Serems like a good place to ask the question…

IF China does build a fleet of carriers, how will that change the military balance in the Pacific?

What would be the military reaction (if any) from:
-Japan
-Australia
-New Zealand (Would it prompt them to rebuild an Air Force combat element?)

or would they:
A. Not bother to build up military, there’s no way they could match the Chinese in arms.
B. Let the U.S. protect them.
or
C. Be very nice to the PRC…:D

Why? What’s the use of carrier air power if you cannot beat land based air power filled with stealth fighters?

The only value you get is a peacetime “show off” force. Its a peacock on water. Its the modern day Zheng He fleet. Despite what the Western scholars wrote about the history of that fleet, those Treasure ships nearly bankrupted the Ming and brought about the world’s first ever ship size specification requirement by law.

You should be more concerned with the boomer in the other thread there.

If I were China I would take the money used to make carriers and build subs out of them. Lots of subs.

Thats because its a fighter, most fighters are not designed for low level flight. But it can do it without problems if youre not going faster than 900kph.

This is a case of give and take. If you want low wing loading for superior agility and low speed handling, you will have to accept the entire bag which means increased turbulence and flutter at low altitudes. The best way to counter the latter is high wing loading, but that penalizes maneuverbility. Now you know why F-16Cs (with high wing loading) are used for strikes.

If the Chinese have set their mind on something, they will build ships like the way McDonald’s cracks outs Big Macs. Notice the rate they have been building some of their warships.

I have not seen this commitment on the Varyag yet. Sure, they cleaned it, painted it and virtually restored the hull. There is all sorts of ambigious talk about support on a carrier program from officials. Lots of analysts, pro, amateur and internet have written many credible and rational articles and reasons why China will have a carrier program. There is serious negotiations to buy Su-33s from Russia or talk about building navalized J-10s and J-11s.

But on the other hand, support for a Chinese carrier program is STILL not completely unanimous in China, in the Party, and in the PLA itself. While others support the program, others have a different opinion. In fact, many think its still a huge waste of money which should be better put on other ships like subs and multirole surface combatants.

That is why I think the country itself is not yet fully 100% behind the program. That is why I think the future of the Chinese carrier is not fully assured, and is certainly dragging on its feet right now. It can change overnight when someone controls the Party or the Central Military Commission or a new guy heads the PLAN.

Hans M. Kristensen of FAS.ORG using Google Earth has spotted and confirmed the sighting of the Type 94 SSBN.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=920&page=31

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ea_china_07_05.asp

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/07/new_chinese_ballistic_missile.php

There’s no reason to doubt that China has had suffcient access to this kind of equipment. 😉

It does look a lot like JRSCCS. All we know from the JRSCCS is a diagram but there is just too many similarities between Poyma and JRSCCS, though the latter seems to extend the network even more to have concurrent processing from a whole variety of sensors, not just from two radar sets.

There is certainly no lack of Russian (or French) equipment to copy.

If Poyma is present in the PLAN, it is likely to be on the 052B ships and quite possibly the 051C. As we know, Fregat handles both volume search and TWS against multiple targets, as it works with Orekhs, which provides prioritized target tracking and target illumination. But that is how it works with Russian vessels.

On the 052B we see a hybrid. Given that the SAM system is a true Shtil, the radar on top should be an original Fregat, not the Sea Eagle copy. But the ship also has an SR-64, though the Type 730s are backed by Rice Lamp Type 344 radars. In my hypothesis, there is an integrator between the Fregat and the SR-64, and the Poyma easily fits that bill.

Assuming Sea Eagle is a Fregat copy, it may also have TWS functions. The 054A system using Sea Eagle Fregat copy and the SR-64 may mirror the system on the 052B. SR-64 also appears in other vessels too, the 052C with the four array set, and the 051C with the 30N6E Tombstone and Fregat/Sea Eagle (I don’t know if the 051C uses the Chinese copy or Russian original.) I am inclined to think that if integration exists on the 051C it would be easier to pair the Tombstone with an original Fregat using the Poyma, then add the SR-64 to it.

UBK cannot lift 8 tons of exteranl weopon neither is Su-30K. there is Chart on this very form from I think Flankerman from Fomin book. and the weight cleary add when u look at decrease in range of Su-30MK. http://www.knaapo.ru and try to challenge those figures of Range. u don have the answer to why Su-30MK has less range despite more internal fuel and has less speed and altitude.

And this proves to you that the Su-30MK2 is 20% heavier than a UBK for you?

For a plane to gain 20% more weight just to be able to lift 8000kg from 6500kg I think speaks of designing incompetence.

Go ahead and show the chart, if you please, since we know how often you distort stuff.

777 LR series is clearly more longer range than any other Boeing. those 747 are decade Old. LR is just entering service and is very expensive.

So to make your point, you need to compare aircraft from two different generations? How does that prove your point, eh? Only marks you more as an idiot.

Compare aircraft with the same generation.

nuclear weopons so what. It does not make it complex.

What an idiot you are. Nuclear weapons are heavy. To carry a whole load of them means all sorts of structural reinforcement.

Single engine is more complex. u have to lok at weight, safety, speed and payload consideration. It is much more difficult to make modern single engine plane. China didnot had trouble with that obsolete JH-7 much before J-10.

What a joke. Repeat that for everyone in the board to hear so they can know how stupid you are.

I would have to say every airforce and aircraft manufacturing firm would disagree on you on that.

You don’t even know what the meaning of the word COMPLEX means.

Go on, keep saying, the Starfighter is more complex than the Phantom, the F-16 is more expensive than the F-15, the MiG-21 is more complex than the B-52.

modern manufacturing infrastructure. so u want them to work in factories and pollute there cities and destroy there natural resources faster. modern manufacturing does not mean making house hold goods.

What a moron. Modern manufacturing also makes simple household goods. You cannot even imagine all the automation needed to even make even a simple plastic bottle or even an aluminum can. Modern manufacturing actually has less pollution than smokestack industries

Blackjack and backfire are less made because of cost of operations. just look at TWR of F-16 engine with all those agility and FBW.
it is far harder to make than Backfire and Blackjack engine and straight line performance.

Is this some kind of a joke? Are you for real?

Forgeting that the Blackjack and the Backfire has complex variable wings? Four engines? Intended to carry lots more stuff? Rotary launcher for at least six to eight cruise missiles?

they are made in thousands because they are cheaper to operate and distribute. It is like modern computer processor. It is very cheap in price but the Brain and Infrastructure to built it is far complex.

You really are full of crap coming out of your ears. Was there any BIG order iin the 10,000 unit range made at the start of the MiG-21 program?

They are made in the thousands from lots of orders all throughout the years because the plane is CHEAP in the first place. Not made cheap because there is a huge volume order at the start.

fuel storage does not make a plane complex when u have excess thrust from second engine.

Another idiotic statement from you. The more you go, the more stupid you are becoming.

Tell me, how you can make fuel storage in the first place. From the excess thrust of the second engine, huh? Can “thrust” allow you to compartmentalize a wing or a fuselage for intended fuel storage? Where do you think fuel is stored in? Any empty space inside the plane without proper sealing, pumps, pipes and other plumbing?

does it include everything? and Most of IAF MIG-21s are from 60 to early 80s built.

There is more. That’s the figure around 2002 and does not count the crashes after that.

and those orignal are down graded export stuff from 1950s. It is irrelevant to deduce Russian aircraft hours from Chinese stuff.

Lol. They must have deduced this from the original Russian provided plans and aircraft.

Certianly with Americans and by that extension immigrants from Russian empire has the single most contribution to Science in US for past 200 years.

You are laughable.

I just laugh at ur knowledge. Every economy in world is rife with same things. Russians are fortunate that they dont have debt and can squeezed the rest of the world.

And I laugh at your sheer stupidity.

How is the Russians fortunate? Debt? You actually have debt because you also borrowed money from the Chinese, and continue to do so, even if that is ever reported. One entire order of Su-27UBKs is payment by some of that debt alone. You don’t have rule of law—every business journal comments on that. The country seems run by the Russian mafia. There is no protection for businesses because Putin and the governmenet will do anything they want. The country is racked by double digit inflation, and has a very high unemployment outside of the cities. You are fighting an insurgent war for years which you are not winning.

GE reactor deal is cleary on debt financing like buying a Car from dealer.

Show that.

so why all the development, tests and manufacturing is done in Russia?

Only the testing is done in Russia, not the development nor manufacturing. And the testing is also done on the same part on three other locations—Europe, US and China. They wanted to obtain a difference of opinions for comparison.

it is Snecma that is gaining intellectual capital by investing in Russian expertize.

Bullsh*t. It is not Saturn that is being called in to help SNECMA projects, but SNECMA being called in to help Saturn projects. Design of the SaM-146 is based on the SNECMA CFM-56.

http://www.powerjet.aero/?id=198&selt=1

Here, you can see it is SNECMA making the core engine.

that is totally different matter than ARJ-21 that is mere collection of parts. Sukoi is owned by RUssian government but it doesnot mean that every project is funded by Russian government.

Show me the funding then.

It is 17000lbs at most from official website.

It said 14,000 to 17000 pounds. That still makes it less power than the GE engine.

SSJ has more range by full 1000KM. dont bring GE website as they give general data. SSJ already has Western Export order. Putting GE does not make an aircraft sucessful if the end design is inferior.
http://www.acac.com.cn/site_en/product02.asp
http://sukhoi.superjet100.com/en/inside.aspx?menu_id=1978&submenu_id=1993

[/quote]

Lets see if it even lives up to that.

The ARJ-21 has more seats and have greater take off weight.

Also the GE engine is already certified and flying around. As a matter of fact, the CF-34 goes back a long way. It is the engine that started the regional
jet revolution and has proven military experience—it is the engine for the A-10.

Here it shows you the engine is capable up to 20,000lbs.

http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cf34/cf34-10.html

And go ahead and compare to this.

http://www.powerjet.aero/?id=200&selt=1

The GE engine has lower SFC, higher pressure ratios, higher bypass ratio (which means better economy).

What was the intended engine of the J-10 from the 90s. A fighter is designed around an available engine?!
It will be more helpfull to stick to hard facts, than to try with questionable claims to prove someone wrong for what purpose?

The J-10’s intended engine was the original WS-10. Based on a test pilot’s interview, a number of early prototypes, at least, five, were fitted with this engine. That’s a spoken fact. The pilot goes on to say that the WS-10 (without the A) lacks the power or the fast spooling time of the AL-31FN, which is why the shift was made.

Now if you want the visual facts, you can check all the early and prototype J-10s and you will note that the engine collars around the planes are thicker, not to mention two bumps underneath. The extended collar suggests that these engines are thicker, so that the skin of the fuselage does not extend as far south as the production models.

Now if you want another visual fact, between the early 100X J-10 models and the evaluation 101X J-10 models, there is an unmarked J-10 that has the current rear end where the collar is now shorter. The solid yellow primered metal nose on the plane indicates the plane was intended for flight telemetry tests, meaning basic flight tests and performance measurement, despite all the planes previous to that having true radars and doing weapons integration.

From this, the early J-10s were flying the WS-10, then shifted to the AL-31FN. The WS-10A Taihang is actually an improvement of the WS-10—note the formal “A” designation applied. Based on Chinese articles, the WS-10 is a 24,000lbs thrust engine, compared to the 27,500lbs of the AL-31FN. The WS-10A is 29,000lbs. If Salut wants to get more J-10 business, the future versions of the AL-31FN (FNM-1) will have to aim higher (32,000lbs).