This whole thread is pointless. Rafales are not going to china and Su-33 would be the ideal option considering PLAN already operates Su-27’s. But where is the carrier? Who is going to teach them how to operate one? Russia? France? UK? USA. I doubt it. India had to send their pilots to britain in the 60’s and 70’s and now for STOBAR to USA. Even if Varyag is completed I doubt PLAN would even know how to use it properly until 2015-20 timeframe.

The Russians have offered to train PLA pilots on in carrier ops in Russia IIRC, and thus it would be clear that they would be willing to teach pretty much anything else the PLAN would need to know about carrier ops for the right price.

Its also not like the PLAN is a bunch of kids just out of naval college. They have been operating large warships for some decades now, so the would have the kind of people with the kind of experience to figure out how to operate the carrier itself in pretty short order (especially if they are fitting the Varyag with Chinese equipment that many of the crew for the Varyag would be familiar with already). The air wing can all be trained in Russia if needs be, so thats just like any new air wing class.

The only area where the PLAN might have serious deficiencies in is tactics. There are plenty of open source material on carrier op tactics, so they would not be starting from scratch, and the Russians would very likely be able to provide material for the right price. If the PLAN feels it is neccessary, they can have the Varyag battle ready before the decade is out at the latest. After that, the more time the PLAn operates the Varyag, the more efficient they would become and the more sophisticated their tactics. But that’ll cost them a lot.

The key question is how much the PLAN is willing to spend, and that will determine how late the PLAN have a truely combat viable carrier force.

What I’d like to know is why the US didn’t offer Ukraine $25 million for the Varyag rather than let China have it for $20 million. Could have saved themselves LOADS of trouble.

If I was in command of the US Pacific forces, I’d be positively rubbing my hands together with glee at the prospect of the PLAN trying to make the Varyag into an operational carrier. That’ll eat up something like 50% of the PLAN budget for the next 5 years at least on a nice big juicy target that the USN can pretty much sink at its leisure.

If the PLAN invested that money in R&D then the USN would have a far bigger problem to deal with 5, 10, 20 years down the line. A carrier is a huge consumption item, in that it will give you present capacity at a huge cost with little long term benefits. Putting that money into R&D would not give you any additional capacity in the short term, but would yeild an exponentially increasing dividend in the medium and long term.

The question of choosing between consumption and investment is about projected need. A single operational carrier of the Varyag’s class does not offer the PLA any significant benefits in any of its likely future missions. Thus it would just be a case of buying something for the sake of being able to say that you have it. That is a poor reason to buy something in my book.

However, what people seem to be jumping on, almost without thought it seems, is the PROJECTED MAXIMUM number of Su33s the PLAN MIGHT buy. Thus far, it has ordered 2, if that.

Need I list the recent cases of when the Russians have made spectaculary large sales forecasts after the PLA bought a few examples that have come to nothing? The trend for the last decades of PLA arms purchases from Russia has been of:
– massive contract with licence production to arm the PLA in huge numbers (Su27/30, S300, Tor etc)

– stop-gap measures to modernise the PLA faster then the rate at which indiginous products could be produced (Kilo, Sov, Su30 etc)

– sample purchases for evaluation and study (Zhuk radar for J8, Naval S300, S300UMP2, kilo, sov etc)

So far, people have automatically assumed that the interest in Su33s is of the first kind. However, 2 units ‘for tests’ does not fit with any past mass purchase cases, where the order had been the in dozens at least. Buying Su33s en mass is also rather illogical since China already have a fully functional Su27 production line, that seem to be either making 100% indiginous J11s, or running idel depending on which reports you want to beleive. It would make far more sense for the PLA to simply adapt that production line to make navalised Su27s, ie, Su33s, instead of buying them all ready made. Especially if the PLAN wants to use the Su33 as its main carrier based fighter, which would mean pretty big numbers of planes being needed.

It would not take that much time to compair a Su27 and a Su33 and find out what the differences are and make the neccessary mods to the production process to make Su33s with Su27 lines for a nation with China’s experience in R&D and manufacturing.

That is assuming that the PLAN wants to put the Varyag into full active survice.

The far more likely scenario, in my view, is for the PLAN to use the Varyag as primarily a training tool, that may have a secondary combat potential in times of crisis. With the Varyag, the PLAN can get first hand experience in carrier ops that will allow them to develop tactics, train crews and probably get a better idea of what features they would like in their indiginous carriers (by studying the capabilities and limitations of the Varyag approach to carrier design and the limitations such a design imposes on carrier ops) etc that would help to pave the way for the introduction of brand new indiginous carriers in meaningful numbers in 5, 8 or 10+ years time so that those expensive carriers can reach an effective operational capacity far quicker then if they also had to train from scratch and develop tactics and procedures along the way.

I would be seriously suprised if the Su33 order is bigger then a squadron. In fact, I would not be terribly suprised if 2 is all the PLAN buys. They can use those two for technical study while the Varyag is being finished, and then used to experiement with at a relaxed pace to develop a training syllibus. In the meantime, SAC could have made mods to J11s or made new planes to Su33 standards in time to have enough planes ready to train the first batches of carrier air crews in large numbers in preporation for the completion of brand new indigious carriers more suited to operate Flanker sized aircraft from.

The study of the Su33 would also aid the development of a navalised J10 or FC1 if such a plane was deemed neccessary.

In the Far East, only in Japan has there been major indignation at this. Even in South Korea, there hasn’t been much reaction on the street. There is none in China. The US makes a much bigger deal out of this than almost everyone in Asia (save Japan.)

From the strictly Chinese point of view, nukes in the hand of NK or even Japan doesn’t change the overall equation concerning China since the PRC already has thousands of nukes trained on it from the United States. Japan is already protected by nukes — American ones.

Chinese reaction along its border with NK currently is strictly to keep the United States from taking military action against North Korea which China doesn’t want.

In the long run, clearing the North Korean (and the Iranian) problem would just allow the US to concentrate on China. So it is arguably very much against Chinese interest to fully deal with North Korea. It is far better to keep it as a buffer state even as a nuclear armed one.

Any Chinese reaction against North Korea is probably hammered out between Washington and Beijing with the US giving up ground in other policies (trade, Taiwan, Chinese interests in the Middle East, Africa or South America, etc.) in quid pro quo deals.

I agree that it is not in China’s best interests to go and solve this crisis for the US at great risk and cost (and by that, I mean a direct military invasion to topple the current regeme and take over the country, which includes reconstruction, cos I sure as hell can’t see another way of getting Kim to give up his nukes, EVER). Unless the US makes China an offer Beijing can’t refuse (like an US declaration cutting off all offical links to Taiwan or scrapping current export restrictions on the sale of hi-tech equipment and materials to China).

However, Japan developing a nuclear arsenal would be of great concern to Beijing, and would be something that China would never want to see happen. Japan with NMD/TMD and nuclear tipped IRBM/ICBMs would force China into a costly arms race that it would really rather not get into. Then there is also the very real possibility of SK, and infinately worse for China, Taiwan also developing nukes as a response.

Hmmm. Very interesting! Do better next time. And for crying out loud get a dictionary! The only thing weirder than the drivel you write are your spellings. :rolleyes:

Resorting to blatantly fabricating lies. How very pathetic.

And as a rule of thumb, the only time someone bothers with raising spelling is when they have ran out of other points to make but still desperately want to spit some more bile to vent their frastration.

Grow up.

They would be retired to wherever they want to. I think they’d still trust China to look after them.

I think you may missed the quotation marks around ‘retired’. Would anyone bat an eyelid if Kim suddenly had himself a ‘tragic accident’ or suddenly because overwhelmed with depression/guilt/whatever and threw himself off a tower after a few years in SK or China? To someone who is used to ‘retiring’ others at a whim, such thoughts would be unlikely not to pass through kimmy’s head.

Someone who spends most of his free time watching US films obviously enjoys luxuries. Death is final – I think if Kim were able to grasp the reality of a hopeless situation his primal instinct of self-preservation would overrule any personal vanity.

What makes you think any garentee of safety will mean anything to him?

Exactly. If that fanatical regime told them to “stand down” while Chinese and South Korean troops rolled in they would. North Koreans are tired and hungry. I think they would accept a new leadership if it could feed them.

I’m not well versed in NK brainwashing texts, but I’d be surprised if, ‘fight all evil invaders to the last drop of blood’ is not in there excessively. Besides, the army is indoctorinated to be loyal to Kim. If Kim doesn’t play ball, then there is little chance of the army playing nice and stand down.

Of course, one solution could be to have Kim stay in power or “officially” hand it over to another NK politician, while having things in reality controlled by the regional powers. Then he could “retire” later on.

And what makes you think Kim is just going to watch and let you kill him the slow way? A man like that would choose to go out with a bang and be remembered in history then be erased without a whimper and be forgotten as a historical footnote.

North Korea could be tolerated whilst Beijing felt it could control Kim – there is no way it can be allowed to operate thinking it can do as it pleases, as that would be a threat to Chinese security. It would also make Chinese diplomacy look weak and ineffectual, because if China’s “client state” can get away with defying it, anyone else could.

NK is not China’s client state. The regime is kept alive with aid because it is viewed as the least of all evils. That assessment may have to re-evaluated. The issue is that the only way of really punishing Kim would be to either impose chocking sanctions (anything less would just be passed onto the NK people while the regime is largely unaffected) which might easily cause NK to implode or lash out; or to take out its nuclear plants and/or other important military instalations. However, the US and SK can’t bomb these facilies since a devastating artillary barrage on key SK cities would be the almost assured response. That leaves either China or Russia. The Russians have little to loose with a nuclear NK, and thus the chances of them getting directly involved is pretty remote. The Chinese can do it, but would demand hefty consessions from the US on Taiwan and other issues before they are willing to risk a war with NK.

Other then the US making major concessions, China will be unlikely to apply all its leverage for fear of being saddled with having to clean out all the mess themselves and Taiwan taking the opportunity to declear independence while much of the PLA’s best men and equipment is engaged in the North.

Much better to take a small risk by supporting sanctions in some form than letting North Korea carry on as it is and give a clear message to all countries of the world that they can obtain nuclear weapons at their leisure.

China will almost certainly support and apply sanctions. However, for the sanctions to actually have any hope of hurting the regime and affecting their behaviour instead of just killing innocent women and children, they would have to be pretty serve, and applying such sanctions would entail more then just a ‘small risk’.

A good guess about that will be the data of the similar size F-2.
Not much composites with the J-10 gives it an empty equipped weight of around 10 tons, when the MTOW is around 22 tons.

Figures based on what?

Not all FC-1 technologies come from J-10 and not all project personnel are the same. Besides, who told you “key members of the J10 design team” are “released from the J10 project to work on the FC1”?

How about the offical press releases for the FC1? :rolleyes: They have been posted on this very forum. The search function is your friend.

Repeat: Counterexamples show the potential effects of incomplete information could have on the analysis and conclusion.

But your counter examples have absolutely nothing in common with the situation at hand. You are just picking examples that back your view point without any regard as to whether they fit with the available information. Such examples proves nothing but your motives.

Just because you believe J-10 must be more successful than FC-1 and J-10 would not encounter any problems DOES NOT make it automatically true.

So the massive engine orders; reports of two to three production lines; the offical secrecy around the J10 still; PAK’s decision to buy J10s in addition to their FC1s and F16s; the PLAAF’s total lack of interest in the FC1 all somehow managed to get lost on you?

If you only see what you want to see, then there is little point in continuing this discussion.

By your tone, someone could say J-10 “was only and abandoned paper project called J-9”, which doesn’t mean anything either.

What are you talking about? How does that make any sort of sense? When the development work for the J10 started, and throughout the course of its development, the FC1 did not exists as anything other then a failed paper project. Thus it could not possible have been concieved as a backup for the J10 in any way shape or form. How hard is that to understand?

You are still saying exactly the same thing in different ways: namely “J-10 is already a success before FC-1”. However there isn’t enough information about the timelines of these two projects in the first place. Do you even know the details of J-10’s pre-planned product improvement? That’s only one of the many things people need to assess J-10 progress and technical risks reduction/mitigation.

Typical. Ignore the mountain of data freely available and insist on having some obscure peice that you know is not in the public domain. :rolleyes: Do you know the pre-planned product improvement for the J7, J8, JH7, Q5 or anything else Chinese? Hell, do you even know such info for the B2 and F117?

You are not analysing the data to try and reach a logical conclusion, you are trying to find reasons not to, so you can propagate your own baseless theories.

It doesn’t matter if J-10 and FC-1 weren’t developed completely in parallel. No one said FC-1 was “conceived as backup”, it COULD serve as backup because the opportunity came up.

Is that why the PLAAF is showing absolutely no interest in the FC1? If the J10 is seriously bugged and the FC1 offers even comparable performance at a much lower cost, the PLAAF would be jumping on the bandwagon like a starved man on a hot meal. They are not. Thus your theory has no backing in reality. Its a similar situation with the PAF, they have the FC1 in the bag and the option to buy new F16s, yet they still went out of their way to get the J10 deal. Should say something about the performance of the J10 in respect to the FC1 at least.

Read your own words. You said J-10 and FC-1 comes the same company and the same design/engineering team, therefore it must be a success. A-12 and F-15E / F/A-18C/D came from the same company yet that didn’t ensure A-12’s success.

Yes, go read what I wrote, because it sure as hell isn’t, ‘J10 and FC1 made by CAC thus they must be successes’. Thus your whole arguement is moot.

You also said FC-1 personnels moved on to J-10 therefore there must be no design compromises or problems with J-10 performance. Therefore the reply: Design compromises could also be considered “problem solved” by officials, but the impact of performance is the same.

‘Could’ is a hell of a long way from ‘did’. You are actually trying to use totally baseless theories to try and prove a point? 😮

PS, please let that be a typo, because I have little interest in talking to people who could not even read properly.

Saying an example is “poor and inaccurate” or “defy reality” doesn’t explain anything.

What more is there to say when the ‘examples’ in question have no linkage whatsoever to the topic at hand?

You are once again stating your belief that something must be true
and insist that therefore it’s true.

No, and there lies the critcal difference. I am starting the theory that I had developed after studying the relevent information available. You are merely stating that, ‘well XYZ happened there, so it might happen here, even though I have absolutely zero evidence to suggest that it might have happened here, and that all the evidence disproves it did happen here’.

Merely “carrying A-G weapons” do not define performance optimization. A-10, F-16C/D, F/A-18E/F, F-14, F-117, B-2 all could carry PGM, yet their performance emphasis are all distinctive.

Do you forget what you yourself wrote this quickly and easily? :rolleyes:

You just toss a random theory into the air that, ‘the FC1 might be ‘superior’ because the J10 was designed as a multi-role fighter while the FC1 is a fighter’. I merely pointed out the obvious flaw in that theory since the FC1 is quite evidently also a multi-role fighter.

I used the simplified “one for A-A, one added A-G requirement” or “multirole” as the extreme example to show the possible differences. It’s easy to infer the validity of non-borderline case and the importance of knowing more detail data.

All that is irrelevent. The J10 is a meduim weight fighter, while the FC1 is a light weight. The differences in capacity represented by the two different weight classes can only be nulified by major technological advantage on the side of the lighter ac. Its a basic concept, and it buggles the mind to think that someone still cannot grasp it after all this.

The fact that the FC1 started so soon after the completion of the J10 (or during the final development stages depending of what you want to beleive) by the same company that developed the J10, together with the unusually quick development cycle of the FC1, and the FC1’s design parametres all add together to rule out a major technological breakthrough large enough to nulify the inharent difference in capacity represented by the two weight classes.

Just to show how improbably what you are trying to suggest is, there have never been a case in modern aviation history where two fighters of differing weight classes of the same generation, designed for similar roles by the same country during a similar time period, had the light weight as superior.

It’s obvious you don’t work well with higher abstractions, but that doesn’t make principles unrelated or irrelevant.

Obvious, how exactly? Besides, pure abstractions are by their definition, useless when applied to specific examples without modifiers to take into account the unique circumstances this particular situation represents. Rattling off meaningless ‘principles’ and examples that do not apply to the situation at hand is fatally flawed from the offset, and it will only be by dumb luck that you might get anything right, and the laws of proabablity would mean that it will be highly unlikely, thus suitably a rare occassion when such blind insistence on avoilding reality will yeild anything remotely resembling the truth.

Buying J-10 doesn’t help FC-1. Reducing the risk for PAF isn’t the same as reducing risks for FC-1.

Do you not even remember what you yourself have said before? :rolleyes:

If the J10 is in trouble, as you seem desperate to show, then how does buying into that reduce the risks for the PAF? As for the FC1, well of course the PAF buying J10s will hurt the FC1. First the PLAAF, then the PAF, both opting for J10s when they could have gone for FC1s (more FC1s in the case of the PAF), what does that say to other potential export customers of this export oriented designed fighter? :rolleyes:

Your examples don’t make sense even when intergrated with each other. :rolleyes:

Of course double investment could cause more problems than benefits. It is exactly this type of tradeoffs that make defense procurement decisions complex. Purchase should ideally only reflect technical performance, but that’s not always true (which is what you seem to imply many times).

There is absolutely no benefit for the PLAAF in the FC1 project, so where is the ‘trade’ part of tradeoff? :rolleyes: What do they have to gain from the FC1 when all the risks for the J10 had been taken and weathered by the time the FC1 started?

And of course there are always exceptions. That seems to be your only line of arguement on anything. :rolleyes: However, unless you actually have some evidence to back up your random exception theory, then all they are are baseless theories. Baseless theories are a penny a million, and it is pointless to try and disprove them since there is absolutely no need. You are the one coming up with the theory that the FC1 is somehow on par or superior to the J10, thus it is up to you to provide arguments and evidence to support that. And no, ‘XYZ happened before some it might happen here’ is nowhere near good enough without any evidence to suggest that it has happened here.

Why should IAF buy both Mirage2000 and MiG-29 to evaluate both? Why should Greece air force buy both F-16 and Mirage 2000? Why should ROCAF buy both F-16 and Mirage 2000? You may think it’s stupid to buy two different aircrafts of similar performance with extra logistics, but there are several non-trivial air forces that did it.

All three cases are because of politcal considerations to do with the different suppliers. None of them applies to the FC1-J10 situation where both are supplied by the same COMPANY. Again, examples that do no fit.

You argued that one aircraft must be vastly superior if it’s purchase in addition to existing types, but there are plenty of counterexaplmes.

Counterexamples that are irrelevent because the fundermental reason for the above AF’s to opt for the two fighter types are not applicable here.

Stop insisting what “may” be true as what “must” be true.

Its what every peice of data we have suggests is true, thus I don’t see what your problem is, especially since all of the examples and theories you have come up with are so far from all the evidence available that even labling them as ‘may be truth’ would be a stretch.

When did I said it’s “certain”? Possbilities aren’t “certain”.

Possibilities based on the mere fact that they may be possible is just cycular reasoning and mean nothing. You might as well claim that the J10 was developed using alien tech because it is possible after all. :rolleyes:

What exactly are you trying to say?