As noted by Douglas Paal here over the weekend, in recent weeks, the Chinese navy has taken big steps toward deploying its first aircraft carrier, underscoring the nation's rapid ascent as a world power. Twelve years after Beijing purchased the incomplete Russian aircraft carrier Varyag, the 60,000-ton vessel -- renamed Shi Lang -- is reportedly on track to begin sea trials this summer. Shi Lang's first planes are nearly ready, too. In late April, the first J-15 fighter, an unlicensed copy of the Russian Su-33, appeared in navy colours.
A seaworthy vessel and operational naval fighters will provide the backbone of the Chinese navy's evolving carrier force. But they are not, in themselves, adequate for a useful carrier force. Leaving aside the huge manpower, planning and logistical demands of a modern aircraft carrier, there are additional hardware needs that China hasn’t yet met.
To enable true, long-range carrier operations, the People's Liberation Army Navy still needs to develop, build and field carrier-capable airborne command-and-control aircraft plus aerial tankers and electronic-warfare planes. Without these so-called ‘enablers,’ Shi Lang and her J-15s represent little more than training assets, with few real-world applications.
Just ask the Russians. Admiral Kuznetsov, the Russian navy's sole carrier and Shi Lang's sister ship, has completed fewer than 10 operational or training cruises since commissioning in 1996 -- and none of the cruises were more than a couple months in duration. More to the point, she has never seen combat. The US Navy's 11 supercarriers, by contrast, spend around a third of their 50-year service lives at sea and see steady combat.
Admiral Kuznetsov's problems are manifold. Mechanical faults and inadequate crew training are exacerbated by the Russian navy's irregular funding. Also, her air wing simply isn't very practical. With just a dozen or so Su-33s plus a handful of radar- and sonar-equipped helicopters, Admiral Kuznetsov can’t reliably deliver sustained combat airpower against a serious foe.
By comparison, US carriers -- and France's sole flattop -- are lavishly equipped, with balanced air wings containing two types of fighters plus fixed-wing E-2 radar planes and, in the US Navy's case, specialized EA-6B or EA-18G radar-jamming planes for the suppression of enemy air defenses. US and French naval fighters are equipped with fuel pods and reelable hoses that allow them to refuel other planes in flight. The Russian Su-33s also have this capability, but it's not clear that their pilots are trained for it any more.
Lacking the diverse air wing of American and French carriers, in the near term Shi Lang will be as limited as Admiral Kuznetsov. Her fighters will have poor range because they can’t be refueled in mid-air. They will be all but blind, guided only by their own radars and those of Shi Lang herself. And they will be vulnerable to enemy air defenses.
The PLA is aware of these limitations and is working to address them. Beijing has purchased Russian Ka-31 helicopters fitted with aerial radars and is also experimenting with a Z-8 helicopter -- a copy of the French Super Frelon -- equipped with a radar. The PLA could use these choppers as stepping stones to a more robust command-and-control capability.
But that still leaves aerial refueling and electronic warfare as critical gaps for Shi Lang and any future Chinese carriers. The dawn of Chinese carrier aviation is imminent, but the full daylight of mature Chinese carrier aviation is still many years away.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
yang zi
here here!
good article.
there are many fools on the internet. A lot of them are writing military blogs in and outside china. Chinese military website are rich with boasting fools, US sites have plenty of Chinese Are Coming fools.
Johnny
@YangZi I agree. There are many idiots who think war is the tool for conflict/border resolution. Needless to say those people are living in an alternate reality and are unaware how easily things can go absolutely out of control in this nuclear world.
An man wiser than us and ANY of the leaders of world said-
“I do not know how the third world war will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the fourth… rocks.”
– Albert Einstein
Frank
India fought multiple border wars against its only two nuclear armed neighbors. All other nuclear powers are settled most of their differences. India still is very hostile to these two nuclear armed giants.
Indians must be those idiots you are talking about. Right?
Johnny
@Frank Your lack of knowledge amazes me! None of those wars were started by India.
My comment was centered on idiots who post flaming remarks about other nations. You proved my point wonderfully. Thanks.
Liang1a
China’s problems with its little carrier are real. But just because the Russians has many problems with its carrier doesn’t mean China will also not be able to solve the same problems. While China is obviously still less advanced than Russia in terms of technologies it is much bigger than Russia in terms of economy. Russia’s GDP in PPP value is around $2.2 trillion while China’s PPP GDP is more than $12 trillion or around 5 times bigger. Therefore, China can afford to upgrade its carrier to make it as good as the American and French carrier while Russia is too poor to spend too much to upgrade its carrier. Also Russia has deployed thousands of nuclear ICBMs already. It does not need an operational carrier to keep it safe or to project its power to distant lands.
My advise to China is to first deploy at least 1,000 nuclear ICBMs first to enhence its overall security and then if there is funding left over then to deploy one or two carriers to project its power. Of course, how many carriers China can ultimately deploy depends entirely on its economic growth. If China can achieve a $100 trillion GNP as I said it can, then it can easily deploy not just one or two carriers, or even just ten or eleven carriers but 50 or 60 carriers that are bigger than any of other countries’ carriers. Therefore, it is as I keep saying, China needs to advance its technologies and develop its domestic economy. China cannot do anything unless and until it can have advanced technologies and the biggest economy in the world. Until it can achieve that, China can only talk about deploying the minimal military weapon systems which will keep China weak and in danger and be held in comtempt by other countries.
Yao Ma
China’s GDP is $12 trillions? What kind of economic voodoo did you perform to come up with that?
China’s current GDP is only slightly more than that of Japan, which is still less than $6 trillions. Dividing that by 1.5 billion Chinese and it is still one of the poorest countries on earth.
Feel-good boasting about some figures does not make China a superpower… at least not yet.
Liang1a
Yao Ma wrote:
May 5, 2011 at 1:17 pm
China’s GDP is $12 trillions? What kind of economic voodoo did you perform to come up with that?
China’s current GDP is only slightly more than that of Japan, which is still less than $6 trillions. Dividing that by 1.5 billion Chinese and it is still one of the poorest countries on earth.
Feel-good boasting about some figures does not make China a superpower… at least not yet.
===============================================
Of course China is still one of the poorest country in the world. This is due to the incompetence of the CCP who took the short and easy path to rely on FDI and exports. The current so-called economic “miracle” of China is nothing more than selling hundreds of millions of cheap Chinese labor to foreigners. Yao Ma obviously never heard of the terms purchasing power parity or PPP. It bases the value of one currency against another based not on the official exchange rate or nominal value but on the relative purchasing power of each currency. For example, if one loaf of bread costs 3 yuan in China and the same loaf of bread costs $1 in the US then 3 yuan is worth $1. While the actual purchasing power of the yuan against the US dollar is debatable, it is much more than 6.5 yuan per dollar. My personal estimate is that it is 3 yuan per dollar. Especially after the serious inflation in the US recently and is still going on.
A Chinese person making 10,000 yuan can get along comfortably in China whereas an American making $1,500 will have no housing and nothing to eat or much of anything else for that matter. Obviously, 10,000 yuan have greater purchasing power in China than $1,500 in America. In fact, 10,000 can buy much more in China than $3,300 can buy in America. Hence, the estimated PPP value of 3 yuan per dollar. Given the PPP value of the yuan is 3 yuan per dollar, then the Chinese GDP in 2010 of 40 trillion yuan its PPP value is $13 trillion.
Voodoo Economics
No matter how you explain it, it is still voodo economics, designed to make the stupid peasant feel good. Getting that 10,000 yuans to the hand of every peasant in China is a whole different matter.
100 Trillions? hahahah…
Frank
Not yet.
yang zi
Agree with you on ICMB, it provides the strategic stability.
However, 100T economy is not real, if it is, it means dollar is going down to toilet, which is possible.
What china need is a big strategic force, moderate conventional force. US model is not sustainable, there is no need for China to maintain a big military with big foot print in the world.
Liang1a
yang zi wrote:
May 5, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Agree with you on ICMB, it provides the strategic stability.
However, 100T economy is not real, if it is, it means dollar is going down to toilet, which is possible.
What china need is a big strategic force, moderate conventional force. US model is not sustainable, there is no need for China to maintain a big military with big foot print in the world.
================================================
It is perfectly possible for China to achieve a $100 trillion equivalent economy. This is based on 200,000 per capita GNP on a population of 1.5 billion for a total GNP of 300 trillion yuan and an exchange rate of 3 yuan per dollar. China’s GDP is now more than 40 trillion yuan. If it can grow at 7.5% per year for 30 years then it will achieve the 300 trillion yuan by 2040 or sooner. It is perfectly possible for China to achieve a per capita GNP of 200,000 yuan because the urban middle class is already earning some 50,000 yuan. So from 50,000 yuan to 200,000 it is only 4 times. This is perfectly possible to achieve in 30 years. The difficult thing is for China to develop domestically owned high technologies. If China relied on foreign technologies then it will have to pay a lot of royalties to license these foreign IPR, therefore China would lose a lot of incomes which would flow out of China to keep China poor. The second dificult thing is that China’s population is still mostly rural. Therefore, in order to make all Chinese people rich they must first be urbanized so that they can be like the Japanese and the Americans and be productive and deserving of high incomes. The last thing for China to accomplish is to shift away from exports to producing goods and services for the consumption of the Chinese people. China will never be able to export tens of trillions of dollars’ worth of products every year. Therefore, China must consume all of its output of goods and services which it can easily produce by the tens of trillions and more.
As to what kind of strategic and conventional forces China should deploy, China should have at least 1,000 to 2,000 highly accurate nuclear ICBMs with the ability to counter anti-missile missiles. Then it should have a large mobile conventional force enabled by a large navy which can deliver Chinese forces to any part of the world at a moment’s notice to protect Chinese assets globally. If China can achieve a GNP of $100 trillion equivalent, then it can spend 1.5% or 2% of its large GNP and can still spend $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion equivalent every year. That will allow China to deploy a huge military force that can dominate the world and then some.
John Chan
Many many things need to be done, the hardest thing is to get started. Without starting the reputedly crappy Varyag described by the anti-China clique, China will never move ahead and be getting closer to have a real combat worthy carrier force which takes years to make; China must chip away those days one by one. With the world biggest bully rounding up cannon fodders to crash China, it is better to start early than late.
Without Kennedy’s landing man on the moon aspiration, and Regan’s star war challenge, the US can not have its advanced science and technology today nor its biggest economy in the world. Desire to out do the world biggest bully in defence in order to protect China’s independence, sovereignty, integrity and way of live is a necessary evil to advance economy, science, and technology.
Frank
China has more chance to use carriers for the Battle of Nicobar than using ICBMs attacking China’s best customer and borrower.
Haeckelist
For the coming decades, this one experimental carrier will pose no threat at all to the U.S. Navy’s 11 carrier groups. But it will enable China to project more power in the South China Sea.
Simon
China already has aerial refueling many years ago. Did the commentator of this article never watch the National Day parade?
yang zi
he is talking about refuel from the aircraft carrier. Also, Varyag can only run for 17 days, then it needs refueling, which takes a day or too.
Frank
You do not fuel the aircraft carrier from air.
You need oilers from the side while the group is traveling.
Frank
It only takes 4 days to reach Nicobar Islands from Hainan base.
PeterDownUnder
A China with a $100 trilion GNP…
i dont think the planet we live on can sustain that kind of consumption.
Sad situation, every family in America has one car at least. But when every family in China rightfully wants to have at least one car, the world will be doomed.
We are still living in a stage where we still speculate and discuss about China’s rise and its impacts.
I’d hate to see the day in the near future when everyone in China is living at even 1/4 the standard of us in the west.
Price of gasoline, price of food, man what a worry.
The Chinese economy has much room to grow on. Still hundreds of millions of peasants of minimal contribution to its economy, technology to allow it to move away from heavy manufacturing into more sophisticated industry. But the natural resources in this world are finite.
The world is already decimated with a billion rich white people. Imagine when we add another billion yellow people and another billion brown people. Gobble gobble gobble. China may be able to one day buy a car for all its families but the world cannot provide all the oil for all of China’s families.
yang zi
like i said, it is not necessarily sad, because by then a dollar is only worth a dime.
Frank
Don’t worry.
China has been having more than 20% of the world GDP for more than 5,000 years.
China is just coming back. No big deal.
Leonard R.
In a way, I agree with that.
China & India have long been nations on earth with the largest GDP.
It’s only since 1700 or so that the situation turned against them.
It would be no surprise if they once again became what they were before –
economic giants. After all, their population combined is what? 40% of the
world total? Their economic ascendancy could be viewed as a long-range
situation stabilizing.
The problem is – the PRC is governed by paranoid, chest-thumping crackpots.
That’s why hot war is inevitable – and soon.
Frank
Incorrect !!!
India has always been ruled by foreign masters. Its GDP could not be estimated. Before 1700, India was ruled by Mongols. Mongols killed everybody in Delhi and built India’s pride Taj.
So India’s GPD is more of a Mongol’s GDP. Later on, India’s GDP is part of England’s GDP.
Actually, there was never a country called India until English masters created it by force. So to mention India’s GDP before 1700 is pointless.
PeterDownUnder
It’s not the percentage of the world that China is taking that worries people.
The fact is the world hasn’t had a population over a billion until the recent centuries.
Now we went from 6 to 7 in shorter than a century and will surpass 9 billion in our life time.
Not an environmentalist just a consumer.
What will the world be when we add another billion consumer in a world of finite supply.
Learnt something new today at school. The world is a commercial world. Technologies exists that can halve even 1/10 China’s pollution through more efficient and high tech manners. But instead of giving it away they must be bought. And that is too expensive for developing countries to afford whilst they cheaply pollute away and the developed world cries yet won’t give it to them for free.
yang zi
Frank you are full of it. What is the meaning of a big GDP number combined by 1 billion people? What can it do for individual Chinese? The quality of life and the quality of civilization is more important than a combined big number. There is no future if China is only concerned about its national strength. Why can’t you think of human race, not just China?
Frank
Please read what I said.
China has been having more than 20% of the world GDP for more than 5,000 years.
That is why there should not be any worries.
China is just coming back. Not a big deal.
Yes, China is still a poor country. Chinese needs to work hard to restore the status of having 20% of the world GDP.
That said, Chinese people should never ever forget if you do not have enough defenses, your wealth can disappear very quickly. You can spend billions to build a Summer Palace. The foreigners can burn it to the ground over night.
I repeat.
If you do not want your daughter, wife, mother or grandmother being raped, build your defense!!!
Liang1a
PeterDownUnder wrote:
A China with a $100 trilion GNP…
i dont think the planet we live on can sustain that kind of consumption.
Sad situation, every family in America has one car at least. But when every family in China rightfully wants to have at least one car, the world will be doomed.
Price of gasoline, price of food, man what a worry.
But the natural resources in this world are finite.
The world is already decimated with a billion rich white people. Imagine when we add another billion yellow people and another billion brown people. Gobble gobble gobble. China may be able to one day buy a car for all its families but the world cannot provide all the oil for all of China’s families.
======================================
Obviously this is a big problem. In fact it is an insoluable problem if cars must be powered by fossil fuel. Fortunately, it is possible to use non-fossil fuel to power cars. Batteries are now good enough to allow cars to have at least a range of 40 miles on a single charge. Some can even go up to 100 miles or more on a single charge. This is good enough for most cars in the urban areas. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to allow each Chinese to own a car. These electric cars can be charged with electricity generated by renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. Also nuclear power can be used with breeder reactors that can breed fissile fuel from U-238 or Th-233 to increase existing uranium and thorium reserves by orders of magnitude.
China has millions of tons of lithium carbonate which can be used to produce hundreds of millions of batteries. There are also many millions of tons more that might be found under salt lakes that are yet to be explored. So, as far as cars are concerned, Chinese people have no need to worry. The best thing about lithium is that it is recyclable so it can be used almost forever.
guest
Please leave the military analysis stuff to actual experts like James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara. You can read their articles on the-diplomat.
Your fanboyish ravings make my brain hurt.
John Chan
Experts are made not born; everybody has to start somewhere somehow. Internet is a place to practice freedom of speech, no idea is fanboyish raving, only bigots get brain hurt when they read something out of their scope of acceptance. “Let hundred flowers flourish and let hundred birds twitter.” – Mao
guest
If it wasn’t clear, I was addressing my remarks to David Axe, the author of this article.
John Chan
David Axe’s article might not suite everybody’s liking, but to suppress him from writing his two cents worth of military analysis because his work is not in the same line of thoughts as James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara surly has a scent of censorship. James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara are anti-China neocon think tank members in the eyes of Chinese bloggers.
guest
At least James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara know what the hell they are talking about. Better that they are neo-cons than a communist puppet.
John Chan
When James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara posted their articles here, there were tons of comments pointing out their ignorance, as well as they did not know what the hell they were talking about.
A puppet is a proxy of foreign power, Lee Myung-bak is a puppet of the US; if one day PLA stations in SKorea, then Lee Myun-bak is a communist puppet.
Brian Black
It’s not quite as bad for the Chinese as the article’s title perhaps suggests.
They’ll probably be in a better situation when their carrier becomes operational, than the Royal Navy will be when HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service.
The UK has also relied on heli-borne AEW for it’s mini carriers since ‘82. The RN’s loss of the fixed-wing Gannet AEW in the late ’70’s was sorely felt in the Falklands. It’d be nice to get the E2-D for QE, but no news of a decision yet.
Frank
Here, Here.
Good article. The author has a good point about China also need a twin turbo propeller slower airplane that can take off and land on carriers.
I suggest David Axe et al. pay special attention to Chinese internet in the next few months. He will be very surprised to find out that Chinese are not Russians.
A hint to David:
Google MA60 and imagine a shortened version with a mushroom on the back.
PeterDownUnder
Does China think that its economy is so well on track that it can undertake such expensive projects like this before taking in other economic matters such as social welfare.
Took Japan 40 years South Korea 30 years before they started to even be credible enough to defend their own territories let alone power project. They are still being coaxed by the US and are not spending enough to defend their territories on their own because they are spending money else where on development and social welfare.
China has been developing for 20 years. I think they should concentrate on social welfare before such endeavors for the face of China and the pride of its leaders. Nationalism may be satisfying but cheaper hospital bills and education and what not will be better for its people.
Just IMO.
megakids
@PeterDownUnder
Your comment is fair. But mind you, if you want “cheaper hospital bills and education and what not will be better for its people.” you need stronger defense. USA is a bully and world largest terrorist nesting place. Can you even imagine if China lacks nuclear and ICBM? It will be unimaginable. I am glad China grows her military capability in proportion to her GDP size, and no letting up should be done.
Frank
To Chinese people, there is nothing more important than defense.
Regardless how much money, education or hospitals you have, if you do not have enough defenses, the rape of Nanking will happen again.
If you do not want your daughter, wife, mother or your grandmother being raped, build more defense.
TLAM Strike
This is all assuming that China intends their carrier(s) for an offensive role. Its very possable that the Shi Lang will be used as a defensive aircraft carrier, to defend their task forces invading the Spraty Islands or whatnot. Local AAW and ASW are what the Russian Kiev and Kuznetsov carriers were intended for and in fact that is what most countries operate their carriers for the US and France are the only countries that operate “attack” aircraft carriers.
Cody
China is falling right into the US strategy, it will spend billions of dollars on it’s military forces until the point where it’s economy is ripe for failure at the correct strategic moment the US will begin to cut it’s dependence on products from china causing the collapse of it’s GDP long before it reaches a trillion leaving them unable to sustain it’s large military spending oldest trick in the book get someone hooked on drugs and then increase the price causing them to lose everything to maintain…
John Chan
@Cody, it is obvious that you don’t know anything about real economy and financing; at the same time you are still living in the Regan era. USA spends 4.5% GDP on defence, and China spends 2.5% GDP on defence. Because China’s PPP advantage, China’s money can go way longer than the US; in addition the corrupted defence funding system in the US makes it spends huge amount of money yet produce little result, such $6000 toilet seat, $2000 spanner, 3.5 billion space fence, 1.5 billion F-35, etc.
Because China’s military industry is largely self contained/reliant so China can fund its defence spending with RMB, which is a way of job creation, it only needs to spend foreign currency to buy imports, which China has more than 3 trillion. Yet the US has to borrow in order to fund its defence spending, now the US foreign debt is in the trillions, and China is its biggest lender. This situation is a total reversal during the Regan era when the US crippled the USSR with economic means. Nowadays the US is in the shoes of USSR during the cold war era.
If you are a US citizen, you better pray the US government does no such thing as you ignorantly bragged in your comment. Stop importing China’s products into the US will cripple the living standard of the US people. One female journalist wrote a book about a year’s life without Chinese goods in the US. Her conclusion was simply impossible; running shoes will cost hundreds instead tens, some of the products simply are not available anymore.
The drug you are talking about is the debt and consumption hooked on by the US and its people. China is making effort to reduce the dependence on export, is the US doing something to reduce the dependence on China’s loan and products?
Cody you must come out of the Cloud of Cuckoo Land. Ronald Regan and Cold War have gone decades ago. Peaceful co-existence is the only way to go for the future of humanity. USA’s bellicose nature only hurts itself and its lackeys but nobody else.
Tom
Hi John,
You’re a very smart guy, so you should have known that China itself and the US will NEVER be BROKE! Try to find this out yourself if you’re still confused!As for China’s being the US’s biggest creditor, then it is not the case here! The biggest creditor of the US government is the AMERICAN INDIVIDUALS and INSTITUTIONS with over 62% of the US national debt. China is just the biggest FOREIGN creditor (and manipulator!!!)with only 7.5%! And next is Japan with 6.4%. This figure is not significant in any sense!!Thus, don’t expect the US military won’t have enough money for its global task!
John Chan
@Tom, indeed I am confused, I thought Americans(US) were very patriotic and they loved their nation very much; can’t the American(US) donate their national IOU ( treasuries and bonds) to their government and help out their government a bit? If they do, it surly would stop rest of world lecturing the US on living beyond its means. Or American(US) do not walk the talk when it comes to the doing the real and hard work of patriotism?
Tom
John Chan,
You are a smart guy so please do not ask this kind of silly question! You know better than me!The US actually does not need any help from China’s buying its UST-bonds. Many many articles relating to this issue have been written by well-known American economists and the latest written by JOSEPH GAGNON &GARY HUFBAUER on April 25, 2011 on Foreign Affairs , I repost the link below so you could have a glance at it if you’ve not read it yet! China’s practice of buying UST-bonds is not welcome!!You really think China itself & the US will be broke?
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67810/joseph-gagnon-and-gary-hufbauer/taxing-chinas-assets
Frank
This carrier costs $20 million to buy. Less than one Eurofighter airplane India wants to buy.
Refurbishment is done in China. Very low cost also.
TLAM Strike
On a Chinese BBS someone just posted an image of what appears to be a Chinese version of the E-2 Hawkeye:
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/05/chinese-hawkeye-awac.html
Frank
Oh Noooooo !!!!!
I want to watch the show called “Arrogances and Stupidities”.
Could you not give out the end that fast?
Tango
China has bought Russian Ka-31 helicopters for its new carrier, then the US has already had some kind of stealth choppers said to be used in the recent raid to kill bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383482/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Did-US-forces-use-stealth-helicopters-raid.html
And the good news:
“…Short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) capability for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter reached a milestone in maturity last week.
On April 25, Lockheed Martin test pilot David “Doc” Nelson flew structural loads test aircraft BF-3 on its first flight in STOVL mode followed by its first vertical landing on April 29; and on April 27, U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Fred “Tinman” Schenk completed the first vertical landing in mission systems test aircraft BF-4.
“We’re making good progress in preparing for shipboard testing later this year,” said Schenk. “We’ve completed all the vertical landings and more than eighty percent of the short take-offs we need for shipboard testing…Defensetalk.com.”
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/f-35b-demonstrates-maturity-in-stovl-operations-33938/#ixzz1LdIvIhKz
And the F35B has also succeeded in 1st vertical landing
http://www.defencetalk.com/f-35b-jsf-first-vertical-landing-video-25094/
Hope they will be deployed timely, together with X47Bs, for warmly greeting China’s first aircraft carrier in the East & South China Seas!
Joseph Tan
ROME is not made in one day. As the US navy spokesperson had said it took the US decades to perfect the current carrier.
THE CHINESE had a saying – a journey to a thousand mile began with the first step. And by this summer, hopefully, the baby would began her first step!!!!
Frank
F-35B is no match to J-15, not to mention the new stealth version J-18.
F-35B is smaller and has shorter range and fewer payloads.
That said, there is very little chance for these two to fight against each other.
China is not going to attack the best customer and borrower. They depend on Americans to work hard to pay back the loan. Americans are not stupid to risk their comfortable homes to fight China.
The most likely large scale naval war in the near future is between China and India. However, India is not buying F-35B. They bought Eurofighter. It makes more sense to use Eurofighter for its carriers.
However, Indians are not good at logical thinking. They might buy F-35B also.
However, India does not have an aircraft that can provide AWAC aerial radars, aerial refueling and electronic warfare. India does not have capability to develop one either.
Tango
Frank,
You boast too much about j15s & j18s. These are just the stuffs copied from Russian Su-33 fighter jets without any kind of stealth technology!! The naked truth, sadly,is China has not a bit of innovation itsself except copying and pirating, and in some case stealing other countries’technologies for its illegaly own use! Yes, The US is currently the big important customer of China but never its borrower!! China bought trillion dollars of UST-bond just for its currency manipulation for its own export advantage over other countries, not for lending money to the US! Be clear here!
Johnny
@Tango I agree. All Chinese fighters are either russian or direct copy (read:stolen) of Russian designs. Heck, even their J-20 is using Russian engine.
China is holding US T bonds in huge quantity but that means USA has command over China’s fund not the other way around. Seignorage gains play an important part here and understand that an country who can print unlimited amount of global tender will not collapse. If it does it will take all international market, especially China, with it.
ASEAN
Frank said: “F-35B is no match to J-15, not to mention the new stealth version J-18.”
Haha… YOU WISH!
The technology on the F-35 is the combination of America’s 20-plus years of leading innovation in stealth technology. It is so far ahead of its time that even the Russian (who are the real master of Chinese defense technology) have a hard time matching it. Both the Russians and Chinese only have fielded prototypes with a lot of bluffing about their technologies on paper (boasting how they could match or defeat the F-22s, blah-blah…). While China is toying around with Russian-copied technology, the U.S. is making big leaps in developing the 6th generation fighters.
As for the much hyped Chinese aircraft carrier: How is that 60,000 ton of non-nuclear, no-superiority fighters, inexperienced personnel ship would go against a mighty 100,000+ ton of nuclear powered U.S. aircraft carrier with more than half a century experience and all the fighters, weapons complimenting it?
Bill
I stopped reading when it suggested that the J-15 is a “copy” of the Su-33? How can one jet (the J-15 utilizes indigenous technologies such as engines and radar and bears no ties to the Flanker besides its airframe design) be a copy of another when it features a completely different set of technologies and upgrades?