plawolfTut tut. Such intemperate language, & distortion of what has been said, & at the same time labelling the person who has carefully stuck to facts as a troll. Look in the mirror 😀
The original statement to which I replied said that Japan had territorial claims on all its neighbours, including Russia. So mentioning the Russian-held islands followed on logically from that. Not my fault if you can’t keep track. :p And no, China isn’t claiming Okinotori, but is disputing Japans claim to the waters around it, on grounds which China does not consider valid when applied to its own claims in the South China Sea.
So is that why you made those remarks when quoting my reply to Franco? How very very pathetic. :rolleyes:
Its you who is trying to hi-jack this thread to make unrelated rants, and it is you who is the one trying to distort things to cover up your own pathetic mistakes.
Get a life.
plawolfI’m just curous as to how you reached that 2030 date. What were the estimates used for choosing it? What is it based on?
plawolfDamn it again we have gone off topic and started squabbling. PLAN will ofcourse have a carrier one day but I don’t see PLAN having the capability to use a carrier effectively till 2030 atleast. Lets just concentrate on type, size shape of the proposed carrier and plane.
Would you mind explaining how you reach that 2030+ deadline for us?
Also, at this stage, talk about the type, size, shape…anything specific about indiginous Chinese carriers are pointless since nothing has been decided yet.
plawolfSo you’re doubting what I say? Would you like to say what I’ve said that isn’t absolutely correct? You’ll have difficulty, because there isn’t anything.
Are you Francois5?
plawolfJust conveniently rewritten nonetheless.
Don’t feed the troll.
plawolfOkinotori was annexed land?
China is claiming Okinotori? Well thats news to me. Or are you just being ignarent to the nature of the dispute over that island? :rolleyes:
And Habomai, Etorofu, Shikotan & Kunashiri? Tell me, what war of aggression did Japan wage against Russia before the Treaty of Shimoda in 1855, to seize those islands? 😀
What does Russia and Russian claims have anything to do with Japanese annexation of Chinese territory? Some people must have really short attention spans to not be able to keep track of what they themselves are ranting about. :rolleyes:
plawolfWell, China can’t nuke Japan.
It would have a tremendous repercution and would surely mean the end of China.
Japan has no nukes, and wiil stay that way.
So if you try anything that way, you will have ALL OTHER NUCLEAR POWERS bombing you.
That is that simple.
What is the purpose of this load of nonesensical ranting? :rolleyes:
Now, who is the country claiming all neighbors lands and islands?
Not Japan that I know.
So we ALL know the purpose for China to field carriers.
Go look in a history book and see who all those islands belonged to before they were annexed by Japan in wars of aggression. Now how much annexed land did Germany keep again? :rolleyes:
plawolfCompared to a country like mainland China, Taiwan is so puny that I seriously wonder about the wisdom of pooring billions and billions of dollars into armaments, such as carrier(s) and escorts, to generate a capability to force Taiwan back into China.
I’m not saying that China is building towards a carrier force just for the sake of Taiwan. Carriers are an intergral part of any true blue water navy, and China will soon tire of having all its shipping lanes at the mercy of other nations and would want to be able to have its own say in the security of its fast expanding merchant shipping fleets.
What I am saying is that once the PLA have built up a capable carrier force, then that would give them all sorts of new options when it comes to Taiwan. Assuming that the Island had not reunited with the mainland by then.
plawolfWhy would Japan feel more threatened about a Chinese carrier? Should Japan feel more rightly threatened about Chinese SSBMs carrying nuclear warheads? Or Chinese SSMs and IRBMs with nukes? There are more things Japan should feel more threatened about than a Chinese carrier.
Another reason to start with a small air wing for a carrier would also help to ease Japanese concerns as not even the most deluded Imperialist could make much of a case that an ancient, half powered carrier with 2 planes for it would constitute a threat to Japanese interests. Given a few years or decade to get used to the idea of the PLAN having carriers and it should not be such a massive shock for them when the PLAN do eventially develop meaningful carrier forces.
As for Taiwan, it means nothing because a Chinese carrier has zero tactical relevance to a Straits war. The Straits are too close and narrow. It will be a massively dense air war fought with land based aircraft from both sides.
Actually, a powerful PLAN carrier force would cause Taiwan all sorts of headaches. With carriers, the PLA can enforce a credible naval blockade of Taiwan and starve them. Used more assertively, PLAN carrier based strike ac, and maybe the invasion force itself, can come from the east, where Taiwan currently have very little defences. That would either force Taiwan to redeploy its existing assests from the east (therefore weakening its defences there), or to have to effectively double its SAM and AShM numbers to be able to cover both sides equally effectively. Something the small island could ill afford.
However, the money needed for deploying carriers and escorts in sufficient numbers for the above strategy to be viable would most likely yeild far greater dividened more quickly for the PLA if they just bought more land based fighters instead.
Carriers are a goal the PLA is working towards at a relaxed pace. Its something that they would like to have but don’t desperately need at present. So spending priorities goes to more urgent programmes, with what could be spared put into the carrier fund as a investment for the future.
plawolfI’m sure the Chinese would like to get their hands on a Rafale M if only to get a close look at it’s nosewheel design, as it is a Nose tow launched CATOBAR aircraft, and would help any catapult program they have. So far the Chinese have had plenty of opportunity to examine the catapult from HMAS Melbourne, but this was an older wire bridle type and they would probably like to get their hands on something more modern. The Rafale could probably launch from a ski jump in STOBAR mode as it has very powerful engines, and these are the deciding factor. When an aircraft leaves the end of a ski jump, it is not yet at flying speed so is kept in the air on engine thrust alone for a few seconds. it continues upwards because of the ramps exit angle, and without sufficient thrust would soon fall back to earth, but otherwise is subject to increasing speed from it’s engines and soon reaches flying speed, at which point the wings start to provide lift and the aircraft begins flying conventionally. So far the only CTOL aircraft seen to use the STOBAR method are ones with BIG engines.
Modern steam catapults are hardly engineering miracles. Some theme park rides use the same principle if not design to shoot screaming holiday makers up and down the tracks all day long. The most difficult part is material sciences needed to be able to reliably handle the massive pressure that needs to built up to have enough power to catapult a 20t fighter to flight speed within a few hundred feet. That and the huge amount of power needed to produce steam for routine use without needing a ridiculously large percentage of the carrier being used as fuel tanks. That’s why carriers with catapults tend to be nuclear powered.
These are not problems that can be solved by just looking at a catapult’s design or the nosewheel of a plane.
plawolfwhy do i get the impression we will still all be here talking about what the Chinese will do with the Varyag or if they will build a carrier or not when they finally do roll out half a dozen large carriers designed to take on US interests in the Pacific. Lets not be daft here.. China sees the US as the threat, not India, not Japan and definatelly not Taiwan. For China all these countries would be pretty well screwed with or without carriers, it makes no difference whether you have them or not. There is no strategic benefit of having a 1 v 1 light carrier contest with India, if China wanted to take out the Indian navy then a battlegroup built around the Sovs as well as the type 51/2/4’s would be more than adequate. Japan and Taiwan are well within land based range, both aircraft and missile.
If you accept that then you will see that the US is the only real competitor in the region that would REALLY require a carrier (probably several) and in that situation China really does NOT want 1 or 2 or 3 carriers visible for all that have a sattelite to see, sitting in dry dock somewhere known getting built. It would give the US too long a lead time to prepare for the threat (like training its pilots to fly anti-shipping missions, maybe they can ask their Argentinian friends about a trick or 2).
The way i think it would be done is that the Varyag is used for training, rotating crews on it and training as many naval aviators as possible as well as using mock ups and the like (of wich i have seen a pic of on both this website and on sinodefence.com) The carriers will be buit in secret or at the very least they will be disguised as something else until the last minute (as crude tankers possibly). Once they are built there will be already a pool of trained sailors/aviators and China will go from having 1 training carrier to 4, 5, 6 REAL carriers in a matter of weeks.. and everyone will wonder where the hell they came from… AND I WILL SAY I TOLD YOU SO
Carriers are nothing without their escorts. Wait till the PLAN have enough 051Cs, 052Bs, 052Cs, 054As and 093 SSNs etc for several battlegroup’s worth. Thats when heavy or superheavy Chinese carriers might suddenly start popping out of the blue in numbers. Its far too early for such developments now.
plawolfFor all that trouble, you’re going to make only 50 aircraft? That’s not cost effective. If China plans a larger carrier fleet that would require at least 300 fighters maybe that would justify the cost of a homebrew naval fighter. But for 50 or even 100? You might as well buy off the shelf.
50 is most likely the maximum projected number of fighters the PLAN might need/want for a fully combat capable Varyag with some spares thrown in for good measure. However, if China does decide to deploy carriers, I would bet my bottom dollar that they will not stop at 1, or even 3.
But thats at least a decade away. Thus there will be ample time to make the mods needed to existing planes, or even design a brand new one for the indiginous carriers.
plawolfRussia train them on what? The Kuz itself rarely moves out into sea. But if they do help then it is a big help for china.
Why is the Kuz rarely at sea these days? Money. If the Chinese are paying, why would the Russians say no to a free ride?
plawolfit’s probably better to keep on developing your own fighters than importing export versions of foreign fighters. The only reason that China is getting su-33 right now is because its indigenous naval fighter development probably didn’t start until recently.
It would depend largely on the technolgical difference between what you can build and what you can buy, and the kind of ToT you can get out of a deal. The Rafale is almost certainly more advanced then anything China can make at present. Thus, if China can buy it and get decent ToT with the deal, then that would be an investment as much as it is a consumption, as the new technologies that China would gain from such a deal would greatly help its indiginous industry, especially in the avionics and engine departments.
However, whether the Rafale will still offer enough technological advanatge for ToT to be worth the cost in 5, 10 years time would be a difficult question to answer.
plawolfnot likely, It’s either going to be su-33, or a modified J-11 or a navalized J-10
Depends on the time frame. If the PLAN is not planning on having a real carrier force until after 2010 or 2015+, then the Rafale suddenly doesn’t seem like such a remote possibility. Although whether the PLAN would still want the Rafale then would be a more interesting question.
Sign In
