfficial&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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:00 AM

12. Yesterday's "Canadian skeptics" thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:42 PM

34. Dude, we do NOT need more fighter jets.

 

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 04:07 PM

69. I agree none would be nice...........

 

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.



http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f20.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:15 AM

8. Well, that thrills me no end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:56 AM

10. How many Apple-brand products did we purchase to help fund this project?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:07 PM

28. Salient question corporatists would rather we not ask

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........................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:03 AM

13. How long do you think this carrier would last against a real carrier?

 

Chinese Aircraft Carrier



U.S. Aircraft Carrier

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:35 PM

15. About the same time it would last against one of these;



An Arleigh Burke class destroyer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:48 PM

16. Good point.

 

or against one of these.



Seawolf class submarine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:47 PM

36. Yep, that'll do it - even the..

 

Jimmy Carter (last Seawolf class sub) can blow it to bits with one well-aimed torpedo.

More reason why we need to start cutting the defense budget by about 90%.

And the other 90% goes to infrastructure, jobs, and education.

Oh and a across-the-board Social Security COLA raise of about 95% to more in line with the current dollar's purchasing power.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:58 PM

42. Carriers are meant to launch planes first and foremost

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..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:17 PM

21. They have never intended to use it against the US.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:31 PM

22. True

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:51 PM

25. Of course India (and others) can't be sure that the US will comply.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:57 PM

26. Agreed

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:57 PM

45. China is probably waiting for the US to slash it's military budget.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:22 PM

14. That's an impressive accomplishment!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeHoops (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:22 PM

67. Yeah!

 

Go China!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:26 PM

17. EEEK! Quick, send more money to the Pentagon!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:35 PM

18. Oops. Time to roll out a new PR campaign for the world's biggest welfare queen.

 

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:24 PM

19. Wow. That means they're only about 38 light years behind us... I'm impressed. Not.

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:15 PM

20. Video is already on YouTube

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:41 PM

23. Not impressed at all

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:20 PM

30. Not impressed at all? Really?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:28 PM

31. Still not impressed

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:44 PM

35. "what's so hard about landing a jet in calm waters, broad daylight and no other jets..."

(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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:51 PM

39. In case you hadn't noticed,

 

I said compared to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:54 PM

40. I did, and saw it as comparing apples and oranges.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #40)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:04 PM

43. No personal attack taken

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:11 PM

44. But it is impressive.

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:54 PM

60. This is fine for invading Taiwan

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:34 PM

56. I got to spend an hour in an A-6 simulator for being selected Sailor of the Month at VA-128.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:49 AM

66. I used to fly "MiG Alley" against a Navy RIO guy............

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:26 PM

55. I spent over a year and a half working "on the roof" and I'm not impressed.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:59 PM

61. I'm looking for their first succesful 6-month world tour.....

 

but I'm not holding my breath.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:04 PM

27. I just assumed they have had aircraft carriers for years and always

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:13 PM

29. This is great news

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:36 PM

33. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:36 PM

32. Ramp?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ti66er8pooh (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:50 PM

38. The British have been using such deck designs for years...

So have the French. Not new nor unique.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:03 PM

48. Actually France has never used a ski-jump.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:11 PM

51. I stand corrected.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:11 PM

52. My bad

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:12 PM

53. The British now have no aircraft carriers

All they have left is one helicopter carrier

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPZenger (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:36 PM

57. They are building a couple

but none in active service

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPZenger (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:37 PM

58. But they are building two.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ti66er8pooh (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:01 PM

46. They use the ski-jump in place of catapults.

Easier to build and maintain but not as efficient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:47 PM

37. I'll be impressed once they come up with their first original design.

 

Rather than copy 30+ year old designs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:02 PM

47. Paid for by Wal-Mart

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueinOhio (Reply #47)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:13 PM

54. Look to see which companies that supply Walmart are owned by the Chinese military

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPZenger (Reply #54)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:46 AM

63. Enrichment

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:05 PM

49. Threat

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:52 PM

59. I read that China bought that aircraft carrier from the Ukraine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #59)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:38 PM

62. They did, for $20 million.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:54 AM

64. Mitt Romney bought that aircraft for them.

He and others like him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:09 AM

65. You have to start somewhere

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:25 PM

70. And yet Americans still can't distinguish between its and it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread