The Chinese aviation industry has begun testing a short-takeoff, vertical-landing naval fighter optimized for small aircraft carriers, according to English-language military trade publications. The reports last week cited rumours circulated by Chinese aviation blogs. ‘It is difficult to substantiate Internet chatter,’ US-based Defense News cautioned.
But ‘given the PLA's naval power projection ambitions, it is probable there is (a) VSTOL or STOVL (short-takeoff and vertical-landing) fighter programme,’ Richard Fisher, from the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington, D.C., told the publication.
The reports raise as many questions as they answer. If they're true, it's unclear why the Chinese navy would even want a vertical-landing fighter, considering the limitations associated with such designs—and also considering China's many alternatives to a so-called ‘jump jet.’
Again if true, it's possible that Beijing is developing a jump jet in response to Taiwanese interest in an American vertical-landing fighter currently in testing. It's also possible, but not likely, that a Chinese jump jet hints at as-yet-undisclosed naval shipbuilding plans.
Defense Newsechoed Chinese blog comments that the new fighter, apparently designated ‘J-18,’ is ‘similar to the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter.’ That seems unlikely, as the Su-33 weighs 66,000 pounds fully loaded, three times as much as the world's only successful jump jet, the Anglo-American AV-8 Harrier.
The Americans are also working on the F-35B, a 50,000-pound stealthy jump jet that could enter service as early as 2016, but which has encountered serious problems with weight, engine heat, parts failures and software readiness.
The US Marine Corps is planning on buying hundreds of F-35Bs to fly from the Navy's 11 800-foot-long assault ships. In addition to performing an amphibious assault role, these vessels serve as smaller back-ups to the Navy's 11 larger super-carriers that operate conventionally-launching and -landing planes. Italy, Spain and several other navies with small carriers are also likely F-35B customers.
Historically, jump jets such as the Harrier have been a necessary evil, justified only by the small size of assault ships and light carriers and the prohibitive costs of large fleets of full-size carriers. For its first 40 years of service starting in the 1960s, the Harrier was accident-prone and outclassed in most scenarios by conventional aircraft. Only recently have improved maintenance and training plus lightweight ‘smart’ weapons somewhat levelled the playing field.
All the same, the only other once-operational jump jet—the long-defunct Yak-38 flown by the Soviet navy in the 1970s and ’80s—was nearly useless, owing to range and payload limitations. It’s unclear that the Chinese could do better with their own design, particularly if the 30-tonne Su-33 is the starting point.
It seems plausible that Chinese bloggers have mistaken a short-takeoff fighter for a true jump jet. Fitted with vectored-thrust engines that are now common on many planes, the 1980s-vintage Su-33 might be able to operate from smaller carriers. The J-18 could, in reality, be a misnomer for the J-15, a recent Chinese copy of the Su-33 that appeared in a naval paintjob around the same time the J-18 rumours surfaced.
The J-18 could also be the product of a propaganda campaign launched in response to Taiwanese interest in the F-35B, which spiked last spring when Air Force Gen. Ger Hsi-hsiung told parliament that only a jump jet flying from camouflaged highway bases would be protected against Chinese missile attacks.
That said, Chinese bloggers accurately predicted the first flight of the new J-20 stealth fighter-bomber in December. If they're right again and the J-18 actually exists, it could represent a new niche capability for the PLAN—but one that isn’t, as yet, justified by the Chinese naval order of battle. China has nearly finished work on a refurbished Russian light carrier, renamed Shi Lang. The vessel could enter service this year or next in a limited training role, most likely operating J-15s or a modified version of the air force's J-10 fighter. Shi Lang is big enough for traditional planes and doesn’t actually require a jump jet.
Indeed, China neither possesses—nor has publically-acknowledged plans for—an assault ship that would benefit from an operational jump jet. If the PLAN is developing both a small carrier design plus a vertical-landing jet to fly from it, the jet would seem to be far ahead of the vessel—although the vessel is likely an easier thing to build.
Whatever the case, the J-18 rumours are at least evidence of a vigorous military aerospace industry—one that at least renders talk of a new fighter plausible, if not always true.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Johnny
Vtol are a thing of past now. Harriers have been discontinued by RAF because of their shortcomings and Russia too abandoned Vtol as an useless concept, in general. The use of Vtol is, as author points out, an necessary evil if the carrier is too small for normal takeoff. Most nations have either discontinued or decommissioned it. Most likely it will be used on the second hand soviet carrier that China is going to use. Lets see what is the fate of J-18.
yang zi
It is a shame that China need to retrofit an old soviet ship. There is no justice to build this carrier, either build a nuclear powered super carrier, or not at all. I believe PLA is regretting building this ugly carrier.
China doesn’t need a carrier now. it should build amphibious assault ships. My guess is this silly carrier will be the only one for ten years, next big ships will be amphibious assault ships.
Frank
I agree that VSTOL airplane is not a good concept.
Last time I checked, India’s carrier is using VSTOL airplane Harriers which “have been discontinued by RAF because of their shortcomings.”
Do you think Indians are stupid?
Johnny
@Frank India has been using Harrier Jump Jets since 1983 and is discontinuing its future usage.
While China is trying to develop it in 2011!
Another amusing thing is that India is phasing out Mig-21s while China is still using them. Shall I say Chinese are stupid? No, I wont as these things suit only a troll like you.
LCA is 40 year old
@Johnny April 27, 2011 at 9:48 am
If IAF phrase out the MiG21, there would be much of IAF left.
That is precisely why the delay in the introduction of LCA is causing so much distress to IAF. Planes like MiG21 pr LCA definitely have its roles.
As for the Chinese VSTOL Snowy Owl, the CCTV news says it is 5th Generation or 4G by China standard. So technically the technology for obsolete Harriet and Snowy Owl is obviously different!
BTW you an Indian troll is not that clever either. Ddo not call other esp. a race stupid if you do not ant to be named one yourself!
You cannot even reverse engineered an automobile without it catching fire on delivery, left alone launching a rocket using with Russian built cyrogenic rocket without an explosion. It is rumored Indian attempted to copy and reverse engineered the Russian engine but did not snap the connector cable properly on reassembly causing the failure.
Frank
Johnny, you have to be an East Indian. You are too ashamed to admit, which is very understandable.
China has not used Mig-21 for a long time. The new J-7E is based on Mig-21 with a new wing and much better electronics. J-7E is far more powerful than India’s Mig-21.
India’s aircraft carrier is its old master’s carrier. It can only handle Harrier VTOL jet. It was proved to be not much useful during the Folkland war.
That is why England sold it to lesser country.
J-18 is for sure not a VTOL jet. It is more of a stealth version of the J-15 Flying Shark. Internet warriors like you are normally not technically savvy enough to understand the difference.
You will need another small engine or a fan behind the cockpit in order to take off and land vertically. China has plenty of highways. There is no need for a VTOL.
Johnny
@Frank Hahaha Same country bashing again even when I clearly talked about it! This shows you have absolutely no point in favor of your arguments. Keep on throwing your tantrums at us
It is also very funny that you dont know a thing about Chinese airforce. China HEAVILY uses Mig-21s copy aka J-7. You shall know that almost half of the Chinese airforce is based on them with 720 J-7 in service. Here is the link-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-7
Frank
Yes. Most of China’s J-7 are J-7E.
Mig-21 can only shoot the airplane in-front of it. J-7E has helmet mounted missile aiming device which directs the missile to the line of sight of the pilot. J-7E can fire on India’s Mig-21 on the side.
J-7E carries a pair of PL-9 AA missiles which is improved from Israeli Python-3 AAM (PL-8). Much better missiles than the Russian one used by India’s airforce.
J-7E has a new double delta wing that allows the airplane to maneuver much better than India’s Mig-21 at low altitude. Mig-21 killed hundreds of Indians because it is very hard to control at low altitude.
J-7E’s double delta wings also carry a lot more fuel than India’s Mig-21. The electronics are way much better.
J-7E and Mig-21 are two different airplanes.
You are an East Indian. That is why you cannot understand that.
Frank
China’s Mig-21 (J-7 I and II) are all retired.
Most of China’s 700 J-7s are J-7E and J-7G (J-7E with better electronics).
There are some double seaters JJ-7 trainers. There are also a small numbers of J-7III left. J-7III are the closest to Mig-21BIS. Chinese airforce does not like them. So, only a small numbers are built.
Johnny
@Frank You make no sense. How can you say China doesn’t use j-7 when it is using it in large numbers. The variants are little changes that don’t mean much.
They are openly known to be an direct copy of Russian Mig-21 with only very minor changes. Let me say it again-The variants don’t mean a new plane. Every nation has several variants of its planes eg F/A 18 has F/A 18 A, B, C etc but NOBODY claims that they are different planes. They are just variants with some changes that naturally occur with change in time. Go and read the link I provided and you will find that variants of J-7 are compared with variants of Mig-21.
At least Russians have the decency of NOT saying ‘Ohhh its Mig-21U. Its not Mig-21!!!’
Frank
J-7E is derived from MIG-21. It is not a direct copy. J-7I is. J-7II is a slightly improved version.
J-7E has new wing, new radar, new missile capability, and new electronics.
J-7E has a lot shorter take-off and landing distance, much smaller turn radius, longer range.
Very different airplane.
Read the same link you provided to understand the MAJOR difference between J-7E and Mig-21.
Frank
There are many examples that later variants became very different airplanes.
F/A-18E is very different than F/A-18A,B,C.
F-5G (Later became F-20) is very different than F-5E/F.
TU-22M is very different than TU-22.
J-8II is very different than J-8 and J-8I.
J-7E is very different than J-7I, II.
They even look different.
It is the contents matter the most.
Pragmatism is the virtue East Indians do not have. Indians care too much about superficial things, like, names, etc.
Johnny
@Frank Why you people try to put your head into sand like an ostrich instead of facing facts? Living in denial wont solve problem.
It is an open fact that China uses J-7 (direct copy of Mig with some minor differences) and in last decade some change in electronics etc dont mean much as they happen with every plane.
Dont make so much fuss about how china installed new electronics in an soviet era fighter as some changes with time occur in every product. When changes are really radical then planes are assigned an completely new name, simple as that.
Keep on throwing tantrums at us but the truth as it stands, is that China has almost half of its airforce full of Mig-21s copies and their variants.
Reason
Sun Tzu – The Art of War
“To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength;
To see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear”.
Or in other words… “Finishing last years homework, doesn’t mean you’ll go to the top of the class”.
Men in space, aircraft carriers, VSTOLs are all only notable for there outdatedness….
The Age of the Aircraft Carrier is Dead!
LONG RANGE UNMANNED STRIKE IS THE FUTURE OF WAR….
guest
America, China and India are still building CV. Last time I checked, these 3 countries will all become superpowers in the next 10-20 years.
Johnny
America is already an superpower.
Reason
The Age of the Carrier is OVER…. just like WW2 heralded the end of the Age of the Battleship… but Japan still wasted its money on huge battleships, China is doing the same…
China is chasing its tail trying to join the carrier club and they will be nothing but submarine/unmanned strike target practice in a conflict…. … just like the Yamato Class battleships were in WW2
Look out for entire unmanned air-wings on future carriers from the US very soon, extending the longevity of the carrier for them… but ultimately the US Navy and Air Force know that the real money is going into Long Range Unmanned Strike. Better to have fleets of these than a big hunk of metal floating in the sea…
batista
You guys are missing the point; for war, China has no shortage of submarines and ballistic missiles, and did you not see the numerous UAV concepts in the Zhuhai Airshows? Obviously there are programmes underway and UAVs take considerably less effort to build than say… the J20.
The point is no country operating air craft carriers use them in a war of equals. Carriers are always used to intervene in lesser conflicts to establish air supremacy. China will most likely be using its air craft carriers to gain an advantage in territorial disputes in the South China sea (to protect its deep sea oil drilling operations), and more importantly, to secure its shipping lanes, specifically oil shipments through the Straight of Malacca. These kinds of ramped-up escort operations occur in peace time, and for these purposes, carriers are indispensable.
Reason
Agree, fully…
Frank
Agreed.
You also need to add that the carrier is also useful for future India Ocean conflict, Battle of Nicobar Islands, Battle of Port Blair, etc.
Brad
Give it two decades and we’ll have guided Prompt Global Strike systems that would be able to sink a chinese carrier all the way from central Kansas, I wouldnt consider shooting fish in a barrell “target practice.”
Frank
It won’t take that long to have anti-ship ballistic missile deployed by China also. Super carriers are becoming sitting ducks.
However, the possiblity of a nuclear war between China and USA is very, very low.
Americans do not want to give up their comfortable lives. Chinese do not want to attack their best customers and borrowers.
Johnny
If just having ability to destroy something means that you are ahead then Russia is the world biggest power since it has most nukes and that too most advanced and capable of destroying pretty much any target.
But is Russia looked at as top power, or even a superpower nowadays?
No.
So thinking that just because carrier killing missile can destroy carrier the country in possession shall be regarded as an great power is absurd.
Taiwan is building those too shall we all call Taiwan an superpower?
Carriers are the hallmark of force projection. Ofcourse they are destructible but so are the cities of the country who dares to attack an aircraft carrier.
Frank
I have to agree with you about that Johnny. Superpower is more associated with the economical power.
You do not build carriers if you cannot afford to lose them.
That is why it takes so long for China to develop its carriers. Chinese leaders want to make sure they can afford to lose a few carriers at the war with rogue low latitude nations.
If the war between high latitude nations break out in the future, carriers are useless. It would be a nuclear ballistic missile war only.
Now China is ready for a war against low latitude rogue nations. With a strong economy, China will build carriers one by one, years after years.
When the giant is awakening, the world will pay attention.
Just watch the news every year with joy or with fear.
It is all up to you.
Tango
DF21 D is just a bluff! China better wait for DARPA’s HTV-2 (Mach20 Hypersonic glider) and X47B!These stuffs will take good care of any new Chinese aircraft carriers & any kind of jump jets or DF21Ds(?!!) and other ‘Chinese advanced missiles’ if any! China should remember that all reconnaissance& communications satellites will be neutralized by X37B Space planes& other advanced weaponry when conflict occurring! Regarding ‘China as a US creditor’, just forget about it!Remember, the US, in reality, doesn’t need any kind of ‘lending’ from China and judt wants to stop immediately that kind of manipulation!!
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67810/joseph-gagnon-and-gary-hufbauer/taxing-chinas-assets
“….By taxing the precise actions that cause distorted exchange rates, the United States would increase the incentive for China and other currency manipulators to allow the values of their currencies to reflect market fundamentals. The tax rate should start at the normal statutory rate of 30 percent and could be increased at the discretion of the U.S. Treasury secretary until a government engaged in manipulation ceased the practice. In the meantime, the U.S. government would enjoy a few billion dollars per year of extra revenue to reduce its budget deficit, and these revenues would grow to tens of billions per year as interest rates return to more normal levels over time, especially if Washington raised the withholding tax rate.
An important benefit of this approach is that it would EXPLODE the MYTH, commonly held in China, that the UNITED STATES WANTS or NEEDS CHINA to BUY U.S. TREASURY BONDS. Many ordinary Chinese citizens do not connect China’s currency policy with its purchases of U.S. assets. They see China’s purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds as a FAVOR to the United States. But, in fact, these purchases are the MECHANISM by which China both subsidizes its exports to the United States and discourages U.S. exports to China. Without massive Chinese purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds and the resulting undervaluation of the renminbi, U.S. firms would be much better able to compete against their Chinese counterparts.”
(Taxing China’s assets-Joseph Gagnon&Gary Hufbauer)
Chinese people better understand the true nature of this Myth!!
Johnny
@Frank You forgot the third option. Watch the overhyping of a dustbin vtol, soviet carrier and have a good laugh while reading Chinese comments how they are going to use them to take over the world and their amusing definitions of political boundaries and use of force.
I love this site <3
Frank
No, we don’t want to take over the world. If we ever wanted, we could have done so, 600 hundred years ago when Zheng He’s fleet had no challengers patrolling the India ocean.
We develop enough weapons so nobody dare to tell us what to do.
We just want to live in peace with pride and dignity.
Leave us alone, we will leave you alone. If you mess with us, we will HAVE TO mess with you.
Read our history.
Grant
Why do people keep quoting Sun Tzu on technologies he couldn’t have even imagined? I imagine you probably could translate a few words of his to justify 19th century movement wars, WWI trench warfare and 21st century insurgencies. The man (if he truly existed) is of limited use.
Some random dude’s pet duck
One company of Blood Ravens should finish them off without a sweat!
Johnny
@SomeRandomGuysDuck Hahahah Super Awesome comment!
For the immortal emperor of mankind and chapter-master Gabriel Angelos!
John Chan
@SomeRandomGuysDuck, neither your hubris, arrogance nor ignorance can match the US naval officer in the NATO HQ as well as General Burwell Bell III.
That US naval officer bragged in the NATO HQ that finishing off PLAN was an interesting morning exercise. Burwell Bell said if China took part in the Korea Peninsular War, back to the Chinese economy 100 years ago.
To out do that two guys, you should say one company of steroid and cocaine infested marines could finish them off with a couple barrels of steroid and cocaine in tow.
John Chan
@SomeRandomGuysDuck, A US naval officer bragged in the NATO HQ that finishing off PLAN was an interesting morning exercise. General Burwell Bell said if China took part in the Korea Peninsular War, back to the Chinese economy 100 years ago.
To out do that two guys in terms of hubris and ignorance, you should say one company of steroid and cocaine infested Backwater employees could finish them off with a couple barrels of steroid and cocaine in tow.
Johnny
@Chan The jokes on you kiddo. @RandomGuysDucks comment was from a book and my reply to him was also about the book’s setting. If you haven’t read anything except Chinese propaganda then that’s your problem. Dont flame others for your ignorance.
L. Ken. Hortin
Exactly right, Reason. Can you imagine trying to protect a shore line as long of that of Australia with any type of carrier/s? With our tiny, ageing population? No way! Even submarines would not be capable of down a long range missile. We need missiles on shore, ready to be launched in any direction of threat. The mindset does not exist here unfortunately.
PeterDownUnder
It is interesting to play out a scenario where Australia is invaded by a neighbour in the future like in the novel and film “Tomorrow when the war began”
Any form of invasion would have to be repelled after enemy forces have been landed and would not stop until the battle is taken to them and they withdraw.
How different Australia’s defense policy to Singapore is whilst sharing almost identical concerns.
I reckon Singapore is much more ready to defend itself then Australia is.
Grant
Considering that A. It isn’t exactly easy to invade ‘island states’ B. any attack on Australia would almost definitely mean war with the U.S and C. the fact that the Australians have an entire continent to fall back on I wouldn’t be too worried for them.
John Chan
@PeterDownUnder, 85% Australians live in 5 cities, and the only valuable asset in Australia is mineral that is in the wild open areas. Destroying those 5 cities would not harm the valuable asset but will cripple Australia. That setup makes Australia a very attractive target to use WMD.
The long shoreline, majority area is wild and sparsely populated make Australia very expensive to prevent invader landing on its shore. Australia has two choices to make:
1. Spend 17% GDP a year for the next 20 years on military in order to do “Any form of invasion would have to be repelled after enemy forces have been landed and would not stop until the battle is taken to them and they withdraw.” Or
2. Copy Canada’s “deep integration” policy to integrate Australia with China like Canada has been integrating with the USA. Examples of the “deep integration” policy are:
a. The framework of a North American security perimeter agreement designed by the USA is being readied secretly without public participation for signing by Ottawa and Washington soon.
b. NAFTA specified the USA has the first right to access Canadian oil, water, etc. in case of emergency, which right is before Canadian’s right.
c. Ignoring all legislations on tendering and national security requirements to buy single choice F-35 with open ended price tag.
Etc, etc.
Johnny
@Chan Seriously man, Whats with you and spend 17% of GDP on defense comments???
First you posted that ‘India shall spend 17% of GDP on defense.’
Then you posted ‘Vietnam shall spend 17% of GDP on defense’
and now Australia shall spend 17% of GDP on defense!
Australis isn’t an sitting duck like your 2 minute noddle ‘analysis’ might suggest go and read before posting. Also read about political ties of Australia especially the US nuclear umbrella.
And your suggestion of integration of Australia in China! I am ROFLing.
PS:Australia is currently ranked #2 in Human Development Index while China is… let me look for it…. scrolling down and down…. aha…. China is at #89.
John Chan
@Johnny, don’t kid yourself that the US will actually honour the extended nuclear deterrence in order to save Australia’s skin or any of its lackeys. It is even doubtful that any nation will resort to WMD on the verge of total defeat in the conventional warfare confrontation in order to turn the situation around.
USSR spent 17%-22% of GDP yearly on defense during the cold war.
Deep Integration is good for Australia; go and ask the Canadians, they felt it was a best thing they could do for their country, that’s why they keep on putting Conservative in power to continue such process.
Once Australians get used of Deep Integration with China, they will love it like the Canadians.
Johnny
@Chan Australia’s integration in China?
You are absolutely unaware of current world situation.
I should have gathered that much from your pointless claims on sovereign territories of Vietnam and other nations of South-China seas.
John Chan
@Johnny, you missed the point again, for the benefits of the lackeys of the US, they’d better be prepared to show “they said what they meant” not just empty words like one nation that is famous in “honey words and pious gesture” and always begs somebody else fight its war.
Julia Gillard was discussing “Australia-China defence ties” recently.
Johnny
@Chan Dreams and self-denials.
Thats all I have to say about your comment.
guest
Completely agree with the article. China is wasting their money if they are really developing a VTOL fighter.
Grant
It’s possible that it and the new stealth fighter are more to show that they can make these things rather than any intent to mass produce them (or at least not mass produce them just yet).
John Chan
How about calling the VTOL fighter is a job creation project, or an early symptom of out of control MIC?
Santa Claus
Kinda funny if you ask me. It seems China is on the brink of lunacy trying to produce every kind of “modern” jets and “super” weapons; such as the new “supertank” that they claimed to eat the M1A2 Abrams for lunch. That may well be suitable to satisfy the domestic audience and tame the restless mass. But please, in reality China can’t even produce the alloy for the rotary blades on the Su-27 engines.
Many Chinese blogsites also featured photoshopped image of a super bomber with shape looks exactly like the U.S. B-2 bomber, among other things…
Reason
he’s an interesting article, similar to what ‘Santa’ was alluding to, called
China’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ – in Weapons
Basically talks about China going crazy over ridiculous weapon claims like it did in the Great Leap Froward over industrial and agricultural developments.
In a nutshell – Mass hysteria
Frank
China has learned its lessons. This time, China is moving in inches.
First, refurbish an old carrier.
Then, copy the SU-33.
Improve SU-33 to J-15.
Then, develop a new carrier.
Then, develop a new carrier based Stealth Jet called J-18. J-18 is NOT a VTOL jet.
Then build new carriers and J-18 one by one, years after years.
Very solid steps. No leap forward this time.
Johnny
@Chan “and result Mass Hysteria”
Mass Hysteria for an VSTOL in development in 2011?
Mass Hysterical laughter is more like it.
@Frank Thanks for clarifying China’s copy/pirate/steal policy and being so proud of it! The policy of ’slowly inching, with steady grip and taking others work for your benefit’ remind of leeches.
Johnny
@Frank Hahahaha Another tantrum!
It was you who posted China’a ‘qualities’ of inching forward with firm grip and relying on work of others.
You are almost like an child who when out of points starts to throw tantrums to attract attention.
China’s blatant violation of copyrights (as you so Proudly mentioned) are known throughout world.
On the other hand I heard the MRCA contract is NOT going to be awarded to any USA company.
Keep whining. We can see who is what.
Johnny
@Frank Oh, I forgot to post the link. Here it is:
http://the-diplomat.com/indian-decade/2011/04/29/india-shortlists-rafale-eurofighter/
Yeah, we can see who is what…
PS: Facts not on your side? Throw a tantrum and post racist remarks! Yay!
Reason
DOW – forgot the link
http://chinarisingblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/chinas-great-leap-forward-in-weapons.html
yang zi
i think this fighter is for amphibious assault ships. it just need to work around taiwan and south china sea,
The Red Horse
Yang Zi,
If you think about it, the distance from Tawain from the mainland is only a few hundred kilometers apart–easily within combat range of a modern fighter. I believe your country has plenty of combat aircraft within reach of the island. Maybe, yes as something to be deployed on an assault ship.
@All
Before we all get excited about the death of the aircraft carrier, don’t forgot the United States military decided in the 1960s that cannons on aircraft weren’t needed because of guided missiles–a serious mistake. Unless your future weapons can provide flexible, regional power projection–it’s not going to be very effective. Aircraft carriers roles I think will morph into combat drone carriers at some point. Don’t forget, even if you create a drone that can loiter for hours and travel thousands of miles–you still need to be able to dogfight and re-arm.
Please–intelligent replies not pretty poems.
Liang1a
I have always said the most important things are technologies and size of economy. Without technologies a country cannot develop any advanced weapons, be it an assaut rifle, fighter or carrier. And without a big economy even if advance weapons can be developed yet not many of them can be built and deployed. Therefore, before China can have a powerful military it must first develop high technologies and develop a big economy. Then it can develop the most advanced weapon systems such as super carriers that can be a mile long and carry hundreds of advanced fighters and tens of thousands troops and be the in theatre command and control center to invade a foreign country.
Carriers are very vulnerable to attacks from missiles. Even now China has the ability to sink any carriers in the world with its DF-21D and other missiles. Of course, Russia and America also have that ability. But if better defensive weapons can be developed to protect the carriers, then there would be better argements for making and maintaining large and expensive carrier groups.
As to VTOL planes, it is hard to make them big and heavy. And if they are small they cannot carry too many weapons or have a long range. But maybe they can compensate by being able to be carried in smaller ships. If China can make them cheap enough then by all means make them. But a more powerful fighter with longer range is probably good enough for the next 10 to 20 years.
Drive by
It’s a rumor, or someone’s imagination. J15, similar to Su-33, will be China’s ship-born fighter
John Chan
J-15 made its first flight in 2009, and made its first takeoff from a land based simulated ski-jump in May 2010. It would spend another 3 to 4 years going through naval aviation training, take-off/landing and developing tactics. The plan is to be ready when Varyag joins service in 2015.
Tango
Hi John Chan,
While Great China is being preoccupied with its first ever new aircraft carrier and its ‘advanced’ J20s, J18s, J15s,(too may stuffs!!) etc. the US has been busy with these fabulous stuffs!Just take a look, John!
http://hypersonicmissile.com/page/3/
John Chan
@Tango, you are misinformed, the most lethal weapon the US is developing is called Space Fence, it is being developed by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin with a seeding fund of 3.5 billion. USAF claimed it could destroy objects as small as 10 cm 30,000 km away.
Tango
You are so ‘dangerous’, John! You’ve known everything!There’s a lot of wonderful stuffs the US’s been testing and developing! Anything you could find on the internet is not secret any more. My guess: you’re a Canadian citizen?!
The Red Horse
“Space Fence” is a groundbased radar tracking system not a deployable weapon designed to *detect* objects as small as 10cm not destroy them. Radars make terrible weapon systems, you can’t even cook a steak with them.
Tango
Yes, John. This program is developing for tracking space debris caused by ‘China’s anti-satellite test’, Chinese anti-satellite micro-satellites , ‘DF21Ds’ & all Chinese ‘advanced missile stuffs’, and other objects launched to space, etc.! Particularly, for ‘tracking-down-and-roasting’ China’s new carrier and all the jump jets on it!! Hey, with a new system of military satellites recently put into space, for the first time, the US could track all stages (A-Z) of a missile launched from anywhere in the world! Sound scary, huh?!Better deploy your coming carrier plus jump jets for regional security cooperation, not for only bullying your peaceful neighbors for some territorial concessions!!Intergration with China?! When the giant coming down (soon!!), Australia and Canada will surely feel the sharpest pain ever!!
Johnny
@Tango Lets not count the chickens before they hatch, we aren’t Chinese after all.
About Australia: that is Chan’s fantasy dream nothing more than that. Read their comments like I do, with a grain of salt and a big grin.
Kimpo
Mainlanders are acting strangely. Why they are developing vstol/stvol is beyond me. Our carrier killer corvetts will be capable of killing their aircraft carriers so why they even waste money on that. They need Taiwanese leadership to steer them to correct and logical path as mainlanders are easily confused with complex details.
Tango
@Johnny,
Don’t worry, I know John Chan is just a daydreamer living in a fantasy world of his own! The real problem is with China’s currently being incessantly starving and thirsty for oil and natural gas together with its coming deployment of first ever carrier plus its amphibious forces build-up , the South china & the East china seas will surely become the potential flashpoints which may explode into regional armed conflicts at any moment !!
Johnny
@Grant That is the grim truth mate, Countries like Vietnam and Taiwan dont have much unless they develop nuclear weapons to deter China just like Pakistan has done with India and N.Korea has done with S.Korea. Who knows whats going deep within… as I recall reading an news few years ago where minuteman’s fuse was ‘accidently’ shipped to Taiwan.