J-15 'Flying Shark' LIAONING Carrier Arrest Ski Jump Fly Ops

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 04:38

To reiterate weasel1962, I don't know what the Kuznetsov class is capable theoretically or in a pinch. I can only go by what we can observe, because "theoretical" means very little in something like carrier operations unless you've actually DONE it. What we have seen them do is, to put it mildly, negligible.

Second, there are many good reasons to assume it can not operate at the same tempo as a USN carrier because of the 6,000 +1 variables which may influence the operational tempo on a carrier. The Kuznetsov design, not knowing all the details, does not appear on face value to comparable at all.

But since I don't know the details, I suspect neither do you. I at least have actual combat experience to point to and say "these guys have done it and do it in their sleep, these other guys have never done it"

And of course the fact that the Kuznetsov design is a major failure should be self-evident and not even need to be discussed. The Chinese themselves realize this since they are trying to develop conventional carriers. So what is the point in trying to argue over or defend the capabilities of a design that everyone, including its users, agree is crap on a stick?

The Soviets also thought it was crap on a stick which is why they were trying to develop more conventional designs too. Kuznetsov was just a stop-gap and jumping off point from an even more crap design (the Kievs) to something less so.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 11:11

Yup, I never had the luxury of actual combat experience since I only served in an airforce of a country that never has never fought in a war yet.

Just clarifying some of your comments regarding my post,

(a) I’m not comparing US CVNs to the Liaoning, nor do I intend to. On several posts, I have highlighted that it cannot be compared primarily because different function, different doctrine, different roles.
(b) I can understand the skepticism regarding non-US weaponry since I’m old enough to remember the hoo-ha over the Mig-25s after it entered service vs what the reality when the American finally got hold of one. Whether the posts by popular science and the pics are doctored is of course possible. So are the pics of the new CV being built in Dalian or the J-20 /J-31pics, or the comments made by 4 star generals, or any information about the PLA in general.

Anyone can dismiss anything under the guise of I know better because I served and I fought and that anything that everyone else uses is crap. I don’t claim to know everything even as I served. An argument over that and the above is ultimately fruitless. I don't think one can ever make a realistic assessment by assuming everything posted is fake.

I agree there are a lot of information about the PLAN that we don’t know or even the US intelligence services. What analysts try to do is to take what is known, and make judgment calls from whether items are possibly real vs what is not. Example, the J-15 is deployed whilst the F-35C is not. One can of course claim the J-15 footage and pics are all staged like the moon landings.

I don’t think the level of discussion in the F-16 forum deserves the “moon landing” level of discussion. From the prism of an American whose navy has 11 CVNs each operating up to 100 aircraft and thousands of fighters in the air force, an admiral kuznetsov class carrier whose complement of 20+ fighters may be crap. From the perspective of countries around the region, each barely mustering 100 fighters (at best) or less and whose operational tempo won’t be as high as the USAF or the USN, 2 carriers of 20+ J-15s may not be regarded as such. Even as a ratio of the ROCAF, the numbers will not be as easily dismissed as "crap". Also old enough to remember when 20+ harriers onboard 2 carriers were dismissed as crap.

Its easy to underestimate the Chinese. 20 years ago, still flying J-6s. 10 years ago, no CVs, 10 years from now 3-4 “crap” CVs, 20 years from now…?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3438
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 18:48

Excellent point about not underestimating the Chinese, well said.

They seem to favor the big Sukhoi Flankers and why not? Lots of range, decent payload capability plus the raw kinematics to be competitive with most 4th gen designs. As a compliment to these, the J-10 seems formidable. It's an F-16 class bird which competently flown, be competitive to our Super Hornets.

And so much is riding on the SH in the air to air arena. If the sh!t hit the fan today in the South China sea, the Gulf or anywhere - it's the SH that'd likely be the tip of the spear - not our F-15's/16's/22's. Although its claimed to be IOC, I really can't imagine they'd commit any F-35's to the fight yet.

SH is no slouch, but it also doesn't have the air-to air record of the 15/16. And sure, I know the F-22 hasn't been tested yet in air to air, but I think we can all agree how that's going to turn out.

Anyway, the J-15 appears to be inferior to the Russian SU-33, so they have some ways to go in naval aviation..
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 64
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 19:08

The LHA with 20 F-35B is a mini carrier. The navy don't need F-35B to integration to the CVN to use it. Just a few F-35B on LHD can do fleet defense.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 00:33

Soon. The first B sqn will deploy to Japan this year with 6 onboard the wasp. America is homeported in San Diego but agreed there should be enough Bs to fit 20 onboard today. That's assuming Trump maintains the Obama asia pivot.
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 05:28

Guys some of you are missing the point. The Chinese are not focused right now on attacking the US and or going head to head with our Armed Forces. Their whole focus is securing the near space adjacent to their mainland/coastline, and CHIEF among these is the reclaiming of Taiwan.

Initially the Chinese just want to be able to project enough power in their regional turf to either 1. totally expel or exclude regional forces or the US from operating/projecting power there, or 2. at least make it very very difficult and costly for us and our allies to intervene and engage China when they make a power move/territorial grab.

They just need to delay us for a little while and incur enough cost that we are either unwilling to escalate and engage them or uncertain how to do so while they claim their objective, which number one is Taiwan. Because without Taiwan they cannot have a doorway to the Pacific and are forever stuck inside the first island chain or brooding in the South China Sea.

Their carrier, therefore, is not designed or intended to steam off the coast of California and start conducting air operations against San Diego, it is designed to encircle Taiwan and offer China the ability of multiple fronts and multiple axis of attack and a limited ability to have a mobile base to project some firepower toward possible intervening forces.

And in this it can be successful when you couple it with the fact that the Chinese mainland and all of their other forces is literally RIGHT THERE, so they have the advantage in surprise, initiation and ease of employment/volume of attack. If they build one or two more additional carriers and assemble decent battle groups, they can more easily attack Taiwan and threaten other regional countries over islands and territory to expand their geography and inch it closer to the Pacific basin.

Sure the US and Japan etc... can still stop the Chinese if we wanted to but at what cost and under what circumstance and with which speed? All they need is a delay or hesitation or recoil and we lose. And once they have Taiwan, China will become exponentially more powerful because then they would have a HUGE land base and path/ability to deploy their forces directly into the open Pacific. THEN you start to worry about their follow on carriers and submarines and bombers and fighters because they can be deployed with ease against our bases in the Pacific, and at that point China will seek to build comparable if not superior systems to ours. Right now, they know they have to take Taiwan first because they cannot pass unnoticed or unchallenged from the mainland to project forces or power.

When I heard that their carrier and its surface escorts and air group circumnavigated Taiwan, it was a clear signal as soon as they feel ready and capable, they will use them to attack Taiwan and try to defeat/invade it, removing decades of comfort/certainty Taiwan has had in only preparing for and facing one front. And in their eyes, the Chinese will finally be able to claim and have unimpeded access to the Pacific and they will at that point start to pour their forces even more aggressively forward toward their master plan, which is to have us retreat to Hawaii while they dominate and control the Rim, which they see and rightfully their domain and sphere of influence.

I still remember an eyeopening statement from former CNO Admiral Gary Roughead. At one of his meetings between him and his Chinese counterparts they pulled out in front of him a large map of the Pacific and drew a line right through Hawaii. They very matter of fact and somewhat jovially offered to let America have everything to the right, while they have everything to the left. Of course he politely declined but the Chinese were not amused and that gall and obvious desire that they have is not going away anytime soon.
Last edited by PhillyGuy on 07 Jan 2017, 05:40, edited 1 time in total.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 05:30

As a Taiwanese guy, I want China's carrier to be sunk ASAP.

They are a threat to a free and independent Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, Xinjiang.

We need FREEDOM & INDEPENDENCE, YESTERDAY.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 05:39

weasel1962 wrote:Yup, I never had the luxury of actual combat experience since I only served in an airforce of a country that never has never fought in a war yet.

Just clarifying some of your comments regarding my post,

(a) I’m not comparing US CVNs to the Liaoning, nor do I intend to. On several posts, I have highlighted that it cannot be compared primarily because different function, different doctrine, different roles.
(b) I can understand the skepticism regarding non-US weaponry since I’m old enough to remember the hoo-ha over the Mig-25s after it entered service vs what the reality when the American finally got hold of one. Whether the posts by popular science and the pics are doctored is of course possible. So are the pics of the new CV being built in Dalian or the J-20 /J-31pics, or the comments made by 4 star generals, or any information about the PLA in general.

Anyone can dismiss anything under the guise of I know better because I served and I fought and that anything that everyone else uses is crap. I don’t claim to know everything even as I served. An argument over that and the above is ultimately fruitless. I don't think one can ever make a realistic assessment by assuming everything posted is fake.

I agree there are a lot of information about the PLAN that we don’t know or even the US intelligence services. What analysts try to do is to take what is known, and make judgment calls from whether items are possibly real vs what is not. Example, the J-15 is deployed whilst the F-35C is not. One can of course claim the J-15 footage and pics are all staged like the moon landings.

I don’t think the level of discussion in the F-16 forum deserves the “moon landing” level of discussion. From the prism of an American whose navy has 11 CVNs each operating up to 100 aircraft and thousands of fighters in the air force, an admiral kuznetsov class carrier whose complement of 20+ fighters may be crap. From the perspective of countries around the region, each barely mustering 100 fighters (at best) or less and whose operational tempo won’t be as high as the USAF or the USN, 2 carriers of 20+ J-15s may not be regarded as such. Even as a ratio of the ROCAF, the numbers will not be as easily dismissed as "crap". Also old enough to remember when 20+ harriers onboard 2 carriers were dismissed as crap.

Its easy to underestimate the Chinese. 20 years ago, still flying J-6s. 10 years ago, no CVs, 10 years from now 3-4 “crap” CVs, 20 years from now…?


1) You misunderstood me. I didn't say I had any combat experience. I said I can point to actual combat experience for evidence: i.e. the actual combat experience of the US carriers and the Kuzentsov. The Kuzentsov was in an actual combat mission, which ended yesterday I believe as it retreated back to Russia after what was a disappointing performance, to say the least. Probably it never managed to get more than 2-3 missions per day while it was in theater.

2) You're changing your arguments too many times. Your critique was that F-35C is not IOC whereas the Chinese had these amazing super-large AAMs and AESA radars and the like. Which of course, aren't in service either but only exist in brochures.

Now its..."J-15 is in service".'

And? J-15 is a knock-off of an Su-27. How is that in interesting?
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 05:52

weasel1962 wrote:Its easy to underestimate the Chinese. 20 years ago, still flying J-6s. 10 years ago, no CVs, 10 years from now 3-4 “crap” CVs, 20 years from now…?


Lots of countries went from MiG-19s to Su-27s in the span of 20 years.

China is surrounded by a string of very advanced, very heavily armed, and technologically more sophisticated neighbors (and dare I say numerically better equipped than China)...which on top of that own pretty much most of what's worth owning on mainland China. This is without involving the USN in it yet.

I don't think anyone is under-estimating China, but I do think too many people over-estimate China to the point of freaking out over every brochure weapon they advertise.

What will happen in 20 years, the most likely answer is that China's neighbors will also acquire carriers and carrier-borne fixed wing aircraft and will likely have more and better of those than China. India and Japan certainly, but maybe even S.Korea and who knows what Australia does. And they will also acquire a lot more subs and Aegis equipped ships and F-35s and the like, and in the end China will still be behind technologically and operationally compared to its neighbors.
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 06:22

Yes but not all of those countries have their own nuclear deterrent, and our umbrella is just that. Against a large, ruthless, nuclear one party state like China that has more resources and power and ability to produce, small and peaceful democracies are always at a disadvantage. So be weary of China. Not just because of the hardware and platforms, but their craft in using them to achieve their objectives. They have demonstrated a pattern of willingness to engage in risky and provocative/hostile actions and if necessary, conflict and violence.

They have and have had inferior equipment and a less powerful military than the regional countries/alliances and yet that did not stop them in Korea, or in taking nearly the whole South China Sea, occupying Scarborough Shoal of the Philippines and basically refusing to recognize Japanese ownership/administration of the Senkaku Islands as sovereign territory of Japan. I mean that is unprecedented. Japan is a powerful country and under a nuclear umbrella that covers those islands and the Chinese are still being belligerent, even with the weaker hand, because they can press and bluff harder.

Mentioning the US Navy glider just seems petty but I take note, ever since the EP-3 intercept/downing and the physical harassment of the USNS Impeccable. Their actions toward our ships and aircraft are very very dangerous, and we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Not even Russia is this brash and reckless with our Armed Forces, but the Chinese are. Let's not forget the Chinese went to war with the US in Korea only a few years after we had nuked Japan!

And do not forget they annexed and occupied/are repressing Tibet, and Hong Kong, tried to steal land from India, took land from Tajikistan by forcing them to sign it over after they already seized it, and have either went to war/fought battles or had/has disagreements with virtually every neighbor including Russia, North Korea, India, Burma, Mongolia, Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. Not bad for a country that still has 900 million peasants, relatively limited conventional military and only got into the industrial-capital game a few decades ago.

You think once they get better military hardware and build up their forces and their ability to fight and project power they will have a more peaceful future than their violent pasts suggests? Just because other countries have the same stuff too? Hardly.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post10 Jan 2017, 01:38

PhillyGuy wrote:Yes but not all of those countries have their own nuclear deterrent, and our umbrella is just that. Against a large, ruthless, nuclear one party state like China that has more resources and power and ability to produce, small and peaceful democracies are always at a disadvantage. So be weary of China. Not just because of the hardware and platforms, but their craft in using them to achieve their objectives. They have demonstrated a pattern of willingness to engage in risky and provocative/hostile actions and if necessary, conflict and violence.

They have and have had inferior equipment and a less powerful military than the regional countries/alliances and yet that did not stop them in Korea, or in taking nearly the whole South China Sea, occupying Scarborough Shoal of the Philippines and basically refusing to recognize Japanese ownership/administration of the Senkaku Islands as sovereign territory of Japan. I mean that is unprecedented. Japan is a powerful country and under a nuclear umbrella that covers those islands and the Chinese are still being belligerent, even with the weaker hand, because they can press and bluff harder.

Mentioning the US Navy glider just seems petty but I take note, ever since the EP-3 intercept/downing and the physical harassment of the USNS Impeccable. Their actions toward our ships and aircraft are very very dangerous, and we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Not even Russia is this brash and reckless with our Armed Forces, but the Chinese are. Let's not forget the Chinese went to war with the US in Korea only a few years after we had nuked Japan!

And do not forget they annexed and occupied/are repressing Tibet, and Hong Kong, tried to steal land from India, took land from Tajikistan by forcing them to sign it over after they already seized it, and have either went to war/fought battles or had/has disagreements with virtually every neighbor including Russia, North Korea, India, Burma, Mongolia, Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. Not bad for a country that still has 900 million peasants, relatively limited conventional military and only got into the industrial-capital game a few decades ago.

You think once they get better military hardware and build up their forces and their ability to fight and project power they will have a more peaceful future than their violent pasts suggests? Just because other countries have the same stuff too? Hardly.


Well, I didn't say or imply anything of the sort, so no. I'm just saying, as you yourself have said, that this is just business as usual with China that has been going on for nearly 70 years now. But in the the same time other countries neighboring it have also radically altered their position of strength and procurement and expansion of military activities, just as China has.

That, and a lot of exaggerations like "occupying Scarborough Shoal of the Philippines" which has neither happened nor would it be of any interest if did (there is literally not even any physical dry land there). What China is doing in the South Sea is exactly what Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines and others are doing in the South China Sea, and what those countries have been doing since the 1970s in fact. A regional dispute over coral reefs is hardly of concern to the US or of any interest other than as a sporting event.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23269
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 06:22

'arian' said above:
"...A regional dispute over coral reefs is hardly of concern to the US or of any interest other than as a sporting event."

China has attempted to exclude ships & aircraft with their self-imposed claims of territorial rights - those claims are not recognized under international law. That message was conveyed to China - which of course took umbrage. So YES these developments by China of 'exclusion zones' is very relevant to freedom of navigation by air and sea by others in SCS area.

GOOGLE Chinese South China Sea Exclusion Zones
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3438
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 18:21

Excellent point here about China just wanting these CVN's (initially) to encircle/get a leg up on beating Taiwan. This isn't a desired blue water force projection tool, at least not yet.

Having said that, it's incredible how much better/capable USN CVN's are vs. any other nation. The Chinese, Indian and Russian carriers as they exist today aren't even close. I suppose the Russian's experience in Syria was most telling:Abysmal. When you consider the years lost after adopting the infamous ski jump, it really puts things in perspective.

Speaking of which, how do you fall for something like that? I'm assuming they looked at what the British did with their Harriers and thought, "wow that's nifty". Then tried to turn around and apply it to heavy fixed wing aircraft. Were not aeronautical engineers consulted? LOL

Even beyond this, the future looks nebulous. By the time those larger, catapult equipped carriers are ready the USN will be flying F-35C's and stealthy, drone tankers, the Marines will have every Amphibious Assault Ship out fitted with F-35B's and a whole range of stealthy, stand off weapons for likely all 3 platforms. At which point the Russian/Chinese super-carriers will be flying... updated Flankers and Mig-29K aircraft?

I don't see the J-20 as carrier capable. Perhaps the J-31. Over in India, they've hitched their cart to the Mig-29K. Wouldn't surprise me if PAK FA were made carrier capable (they did it with the Flanker), but then again that'll be more time and $ necessary in a program already besieged by problems. Theoretically they could ask India to pay for such given they'll both need that airframe. But India is already balking given some noted PAK FA deficiencies.

In that context, forgoing the F-22 for the F-35 was the right move IMO..
Offline

noth

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 01:48

mixelflick wrote:Excellent point here about China just wanting these CVN's (initially) to encircle/get a leg up on beating Taiwan. This isn't a desired blue water force projection tool, at least not yet.

Having said that, it's incredible how much better/capable USN CVN's are vs. any other nation. The Chinese, Indian and Russian carriers as they exist today aren't even close. I suppose the Russian's experience in Syria was most telling:Abysmal. When you consider the years lost after adopting the infamous ski jump, it really puts things in perspective.

Speaking of which, how do you fall for something like that? I'm assuming they looked at what the British did with their Harriers and thought, "wow that's nifty". Then tried to turn around and apply it to heavy fixed wing aircraft. Were not aeronautical engineers consulted? LOL


Don't forget they were developing the Yak-141 for the carrier mission. Anything else was strictly Plan B.

mixelflick wrote:I don't see the J-20 as carrier capable. Perhaps the J-31. Over in India, they've hitched their cart to the Mig-29K. Wouldn't surprise me if PAK FA were made carrier capable (they did it with the Flanker), but then again that'll be more time and $ necessary in a program already besieged by problems. Theoretically they could ask India to pay for such given they'll both need that airframe. But India is already balking given some noted PAK FA deficiencies.


Also the Indians are trying to get a naval Tejas Mk.2 to work but that looks incredibly unlikely, seeing how their 30 years in on the development and it's still not even vaguely useful for their AF. Might be time to switch to Rafale M, if they can...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23269
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 May 2018, 23:51

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests