Actually, latest rumours suggest J-31 was rejected by PLANAF for their new generation carrier fighter, while a naval version of J-20 was chosen as winner… so J-31 may well end up being the demonstrator if PLAAF doesn’t demonstrate interest.

Are you telling the Members of this Forum. That it is ok for China to Steal??? We are not talking about a concept and then improving on it. China in fact has no problem stealing and making exact copies of whatever it wants. Regardless, if its Military or Private Sector.

In the long run, it is ok for everyone to steal, and everyone has stole from each other.

But I don’t think anyone has patented the ouija board as a means for keeping track of a flight deck, and it would be stupid for PLAN to use a different way for their first carrier.
Besides, to lead, you need to catch up first. Being snide about it only conveys a sense of bitterness or threat on your part.

Problem is, china probably won’t use H-6K like B-52, as a high altitude,long endurance, orbiting bomb truck, because the PLA won’t be fighting insurgencies anytime soon and ther potential enemies can create airspace which an H-6K won’t last long in if carrying non standoff munitions

So what do you see the purpose of the H-6K as being? Perhaps nothing more than a test bed for future Chinese bombers and their weaponry?

A stand off cruise missile carrier. It can carry 6 (maybe 7) CJ-10Ks, which are basically air launched tomahawks. It provides the PLA another vehicle to launch long range conventional cruise missiles from, apart from land and future sea based platforms. Also it could serve as a nuclear delivery platform, as CJ-10K is certainly developed with an intent to carry nuclear warheads

It will probably also be capable of carrying the existing and future variety of air launched missiles from KD-88, to YJ-91, and probably YJ-12 as well. A flight of H-6Ks hauling each hauling a full load of YJ-12s or KD-88s could deliver a devastating blow to any ASEAN military or their navy considering the relative backwardness of their fighting capability.
With its FLIR turret, large radar, long range and high payload, H-6K also makes a potent independent maritime patrol and anti shipping platform, good for a battlespace where air superiority has been gained.

Personally I hope PLAAF has the foresight to integrate some PGMs to H-6K, if only to give greater flexibility for mission planning, but PLA has a limited budget and I doubt FT and LS series equipped H-6Ks are high on their list of priorities

Well the rather exposed aft suddenly gives vikrant a very canberra/juan carlos look.

Unless India is planning to forward position their navy in westpac, they have nothing to fear from China’s A2AD weapons. And the way the IN will be in the near future, and considering the lack of wide area air defence ships in the IN, I’d fear air launched and surface launched cruise missile attacks more than AShBM.

So the “carrier race” between IN and PLAN is still up ongoing. IN has an advantage in having some past experience with small carriers and over the table russian training, but clearly PLAN has the edge in constructing, as well as operating, escorts (compare and how many FFGs and DDGs china’s put in service over the last ten years compared with India), and also SSNs (regardless of how quiet or loud 091 and 093 supposedly are). Also, I don’t think anyone will dispute that the Chinese have a superior shipbuilding industry by a few leaps, and can provide indigenous subsystems for their own hulls.

Whoever wins the carrier game will depend on how well they can pump out escorts and submarines, the rate and types of carriers they build, and how well they can integrate all the hardware both fleetwide, and aboard the flight deck itself.

China will probably seek to deploy more naval fleets in the Indian Ocean to protect its trade and oil routes — that is probably their long term goal for their blue water navy. So chances are, India will respond with their own A2AD system in due course, which would certainly be an interesting development. I can’t see IN setting up vikramditya or vikrant in westpac, not with the near term escort capability IN can scrounge together.

There are of course many cases of unresolved grievances scattered across recent history through aggressive invasions by countries with terrible atrocities (china though? Unless you’re including the days of the dynasties that statement doesn’t hold water. Or unless its some delft statement about Tibet or something)

Japan is an interesting case, because however you cut it, they had the effect on east Asia for much of the early 20th centuru which nazi germany did post 1939 on Europe, along with the fantastic notions of racial (at least cultural) superiority. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki everything is history. Nazis got Nuremberg and their society was broken down and reformed in the shadow knowing what they did was completely and utterly despicable. Japanese war criminals got wonderful careers as academics and entrepreneurs and in government, and while the trauma of nuclear bombs and fire bombing remained in the memory of Japan’s social fabric, neither their society nor government has had to face the full reflection of their actions, and probably never will.

Of note, izumo, their new “destroyer” holds the same name as the flagship cruiser that led the IJN invasion forces against china last century… Not to mention launching it on the anniversary of Hiroshima.

Here’s a question that’s kind of related.

I’ve seen statements that Chinese C802 missiles have a range of 180 km and C803 have a range of up to 300-400 kms.

Has there been any confirmation of this? It makes these missiles equivalent or better than many Western ones in terms of range.

I didn’t think Chinese had any great proficiency in engines, let alone over West.

Also do Chinese have required target acquisition systems for OTH launches, esoecially if such missiles are deployed from a fighter aircraft?

C-802 and 803 are export designations for a YJ-82, which has a minimum range of 180km. There may be variants with upgraded range and performance but that is the “standard version” people refer to.

The super long range AShM you are thinking of is YJ-62, a tomahawk sized heavy anti shipper with a range of over 400km (280 km for export version). Basically it is similar to TASM. So I would not say that china has any proficiency of small turbofan engines over the west, but rather the US and Western Europe has rested on the laurels of harpoon, Exocet as their main anti shipping weapons (perhaps intending to rely on carriers as the main hitting force of a fleet).

We see signs of this changing, with the LRASM of course which is basicsally a stealthy, subsonic YJ-62 with multiple sensor types, but china isn’t staying still either, as we’ve recently seen the “4,4” anti shipper YJ-12, a ramjet missile with a max speed of Mach 4 and 400 orange (although more conservative sources say 280 range, Mach 3 speed). Then there’s the YJ-18, a new generation subsonic AShM which nobody quite knows what it looks like…

OH-1s, and AH-1s, who knew they were such potent anti carrier and anti fighter weapons!