more like PLAN has no near term global imperialist ambition like the U.S. unfortunately, as Chinese capital spread around the world, the day when Chinese soldiers will be send to defend Chinese capital and died in foreign lands like the unfortunate American soldiers may not be too far away.

With requirements all over the globe China must make global commitments in order for Chinese society to continue to function. Just looking at the oil China MUST ship via sea from Africa tells the story. Any disruption in the Chinese oil lifeline would spell disaster for China. And your statement about “Chinese capital spread around the world” shows that you are aware of these vital commitments for China

=Blitzo
The entire notion that ski jumps are unable to launch fighters at MTOW is something perpetuated by every western defense outlet without a shred of evidence, and ignores the niggling fact that the Soviets test flew the Su-33 from kuznetsov at full load at the twilight of the Cold War.

The only sacrifice a ski jump has is that it is more dependent on headwind than a catapult to get its fighters airborne (however this isn’t much of a problem because most carriers steam at about 30 knots into the wind during operations anyway), and the other challenge is that a ski jump will prohibit aircraft with lower TW such as fixed wing AEWC from reliably launching.

Your answer is simplistic. One key aspect of catapults over ski jumps or ramps as I refer to them is tempo. With cats you can install up to four and quickly launch four aircraft into the air. That is tempo. With the ramp you can only launch from the bow. I have never seen multiple ski jumps / ramps installed on any carrier. Have you?

But you have seen multiple cats. Thus you get more aircraft in the air faster. That helps when you are managing a strike against a high value target. See Alpha Strike for more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_strike_(United_States_Navy)

Secondly there are no instances of other aircraft such as CODs or AWACS being launched by ramps.

So if the PLAN wants to be a second tier force then let them build future carriers with ramps. Those in the know will use cats.

Based on what? other than your biased opinion.

This is based upon evidence that the Russians and the PLAN are developing catapults for their future carriers. Ask yourself this question: If the ramp method for takeoffs was so good then why is the PLAN working hard to develop steam and EMAL launch systems for carrier operations?

Well?

…errr…… Having challenges in those areas is different to being unable to develop them into a fledged product, and WS-10A is already in service in large numbers, ya-dah ya-dah. These might have been problems ten years ago, etc etc.

I’m not sure where you pull these sources from btw. The only decent article I read on chinese engine development was from Andrew erickson a few years ago and even his write up had a few niggling inaccuracies.

(Oil leakage, really??? Lol)

This diagram shown was from an Andrew Erickson article. And regarding sources it was China Sign Post that posted articles that I drew from on Chinese engine development. It was China Sign Post that identified China’s lagging development of metallurgy processes to support modern engine development. And responses to posts made at SinoDefenseForum, a site you are quite familiar with, further support my claims of China’s attempts to overcome deficiencies in modern engine development. To wit:

“…Key weak points of the Chinese military jet engine industry include: turbine blade production and process standardization. Standardization and integration may be the one area in which the costs of China’s ad hoc, eclectic approach to strategic technology development truly manifest themselves. The Soviet defense industrial base failed in precisely this area: talented designers and technicians presided over balkanized design bureaus and irregularly-linked production facilities; lack of standardization and quality control rendered it “less than the sum of the parts.”

By the way, the statement “they lack elements of basic infrastructure” literally says nothing, you know that right? What is infrastructure in this case? How basic is basic? Define “lack,” does it mean an inability to produce engines on par with F119 and F135 or F110, or what? Specify “elements”.

No offense, but I’ve read enough of your posts to think that your understanding of chinese military matters is scant at best, so could you at least avoid the self assured confidence in your statements?

Your opinion is noted and logged. However wishing something can happen does not take the place of something manifesting in reality. China continues to struggle with problems producing alloys necessary for the production of modern jet engines. Further China struggles with quality manufacturing processes.

I base my assessment of Chinese engine development on facts such as those. Feel free to enlighten me on China overcoming these problems

—

If you really want to broaden your knowledge a little, go over to China defense forum
http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php

Addendum, engine news is nascent and immensely difficult to come by. That is why these details from various western sources, and also your own claim in that post, are cast with heavy skepticism.

Thanks for the link. I am familiar with the site. Since the proof of the pudding is in the eating I maintain by position on Chinese engine development until I see the deployment of an indigenous high-performance jet engine on a Chinese airframe. Until that time its all talk.

Thanks to rajsunder from Bharat Rakshak…

vikramaditya has arrived (from ajai shukla’s blog)

Looks good and phase one seems complete.

[QUOTE=Jinan;2101212]

You said: and assumed cotton. I put it to you it is nomex. Why nomex? Because fire is clearly one of the worst hazards for ships in general, and these in particular.

I think the interesting bit is that although the USN is a navy which incorporates many features to reduce fire and explosion risks in their ships by design as well as in procedures, and although it is very well trained and experienced in this area, it still regularly suffers from this hazard aboard its carriers. I know a little about the soviet track record in this respect, with many of the flatdecked ships suffering major fires and explosions in their machine rooms. I wonder how China/Plan will do in this respect. Nomex gloves point to attention to fire risks.

Abrasion and cut injuries are more common on a day-today basis than fire. Hence leather work gloves

Originally Posted by Blitzo
Oh okay, so is it only during flight operations that a helmet is the difference between life and death?

Pretty much. Think about it

So is the landing of a single helicopter equivalent to a full roaring flight deck?

Any time machines or aircraft are in motion full safety practices are in effect

And is loading a freakin AIM-9 on the wingtip rail of a fighter with none of your redshirts wearing a helmet is apparently okay then? I hope you can see that you are now deliberately twisting conditions inch by inch to suit your purposes for lambasting the PLAN for being unprofessional.

At this stage of their development how can you consider the PLAN carrier operations professional? What are you measuring it against? You said that you were going to look into how the PLAN / Liaoning carrier operators appeared when placed on the scale of navies who operate carrier.

What did you find?