PLA Navy Carrier/Fighters..

[Jliu]

I believe XM is referring to the following:

Washington Times - Admiral pursues Chinese answers, ties

...

"We are concerned about development of long-range cruise and ballistic missiles. We're concerned about anti-satellite technology, execution thereof. We're concerned about area-denial weapons," Adm. Timothy Keating told reporters.

...

Area-denial arms are what the Pentagon calls weapons used to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and ships. They include ballistic and cruise missiles with precision-guided warheads for strikes against carriers and other warships that would defend Taiwan in any conflict, the Pentagon has said.
...

-------

Area denial arms are there. As to the capability and effectiveness, nobody knows until tested in real conflicts, which I'm sure will be bad enough for everyone...

As a defence professional my colleagues and I think its a complete joke from the technical standpoint. I would advise you to visit the "defence talk" forum where we had a lengthy discussion about the technical merits of these "area denial" strategies especially that Idiot mxiong's vaunted AshBMs. That said, AD strategies can refer to almost anything-I can park a single SSK off the coast, that too is "area denial".

 

[Always Neutral]

What's there to nuke except kangaroos? Nah, just remind him that Aussies are in no position to look down upon PLA, especially Chinese Aussies.

Ok. Back to the carrier topic. Have you got details or photos of the navalised J10 fighter ? Will it be the one for the Chinese Carrier ?

Regards

 

[Jliu]

What's there to nuke except kangaroos? Nah, just remind him that Aussies are in no position to look down upon PLA, especially Chinese Aussies.

How entirely upsetting.

Even more considering the fact that your whole economy will go down the drain without Australian resources with the resulting fragmentation from the Central Government. Have you checked the latest figures on the PRC's external balance?

I think it is very funny that you automatically assume anyone with a "Chinese" sounding username is "Chinese". Kevin Rudd may profess to be a "zhengyou" but he sure knows how to deal with your kind-just as I do. How entirely ironic that those who truly understand the Middle Kingdom are best placed to guard against it. On another note my favourite period in history is the Warring States period which would be of great interest to repeat.

Regards and zài jiàn

 

[Jliu]

Ok. Back to the carrier topic. Have you got details or photos of the navalised J10 fighter ? Will it be the one for the Chinese Carrier ?

Regards

Short answer is No.

He is just full of crap as usual. Construction of a CV has not even begun given the state of the PLAN. Look around on other defence forums to see what I mean (there is quite a bit on this topic there).

In short, nobody in the naval community builds a CV without a CVBG (Battle Group). In the PLAN's case, the sole purpose is power projection to the Straits of Malacca and possibly the Gulf assuming they don't run into the Indians or the Americans on the way. Now the PLAN is easily the worst of the three service arms and completely lacks a) a networked AA engagement capability as well as b) a basic ASW escort screen.

Looking at the PLAN's current shipbuilding patterns, they're trying hard to solve Problem b) by spamming the 054A class but the quality of their ASW is appalling given the reports by the Taiwanese who have been tracking one all over the South China Sea. Problem a) is not going away anytime soon due to a lack of funding so what they have done is simply construct just two each of three types of DD (051C, 052B, 052C class) and wait for additional funds to begin constructing more. These DDs do not have anything resembling Cooperative Engagement Capability meaning that they are restricted to zone defence as opposed to the AAD required for a CVBG in order to prevent the CV from becoming one expensive metal coffin.

As long as you do not see one of the three DD designs being mass produced then CV construction has not begun. There are also other budgetary items on the PLAN list including what they have termed "access denial" strategies-like numbers of cheap expendable SSKs (Song and Yuan classes). That's the short story. Now you can go and read the long one

 

[mxiong]

As a defence professional my colleagues and I think its a complete joke from the technical standpoint. I would advise you to visit the "defence talk" forum where we had a lengthy discussion about the technical merits of these "area denial" strategies especially that Idiot mxiong's vaunted AshBMs. That said, AD strategies can refer to almost anything-I can park a single SSK off the coast, that too is "area denial".

Australian Defence Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With such a pathetic military, I wonder how "professional" and "technical" you and your colleagues actually are...especially regarding AShBMs, which Aussies could only dream to touch one, let alone evaluating it...

 

[mxiong]

On another note my favourite period in history is the Warring States period which would be of great interest to repeat.

And my favorite about AUS is the vast desert which would be fascinating to watch if it sprawls all over the continent with some Chinese help...

 

[Always Neutral]

Short answer is No.

He is just full of crap as usual. Construction of a CV has not even begun given the state of the PLAN. Look around on other defence forums to see what I mean (there is quite a bit on this topic there).

In short, nobody in the naval community builds a CV without a CVBG (Battle Group). In the PLAN's case, the sole purpose is power projection to the Straits of Malacca and possibly the Gulf assuming they don't run into the Indians or the Americans on the way. Now the PLAN is easily the worst of the three service arms and completely lacks a) a networked AA engagement capability as well as b) a basic ASW escort screen.

Looking at the PLAN's current shipbuilding patterns, they're trying hard to solve Problem b) by spamming the 054A class but the quality of their ASW is appalling given the reports by the Taiwanese who have been tracking one all over the South China Sea. Problem a) is not going away anytime soon due to a lack of funding so what they have done is simply construct just two each of three types of DD (051C, 052B, 052C class) and wait for additional funds to begin constructing more. These DDs do not have anything resembling Cooperative Engagement Capability meaning that they are restricted to zone defence as opposed to the AAD required for a CVBG in order to prevent the CV from becoming one expensive metal coffin.

As long as you do not see one of the three DD designs being mass produced then CV construction has not begun. There are also other budgetary items on the PLAN list including what they have termed "access denial" strategies-like numbers of cheap expendable SSKs (Song and Yuan classes). That's the short story. Now you can go and read the long one

I agree with you. Even technologies like Steam catapaults, large engines (if the carrier is nuclear powered) suitable development of a carrier based fighter cannot be hidden for too long and presently all indications are that Chinese are still in design stage which means a Chinese CBG is atleast 10 years away.

Regards

 

[gpit]

As a defence professional my colleagues and I think its a complete joke from the technical standpoint. I would advise you to visit the "defence talk" forum where we had a lengthy discussion about the technical merits of these "area denial" strategies especially that Idiot mxiong's vaunted AshBMs. That said, AD strategies can refer to almost anything-I can park a single SSK off the coast, that too is "area denial".

No offence, but

1) Don’t you believe that Keating, in his capacity as an US Adm., is probably more professional and has more overall information?

2) If "its a complete joke ", why the US Adm. is concerned? Of course, one should never rule out the needs for political propaganda.

 

[mxiong]

Looking at the PLAN's current shipbuilding patterns, they're trying hard to solve Problem b) by spamming the 054A class but the quality of their ASW is appalling given the reports by the Taiwanese who have been tracking one all over the South China Sea. Problem a) is not going away anytime soon due to a lack of funding so what they have done is simply construct just two each of three types of DD (051C, 052B, 052C class) and wait for additional funds to begin constructing more. These DDs do not have anything resembling Cooperative Engagement Capability meaning that they are restricted to zone defence as opposed to the AAD required for a CVBG in order to prevent the CV from becoming one expensive metal coffin.

Lack of funding for PLAN? Haha, now I fully comprehend your professionalism...

 

[mxiong]

Ok. Back to the carrier topic. Have you got details or photos of the navalised J10 fighter ? Will it be the one for the Chinese Carrier ?

Regards

J-10 will not be navalised. The 1st generational fighters onboard will be J-11BJ(J-15?), modified after Su-33.

 

[Always Neutral]

J-10 will not be navalised. The 1st generational fighters onboard will be J-11BJ(J-15?), modified after Su-33.

J-10 Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com

The initial batch of 80~100 examples were delivered to the PLAAF between 2004 and 2006, while it was estimated that a total of 300 aircraft may be required by the PLAAF and PLA Navy. A number of countries including Pakistan, Iran, and Thailand have also shown strong interest in the aircraft. Some reports suggested that Pakistan will receive the first export version of the J-10, up to 36 aircraft, by around 2010.

 

[Always Neutral]

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Variants
J-10A : Single seater baseline Multirole model. The export designation is F-10A.
J-10B : Twin seater version, for Training, Electronic Warfare (EW), Mini-AWACS and possibly Ground Attack. The export designation for the twin seater, however, remains F-10B.
Super-10 (J-10C) : A "stealth", twin-engined, naval carrier-based variant with thrust-vector control

 

[mxiong]

J-10 Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com

The initial batch of 80~100 examples were delivered to the PLAAF between 2004 and 2006, while it was estimated that a total of 300 aircraft may be required by the PLAAF and PLA Navy. A number of countries including Pakistan, Iran, and Thailand have also shown strong interest in the aircraft. Some reports suggested that Pakistan will receive the first export version of the J-10, up to 36 aircraft, by around 2010.

People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PLANAF has lots of land-based fighters, and J-10 MIGHT join PLANAF in the future, but not onboard a AC.

 

[mxiong]

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Variants
J-10A : Single seater baseline Multirole model. The export designation is F-10A.
J-10B : Twin seater version, for Training, Electronic Warfare (EW), Mini-AWACS and possibly Ground Attack. The export designation for the twin seater, however, remains F-10B.
Super-10 (J-10C) : A "stealth", twin-engined, naval carrier-based variant with thrust-vector control

My little brother added that Super-10 item, and he is crazy about J-10.

 

[Always Neutral]

People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PLANAF has lots of land-based fighters, and J-10 MIGHT join PLANAF in the future, but not onboard a AC.

In addition PLANAF would undergo significant change once China's first aircraft carrier is fully operational. Aircraft such as carrier-borne variants of the J-10 or J-11 may enter service with the navy.

From the same article link U sent me.

Regards