Both already are in all but name.

yes but not useful until the F-35 comes on line though…

With Japanese tradition of understating tonnage of their military ships I wouldn’t be surprised that their “Carriers” are much bigger than we give them credit for…

Tell that to Taiwan.

A carrier could be very useful for providing a threat to Taiwanese assets from a completely different threat axis than currently expected.

Not to mention making it more difficult for the US to intervene if China attempts to forcibly reunite the two countries.

Unicorn

China don’t need a carrier to target Taiwan. The current LPD and recently reported LHD program will do much more in terms of Taiwan situation than a single carrier.

A carrier will not make it more difficult for the US to intervene. The decision for US to intervene or not does not depend on China having a carrier. If anything the carrier will be a big target for saturation attack by both ROCN and USN.

The only use of a carrier for China now is to project power to third world countries or to secure its marine interests which China may need to be able to tackle in the near future. Is there a need for carrier? yes but not for the reasons you stated.

By the time China has a fleet of carriers, so the JMSDF will have several stovl carriers with F-35. The Australians will likely add another flat top to the one they just ordered. And I expect South Korea to add flattops. India would already have several ADS.

It’s not a penis contest here… ergo these countries have very different roles intended for these “carriers”.

SK having flattops or India having several ADS does not equate to power projection.

China is a proven nuclear power, that alone will remain a bigger threat than any carrier fleet. The boomers are more dangerous than all these fleets combined.

I heard the P-3C part of the deal was complete. Yet, I have know idea about the Submarine Part? As a matter of fact does anyone know what design has been selected and who is going to build it??? As for the F-16 deal……….I believe it’s going ahead regardless or at least seems so.:confused:

The F-16 deal fell through and was rejected on the terms that Taiwan can not come to terms with the previous weapons purchase proposal.

The sub deal is also sort of a mistory since no design was ever chosen and given the unlikelyhood now of any european participation.State department had already stated that the cost for these ships to be constructed in Taiwan is prohibitive. I’d say Taiwan might recieve maybe a shrunk down LA class with redesigned diesel power plants.

If this is the proof of sensor fusion, then almost all warships have sensor fusion.

There are many different types of sensor fusion – measurement/plot level fusion (SYS-2/TMS on various American, Canadian, German and Taiwanese ships and Australian CEA-MAST on Aussie FFG-7s), track level fusion (Outfit LFD Radar Track Combiner on UK Type 42 DDGs) and a combination of both (Franco-Italian Horizon).

In measurement/plot level fusion, radars send plot data to a central fusion system which forms composite tracks. This requires radars not to do local tracking.

In track level fusion, radars do local tracking and then just pass tracks to a central location for track-to-track correlation.

Many naval combat systems simply let radars do local tracking and just choose the best track they think, discarding the others.

Below is from “Multi sensor tracking function on modern anti-air-warfare (AAW) frigates”
Fiorini, M.; Filoni, G.
Target Tracking 2004: Algorithms and Applications, IEE
Volume , Issue , 23-24 March 2004 Page(s): 39 – 50

“In the frame of Horizon frigate each sensor provides target data as source track (ST). These data are composed by track data, estimated position and speed provided by the internal tracker of the sensor, and plot data, the real measures of the radar used to produce the estimates. Having both track and plot data the CMS has been designed as a mixed system, able to use tracks and/or plots according to the real need.”

Cheers,
Sunho

I’m sorry but the level of information you want simply does not exist in china. I can give you links to acadamic works on Chinese radar integration from chinese electronics institute that built these radar, but unlike in the west, these projects only are given a 6-8 digit project number with no mention of Ship, build date, or even radar designation. It is unlikely that we can pinpint sensor fusion techniques to specific ships which is why we speculate that 054A has sensor fusion.

PLA watching is an speculation game based on related information avaliable. You do not get any concrete info until much much later.

Oh! So no official confirmation whether it has AESA or anything about the T-99 autoloader I guess…………….?

Just as expected…

The usefulness of these sources are just getting lower an lower. We mostly get rehash of Janes report. There was some original data on Chinese small arms performance but other than this these magazine serve nothing more than pretty pictures.

Export MIG-29A from 80s had 2500hr life and they are still flying without major upgrade. Similar is MIG-29SMT and Su-27SM upgrade with further ground attack ability and extending life by 20 to 25 years. For simple Air to Air mission 10,000 life is not a big deal for new built aircraft in 2007.

hmmm. your just pulling this one out of your ass. These MIG-29A are only scarsely flown. Airframe life is limited to fatigue. Operating over the designed life of airframe and you start gambling with the lives of pilots. Only idiots would suggest this. Extension to airframe life will always involve major rework of the body as all microfractures must be found and fixed. MIG-29SMT and Su-27SM upgrades are not exampt form this which is why they are applied to newer airframes.