J-15s landing on new Chinese Aircraft Carrier

[WACO 2]

USN sub inventory:

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

 

Chinese sub inventory:

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/china/submar.htm

NOTE: This list does not show the large number of heavily obsolete diesel 'Romeo' class subs which were completely outclassed over 15 years ago thus today are not very useful (its like the USAF using B-29s today).

 

20:1 in favor of the Chinese?! Completely false.

 

Now on to the general criticism that prevails in regards to China's airpower:

First let me post some info on their inventory of all aircraft systems:

Army Aviation

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/army-avn-equip.htm

Air Force

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plaaf-equip.htm

Naval Aviation

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-af-equip.htm

 

USofA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft#cite_note-USAF_Almanac-4

NOTE: the wiki article is off at times by a lot but I cannot find the 2011 annual military aircraft inventory list yearly published by Aviation Week.

The last time I read that article it indicated over 1,000 F-16Cs alone (not 1,000 combined of all versions) and about 30% more USMC Hornets but had no figures on planned procurement.

 

 

So with those links out there, I draw your attention to how many extremely obsolete aircraft the Chinese have in service. It is rather startling, eventually yes they will be replaced obviously as the planned procurement schedule indicates. If you look at their aircraft that are equal to the F-15 and F-16, the Chinese are heavily outnumbered. I have also read that the serviceability of these old Chinese birds is rather bad, so a decent percentage of them are not serviceable.

1) The Chinese numerical advantage is really only in rifle men and non existent in most fields and slim in a few.

2) The aircraft and systems they do have borrows heavily from foreign designs. Even the J-20 and J-31 borrow HEAVILY from stolen info on the F-22 and F-35 (according to Aviation Week) as the DoD and Lockheed Martin have been repeatedly hacked.

 

With the tech state of China cleared up, I should also note that this carrier uses a ski-jump which means the big and burly Flanker cannot take off fully loaded unlike US carriers.

 

But consider how much experience the USN has developed over decades of intense and regular carrier flight operations and still today the danger level for USN/USMC carrier pilots is very high in adverse weather & or night ops. Our training curriculum has decades of experience to train new pilots. But also consider the amount of knowledge and experience that even LSOs have and deck hands have in carrier flight ops. The Chinese have a very long way to go before they can safely operate in all of the conditions the USN regularly operates aircraft in. Yes eventually China will reach a level of adverse and night capability, however I highly doubt it will reach the level of the USN/USMC carrier squadrons today...although the massive defense spending cuts heading are way will lower our future capabilities.

In short, the US carrier force is where it is today through decades of flight ops and many combat operations/wars along the way picking up the knowledge through a large amount of incidents on/around the boat.

 

I just honestly hope the Chinese get the hang of carrier flight ops without losing too many sailors and pilots.

 

Tailwinds,

WACO

[+Julhelm 266]

Fallenphoenix is british so of course when he talks about 'our ssn force' he means the RN in which case 10 to 1 is completely correct.

[+Typhoid 231]

Fallenphoenix is british so of course when he talks about 'our ssn force' he means the RN in which case 10 to 1 is completely correct.

 

I did notice his RN viewpoint.

 

Not SSN's - no.

 

His original number was 20 to one which even counting conventional SSK's would mean that the PLA(N) has 140 subs. Not even close.

 

Even the 10 to one number has to count conventional SSK's to come up with 7 to 1, not 10 to 1.

 

again, I give the PLA(N) about another 5 years before they are conducting reasonable carrier ops on their one carrier. It will be at least another decade before they get a second carrier and airwing to sea and worked up - probably closer to 15 years.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

As already stated above 20:1 was a typo, I intended 10:1, again sorry for the confussiion.

However 10:1 is correct, we have 6* they have 59.

 

*Torbay, Trenchant, Tireless, Triumph, Talent & Astute.

 

Craig

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

With the tech state of China cleared up...

 

 

heh, let me my soapbox.

 

I see where you went wrong there. GlobalSecurity is hardly the place to go for stats as some of those numbers have barely changed since 2K9 or, in some instances, earlier and a lot of this information is a bit of a cut and paste job from other websites. There are a lot of generalisations in those stats too. For example, counting all variants of the J-8 as 3rd gen aircraft for example. Later model J-8s (F,G,H) use modern avionics, the last 2 modern variants entered service in the early 2000s and are in production or conversion now. The J-11 is counted as a 'third gen' aircraft too (gimme a break, same era as the F-4?? lol!) and there is no distinction between it and the much more modern J-11A (multi-role, pgm capable, glass cockpit, etc). There's no distinction between the variants of the Q-5A and it's later, pgm capable, EFIS variants, the H-6 and it's variants, the J-7... and on and on...

 

If you look at their aircraft that are equal to the F-15 and F-16, the Chinese are heavily outnumbered.

 

Well, duh. You're the United States! You have more aircraft in your combined services than most of the top ten militaries combined! One aircraft carrier has more aircraft than 70% of the countries in the world! One USN has more punching power than my nations air force! But that also doesn't mean they can be moved into a single AO to face a potential enemy given their dispersal and operational commitments.

 

The aircraft and systems they do have borrows heavily from foreign designs. Even the J-20 and J-31 borrow HEAVILY from stolen info on the F-22 and F-35 (according to Aviation Week) as the DoD and Lockheed Martin have been repeatedly hacked.

 

This statement has as much credibility as any youtube argument. Competitors influence (or 'steal') ideas from each other all the time! One nation will always claim it's done "the hard yards" in developing something, but the truth is, you don't need to reinvent the wheel each time you want to build or expand on something. Because one air force uses bolt on designator kits and a competitor starts doing the same, it just proves there's validity and practicality in the concept. This isn't defending China's woeful record on hacking and copyright infringement. You can find as much evidence about that at wiki leaks as you can satisfy yourself with. These arguments are silly. I heard it when people compared the Mig-29 and Su-27 to the F-15. When they compared the A-10 to the Su-25 (a bit of a stretch), jeez, even the Il-76 to the C-141! East and West are perpetually playing the game of "Match, exceed and overcome" with military hardware and things that work well often share similar characteristics. Remember when a lot of people here said the Sukhoi T-50 resembled a YF-23?

 

I have also read that the serviceability of these old Chinese birds is rather bad, so a decent percentage of them are not serviceable.

 

That's a "some people say..." argument. Like, "Some people say the F-14's maintenance per flight hour was prohibitively high for modern combat operations", Yeah? So what? Doesn't mean it wasn't good at what it did. I hear this constantly about the F-22 and B-2 and their plethora maintenance issues. Mig-29s built in the 70s and 80s required herculean maintenance efforts, but successive version, specifically, through each generation, they are redesigned to minimise maintenance requirements, though i don't think you'll ever see simplicity levels like SAAB's Viggen these days. Comparatively.

 

 

...I should also note that this carrier uses a ski-jump which means the big and burly Flanker cannot take off fully loaded unlike US carriers.

 

That's a relative statement. What are they carrying for what mission? And so on. Yeah, the Russians had/have issues with this with their Su-33s, but the big difference between them and the PLAN with the J-15s is that the J-15 is based on the J-11B and heavily indebted to the Sukhoi T-10M-3 for navalisation, but not the Su-33. It's avionics, engines, weapons systems, etc are much more modern and the weapons systems it's designed to carry are lighter and much more capable that those of 25ish years ago. Yeah, it certainly won't be lifting off with loads like the F-4 did during Vietnam, but it's not expected to just yet. And as for the refueling situation, it's common practice in many navies to 'tank up' after take off. The PLAN and Russian navy aircraft might need it more than the USN, but the practice and it's operational benefits are enough to make that a moot point.

 

 

NOTE: the wiki article is off at times by a lot but I cannot find the 2011 annual military aircraft inventory list yearly published by Aviation Week.

 

I find finding accurate details, or up to date ones at least, difficult to find outside of individual magazine articles. Jane's always has it's finger on the pulse, but often, much of it is hidden behind a pay wall if you're not willing to cough up the 2K(ish) yearly subscription fee. Key publishing had an okay site, but it was far too much like wiki (even porting articles directly from there but adding more technical info at one point) fo it's 1200 pound yearly subscription. Two sites that offer great strategic analysis are (and these are just Oz ones since I'm not too sure about other Western organisations)

 

The Lowy Institute

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/

 

and ASPI

http://www.aspi.org.au/default.aspx

 

Both are independent think tanks and both are amazing at what they do. There are some great papers on each of those sites. Definitely worth having a read through. Avoid sites like these:

 

http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/directories/

http://www.ausairpower.net/

 

As the information lacks detail or is often compromised...

Edited November 29, 2012 by SayWhatt

[+Typhoid 231]

As already stated above 20:1 was a typo, I intended 10:1, again sorry for the confussiion.

However 10:1 is correct, we have 6* they have 59.

 

*Torbay, Trenchant, Tireless, Triumph, Talent & Astute.

 

Craig

They have 59 SSN's?

 

I think that's a bit high unless you're counting all submarines; SS, SSN and SSBN. If so, then you need to a few more to your RN count including Vanguard, Vengence, Victorious, and Vigilant making a total of 10. So that makes 10 to 59 or roughly 6 to 1 if I count that right.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm

 

 

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

I was ignoring bombers on both sides, hence 6:59, bring them into the fold and RN goes up bty 4 as you say whilst PLAN goes up by 7 or 8. Didnt bother including them as their job as far as the UK is concerned is to bugger off and get lost where noone can find 'em. Also my second post reads "SSK/N's". Thus we have 6 they have 59, we barley have enough to maintain a couple of patrols they could potentially dominate an ocean.

 

Craig

[+Typhoid 231]

I was ignoring bombers on both sides, hence 6:59, bring them into the fold and RN goes up bty 4 as you say whilst PLAN goes up by 7 or 8. Didnt bother including them as their job as far as the UK is concerned is to bugger off and get lost where noone can find 'em. Also my second post reads "SSK/N's". Thus we have 6 they have 59, we barley have enough to maintain a couple of patrols they could potentially dominate an ocean.

 

Craig

 

Makes sense. We (USN) will have trouble with them if it ever comes to that.

[WACO 2]

SayWhatt

 

I am going to be brief

1) Global Security is a legitimate source, at least I was using a world wide accepted source for some data.

2) The DoD and Lockheed Martin have ADMITTED that China has stolen vital data on the F-22 and F-35 that lead to the development of their aircraft systems.

3) I have heard again from legitimate sources that the PLAF was having serviceability problems with their old 3rd gen fighters like those that are copies/developments of the Mig-19 and Mig-21 as well as their bombers based on the Tu-16 and IL-28. I said serviceability meaning how many aircraft they can get in the air (EG into combat).

4) Too many other points I do not have the will to argue over.

 

If you disagree, whatever, have a good evening.

 

Tailwinds,

WACO

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

If you disagree, whatever, have a good evening.

 

I do disagree, but only because my sources say otherwise, which is kinda my point. Getting legit stats on PRC's platforms is difficult because sources in the West vary so wildly. I questioned Global Security because I've read quite a few governmental discussion papers from agencies I've worked with and their work disputes the veracity of a lot GS's research. We were pretty much told not to included them as, academically, it would be akin to dropping a link to Wiki. I'll drop it, because we're in the realm of arguing about the length of a piece of string, but I was interested to see this article only today on Defence News. While primarily a US source, they've had their finger on the pulse with Asia-Pac research and reporting of recent times.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121201/DEFREG03/312010002/Are-U-S-Defense-Experts-Getting-China-Wrong-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

 

Take it easy.