It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Glimpse of Chinese Aircraft Carrier Ops Aboard Liaoning

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   


Here's some commentary from Foxtrot Alpha on the evolution of carrier ops by the PLAN.

However, it REALLY ought to be apparent the Chinese have come a very long way in learning how to fly off the deck here. While they have not demonstrated combat ops, they are learning the ropes. The glacial pace the US is improving on its inventory (and even not bringing that inventory up to where it ought to be on OUR carriers) should cause people to take a pause. We have been the rulers of the sea for 25 years. Unless we're careful, that will be ending in the next ten years.

To be sure, we won't simply be eclipsed, but where it has been free passage and dominance by our Navy will no longer be the case. There is a hubris with just sitting upon the throne and not descending to get things done.




posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Flying off of a carrier is easy, landing is harder.
But the really hard part is getting it close enough to shoot something and protecting it when you do.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I'm curious why do navy planes get more markings that air force?
Their pilots are still lacking in skills.
And their jet engine manufacturing is practically non existant, We also have NO earthly idea HOW adavanced we are so no worries.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

While I am impressed, I highly doubt that China (or anyone) will unseat the US from naval dominance any time soon. 10 years? Maybe, if China builds more of these and slaps some reactors in them...and they didn't even build this one. But they are known for being very good at reverse engineering anything the Russians sell them. However, a non-nuclear powered aircraft carrier might take a bit more time then jets, guns and tanks. Better question, is naval dominance really as important as it was 25 years ago? Indeed it would be stupid for the US to try and scale back to find that out. But at the end of the day they are just anti-ship missile magnets.

I'm definitely no expert, but the US seems to keep it's carrier strike groups quite busy, moving them to every inch of the globe where and when they are needed.

Maybe China just wants a piece of the proxy war pie? And who could blame them? Warmongering reaps GREAT profit!



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Being able to fly off a deck is a long way from being able to project power with a carrier. They still have to work up a proper battle group, doctrine for the group, for the carrier etc.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Sometimes i think the Chinese have got the US top brass well played, they take an old Russian carrier and tart it up and whammo there goes another 50-100 billion on the military spending which the US cannot afford and eventually they do what the US did to Russia which is to bankrupt the military.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Maxatoria

Except they're not reacting to the Liaoning by dumping more money into anything. About the only thing that might get rushed is LRASM.


(post by franky2 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: franky2

What does that have to do with this thread?

where should we be looking at.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry about chinese air craft carriers. Wonder how many hours have been spent Keel Hulling her while she's been out on trials. We know everything there is about her and what her capabilities are, and there's nothing to worry about. She's at the bottom of the ocean on command if we want her there at any time.

America's Navy is a lot like our Air Force. Lots of really neat stuff behind the scenes that are game changers that the Public and especially not the enemy will ever truly find out about.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The Kunmings are, iirc, exactly intended for this role. They have 5. They have ordered at least two more. They are also building a carrier themselves.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

They need resupply ships, unrep, ASW, tanker support, etc before they're even close to a position to think about challenging US position.

Their new carrier is a CATOBAR, which means starting from square one all over again.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Well the things is, it is not like China or anybody can just build a bunch of carriers overnight. It takes a decade even after it has been planned and even then building more than one at a time would hard even for the US. For China building a first carrier is going to come with a huge learning curve and that will be used to design and build another one that fixes all the bugs you get building your first one. Ad to that, technology changes so fast and these ships take so long to build that new tech has be adopted as you go. And of course you can not build one in secret so for everyone China could build the US could easily match it and then some since we have been doing it for over 50 years.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The 903s and 904s are a step in that direction. They need oilers and whatnot still.

Is it certain the new carrier is a catobar?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Those ski jump carriers always look so funny to me. It's like screaming, "We can't afford or figure out the logistics of a catapult system!"



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Zaphod58

Is it certain the new carrier is a catobar?


According to sat. Images

arstechnica.com...

They also appear to be modifying the J-15 for them.

www.janes.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Those ski jump carriers always look so funny to me. It's like screaming, "We can't afford or figure out the logistics of a catapult system!"

What does a lack of a catapult do to weapons load for the aircraft? No cat means lighter load? I suspect the US Navy solved this decades ago.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I wonder if they will follow through with a J-15 modified like the EW J-16 that just flew.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

Huge difference. The only way to take off at maximum takeoff weight, or maximum weapons or fuel load is a catapult. With a ski jump you get a fraction of weapons and fuel to be able to take off.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

The first picture released of the hull piece near the deck showed a clear catapult track cutout.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join