Chnia lands fighter on CV

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
I don't know. EVERYTHING I own that's Chinese, is crap.
Need I remind you that they used to (justifiably) say the same thing about "Made in Japan"? It aint "Jap Crap" any more, is it?




posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I just know a lot of the stuff I own is crap. Unfortunately, many of its Chinese made. I do have some Amish furniture, that isn't though.





posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Let's keep the money flowing to Walmart and China so they can continue to expand. I am sure they appreciate it.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by chadderson
For some reason this just seems weird.

USA has been doing this for some time now. It is very hard for me to believe that China is JUST NOW reaching the ability to do this.

Is the MSM attempting to make China seem less of a threat with stories like these? The other side of the spectrum says that China is more advanced than the USA in terms of technological military advances. Who really knows? Military junk is never told to the public anyway. I dont believe it.


Carrier operations are one of the most complex and dangerous military operations that any nation undertakes on a regular basis, outside of actual combat. The skill set involved is unique, and the environment is unforgiving in the extreme. The fact that China is just now starting to work out the details isn't surprising at all....it's also not evidence of 'Chinese backwardness', or of some strange conspiracy.

Any military capability, be it the simple things like "march in formation" or "fire your weapon at the target", or the complex things like carrier operations or in-flight refueling, exist because of three factors:

1) Need:
If the people in charge of a military don't perceive a need for a capability, it won't be developed. Land-locked countries don't usually deploy navies, tropical countries don't usually train alpine infantry. They have other things, better suited to their situation, to expend money and resources on. Until recently (a few years ago), the PLAN considered its power projection needs well met by land-based air. Without the perceived need to develop carrier operations, they simply didn't bother doing it.

2) Technical Capability:
Just because you need it doesn't automatically mean that you can build it. If I listed every military project that addressed a real need, but couldn't be implemented because of technical limitations, this post would turn into a forum (or perhaps a library) of its own. Just off the top of my head, the nuclear powered bomber and most of the 1950's-era cruise missiles would be good examples. Once the PLAN decided there was a need for carrier operation (see above), they had to find a solution to the technical problem. They opted to purchase and refurbish a Russian hull, which may or may not have been the best idea, but until they had *some* hull to work with, they couldn't start working on operational techniques.

3) Practicality:
Just because you can build it *once* doesn't mean that it's a practical weapon or system. Once you've built one (or a few) of something, you may find that it's too complex, too expensive, or that there's a much easier way to meet a particular need. Examples of this from the past would be the B-70 Valkyrie and B-58 Hustler (both considered too expensive), the Safeguard ABM system (ditto), or the USS Triton (by the time she was built and tested, the USN could do radar picket duty with airborne search radar). This is where the Chinese are now. They have a working carrier (to at least some extent), they have at least a few pilots who can operate aircraft from it. Over the next few years, the PLAN will have to reach its own conclusions about whether blue-water carrier operations are a practical solution to their power-projection needs. The fact that it *will* take them years to make that call, as noted in my opening, isn't due to any failure of intellect on their part, or to any 'conspiracy of the carrier-operating nations' (good luck getting the US, France, the UK, Russia and India to agree on *anything*
). It's simply the normal cycle of doctrinal development that's happened in every military since Alexander was a raw recruit.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


actually - the steam catapult [ for carrier launch ] was developed in britain and first used by the RN and was also used on post WWII french navy and USN vessels

the royal navy and soviet navies later became reliant on S/VTOL airfraft and " ski jump " carrier decks - but i digress

today [ 2012 ] the french and brazillian navies still have operational CATOBAR configured carriers - and india has one " in build "



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
while i congratulate china on its first operation of an airfact from an actual carrier - this is in reality - just the acheivement of one groomed test pilot

it doesnt [ yet ] give them the operational squarons and deck crew to fight an effective battle from a carrier at sea



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 
not yet but they will, faster than thought to be, for china will be the new "red threat" not that it will be better, just more, and built faster. like we did in ww2 yea we have the f22 and the f35 but then they might have 1000 j15 and others but if it takes us a year to build one f 35 they could have 10000 in the same time.

For you that think that it is junk, do you think they will sell you the good stuff at the same price as wal mart to last for ever?? no they will keep that for them selves or for Corp/Industrial sale.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by oper8zhin
That Aircraft-Carrier is a "HAND-ME-DOWN"from Russia!! They actually were "showing-off" with that when they first got it?? America was "showing-off" Aircraft-Carriers like a HUNDRED YEARS ago!!!


In regards to the jet, be careful ground crews and ship crew!! If that jet is "Made In China", you can bet your life that its gonna RAIN DOWN PARTS at your head from above!!! Parts falling off of it, and malfunctions extreme.

They better hope that those jets do not cost much money to make and buy them, because if its "Made In China", you will have to buy 10 times the amount that you originally needed because they will all FALL APART after only a few uses!!!!!!


edit on 25-11-2012 by oper8zhin because: (no reason given)


This is SO NOT TRUE anymore. I know because I buy a lot of stuff from China that I can't get anywhere else. I get special lithium iron phosphate batteries from China because no one else makes them ( they are the best rechargeable batteries you can buy) and I get other parts for my e-cigs and electric bikes. All top quality - BUT you have to Know WHO to buy from, such as the batteries I only trust Ping Battery.

Yes, there are shoddy products from China but there are some great products too - just like anywhere else. You have to do good research and shop around.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Nice landing, with an empty deck, calm seas and perfect weather. It's a start. Operational in 6 months? No way in hell. When they can launch 30 planes in 20 minutes, recover a plane every 4 minutes at night in the rain, then they may be operational in 6 months. This is no disrespect as to what they have done so far. I find it funny though, that their flight deck uniform looks like the US Navy's and so does their tow tug. Had a good laugh at their Shooter's launch signal. You would think that they could come up with something different. All in all, just a staged propaganda piece, that tries to convince the rest of the World that "we can do it too.".

By the way, they better watch where they have their people at during recovery. If that arresting cable would have snapped, they would be looking for a new flight deck crew.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Nice landing, with an empty deck, calm seas and perfect weather. It's a start. Operational in 6 months? No way in hell. When they can launch 30 planes in 20 minutes, recover a plane every 4 minutes at night in the rain, then they may be operational in 6 months. This is no disrespect as to what they have done so far. I find it funny though, that their flight deck uniform looks like the US Navy's and so does their tow tug. Had a good laugh at their Shooter's launch signal. You would think that they could come up with something different. All in all, just a staged propaganda piece, that tries to convince the rest of the World that "we can do it too.".

By the way, they better watch where they have their people at during recovery. If that arresting cable would have snapped, they would be looking for a new flight deck crew.


Got to agree Jim, getting one, or even a couple of jets to land/recover in good conditions is one thing, but to bring a whole carrier air wing up to operational (and by operational I mean ready to fight in a conflict) standard?? That will be a few years down the line at least; developing the training programs for air and deck crew as well as the economies of scale to support carrier operations (replenishment at sea etc) takes a long time, and for a Navy with so little experience of blue water operations it could take them a while to figure it out.
They've been studying carrier ops for a while so I know they're not exactly starting from scratch but it's taken them a very long time to take this first step. I mean, when did they buy that carrier? 1998?



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Some of the guys in a blog I belong to are questioning the takeoff weights of these aircraft. You gain quite a bit on a cat shot, so you can carry more weapons and fuel. I'm questioning their ability to launch and recove at the same time. It looks like there is a launch point near the island, but, it has a short takeoff run. I hope their damage control is up to par. Sooner or later they are going to have a ramp strike and ding up that pretty flight deck.

It is a pretty airplane though, makes me miss the Tomcat.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Takeoff weight is definitely going to be lower with a ski-jump. But they don't have to worry about the extra complexity of a steam cat as they learn the ropes. It simplifies things. It'll be interesting to see if the hulls they have under construction will have cats or the ski ramp.
It has an angled flight deck and one of the launch points is clear well forward, but I'm not sure how the deck spotting would work if you were trying to recover and launch at the same time. It'd be a mess.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Congrats to the Chinese for making it to the 1940's, as far as carrier aviation goes.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
So the Chinese bought a retired 2nd-hand aircraft carrier from the Ukraine and (if all goes according to schedule) it could be ready for use in a year or 2 from now.

And the Chinese dude overseeing the project died from a heart attack (presumably from watching a plane actually trying to land on the thing
)

China is a long long long way off being even in the same 'ball-park' as the US militarily. Hell, the plane on the carrier looked so much like a F-18 it had to be a 'copy' but probably gets about a 1/4 of the mileage (assuming the wings dont drop off first)...
edit on 27-11-2012 by Nonchalant because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join