Varyag Moved to Drydock?

[HKSDU]

Really, China would be "wise" to leverage Russian Military Technology for its own advancement. Yet, seems content to go it alone? Which, is a big mistake in my opinion.

What sort of system does China need of Russia to leverage its advancement? Besides helo and transports which are the main systems much of China systems are either on par or surpasses that of Russian origin. Another reason why China wants to do it alone, is cause they want to build up their domestic technology sector by providing projects to their own firms, rather then relying on another nation. Which sometimes results in delay in delivery date, cost increase, poor quality, heft price tag, and the extras that are needed to run the system.

I personally find one reason why India is always in joint-development with Russia, is its inability to domestically produce or manufacture significant modern military systems. Relying on another nation for military system is never good, as they can simply cut off the supply when they feel like it. And you'll be standing there, without a domestically developed military system manufacturing line.

Another topic about the Su-33, I've posted a long and detailed explanation on my personal thinking of why the Su-33 deal didn't go through on either the Su-33/Flanker thread awhile ago.

 

[Crusader2000]

What sort of system does China need of Russia to leverage its advancement? Besides helo and transports which are the main systems much of China systems are either on par or surpasses that of Russian origin. Another reason why China wants to do it alone, is cause they want to build up their domestic technology sector by providing projects to their own firms, rather then relying on another nation. Which sometimes results in delay in delivery date, cost increase, poor quality, heft price tag, and the extras that are needed to run the system.

I personally find one reason why India is always in joint-development with Russia, is its inability to domestically produce or manufacture significant modern military systems. Relying on another nation for military system is never good, as they can simply cut off the supply when they feel like it. And you'll be standing there, without a domestically developed military system manufacturing line.

Another topic about the Su-33, I've posted a long and detailed explanation on my personal thinking of why the Su-33 deal didn't go through on either the Su-33/Flanker thread awhile ago.

China has made great strides. (i.e. J-10 for example) Yet, its still a very long ways from catching the Russian's and unlike India. It doesn't have access to European or US Military Technology!


Remember, the current J-10 is approximately the equal of many western designs. Many of which are decades old. Other designs like the Chinese Badger Bomber are flat out obsolete. Then let's talk of China's Submarine Fleet! (Noisy)


In short China has shown great improvement. Yet, that hardly means they are at parity or can go it alone anytime soon.

 

[HKSDU]

China has made great strides. (i.e. J-10 for example) Yet, its still a very long ways from catching the Russian's and unlike India. It doesn't have access to European or US Military Technology!


Remember, the current J-10 is approximately the equal of many western designs. Many of which are decades old. Other designs like the Chinese Badger Bomber are flat out obsolete. Then let's talk of China's Submarine Fleet! (Noisy)


In short China has shown great improvement. Yet, that hardly means they are at parity or can go it alone anytime soon.

True, the J-10 does match many modern mainstream fighters, which are decades old. But that being said it doesn't necessarily mean obsolete due to it being in service for decade or so. Most airforces still have Cold War era fighter based designs, even the USAF itself. I said "much" of Chinese systems not all, there are still areas which China still lag behind Russia, areas of Heli, Transport, Engines (though its marine engines are starting to pick up pace).

SSN/SSBN are debatable, cause we really have no specifications or even close estimations to their performances. I wouldn't say China submarine forces are noisy, well not all of them. Russian bought Kilo is one of the quietest submarines in service around the world. Then you got the modern Song/Yuan class submarines, Ming/Romeo yeah there obsolete though they are mostly for training/reserves. The Badger or H-6 is indeed an old design though it’s still has its role as a missile carrier for LACM. The USAF also utilizes old obsolete systems; one example is the B-52, produced in the mid 1950's. Despite being obsolete or old it still has its role as a bomb carrier.

Indian have a more flexible option of European Union, USA, Russia. Though reliant is too heavily on foreign military systems, making its domestic technology sector lag behind as if it was more domestic. Another factor is that you cannot export the system because the rights aren’t yours, so you’ll have an export restraint unless the other party gives you the authority.

 

[Toptob]

What sort of system does China need of Russia to leverage its advancement? Besides helo and transports which are the main systems much of China systems are either on par or surpasses that of Russian origin.

Maybe the material that is in service with the Russian armed forces. But there's no doubt in my mind that Russian industry is far superior in production capabilities and design.
Furthermore, it could very well be that the Chinese are on par, but not that much through effort of their own. Even the designs that are 'original' are not groundbreaking, and doubtlessly have had a lot of input from other sources i.e. espionage and the sort.
And it go's to show, because China is still dependant on import for its jet engines. Apparently those designs proved more difficult to steal then those of airframes.

I think Russia did good not selling any SU-33's to the Chinese, they would've bought three and then steal the design. Just as they steal any other design in any other field of industry (as you might suspect, this pisses me off, as I used to study industrial design so I know the Chinese scourge)

Let them think of something themselves, I'd go even further and say lets boycot china period. With everything but above all, dont let em look at your military equipment.

But that's not what this thread is about, so my apologies for the offtopic.
[ontopic]
Why would they build a mockup for training which they cannot land aircraft on? Are they gonna train launch procedures or something? Seems a little much just for that.. I dont get it, please explain why they build such a big and axpensive building to put a mock up flanker on it?

 

[Salty Dog]

Why would they build a mockup for training which they cannot land aircraft on? Are they gonna train launch procedures or something? Seems a little much just for that.. I dont get it, please explain why they build such a big and axpensive building to put a mock up flanker on it?

The PLAN should conduct launch and recovery procedure/training at their airfields.

The mock up will most likely be used for aircraft flight deck handling and spotting which for folks with no experience will be quite a challenge. PLAN would not able to do this on their carrier in the shipyard.

Other tasks such as sorting out flight deck markings and aircraft tie downs, aircraft refueling/rearming, flight deck emergencies, etc. can be done at the mock up flight deck.

The "island" mock up itself could be a training facility for aircraft controllers and to sort out new combat systems configurations (recall the AEGIS facility in Moorestown, NJ).

I wonder if the mock up has aircraft elevators.

IMO a serious commitment for PLAN's carrier program.

 

[HKSDU]

Maybe the material that is in service with the Russian armed forces. But there's no doubt in my mind that Russian industry is far superior in production capabilities and design.
Furthermore, it could very well be that the Chinese are on par, but not that much through effort of their own. Even the designs that are 'original' are not groundbreaking, and doubtlessly have had a lot of input from other sources i.e. espionage and the sort.
And it go's to show, because China is still dependant on import for its jet engines. Apparently those designs proved more difficult to steal then those of airframes.

I think Russia did good not selling any SU-33's to the Chinese, they would've bought three and then steal the design. Just as they steal any other design in any other field of industry (as you might suspect, this pisses me off, as I used to study industrial design so I know the Chinese scourge)

Let them think of something themselves, I'd go even further and say lets boycot china period. With everything but above all, dont let em look at your military equipment.

But that's not what this thread is about, so my apologies for the offtopic.
[ontopic]
Why would they build a mockup for training which they cannot land aircraft on? Are they gonna train launch procedures or something? Seems a little much just for that.. I dont get it, please explain why they build such a big and axpensive building to put a mock up flanker on it?

Harsh words, this isnt a political or country bashing thread, so keep it relevant to military affairs. Steal well China did buy the initial designs or was willing to, so its moreso reverse-engineering. I wont jump into this stealing and China copies everything debate cause I'm just sick of explaining or commenting on it. I'll just finish this part on China is 3rd Nation ever to launch a man into space, so that stamps a symbol on how China technology level is.

The building that replica the Carrier I'm sure the PLA wouldn't go through all the effort and cash to make something irrelevant and useless. Who knows deck procedure training or something maybe. Personally thoughts are a training/ testing ground in choosing carrier deck personal. Go through procedures, safety, signaling, positions, emergency actions, deck preparation. Just few possibilities on the purpose of the building maybe.

 

[tphuang]

Agree on diversification for Russia but have big doubts on the Chinese improvements. I sat eagerly awaiting the show of the New and unique hardware at the 60th anniversary parade this October First. The H-6s flying over Tien Men was weak. I rarely sink to using words such as weak, but the Chinese have been banging on a plane that is 40 years old, some modifications are made, its lighter, has new engines ( out of the Il 76 I think ) and some radar and internal improvements. But come on, 40 years, and Chinese have not produced a Tu22 or B1 or a V-Bomber type aircraft? Or had taken this time to do a redesign, to at least create an Myasichev style M4 bomber with better range?

The fact that the strategic bomber of choice for a nation willing to flex its geopolitical strength is a Tu-16, puts me into great doubt about the aircraft carrier's unique capability. Who knows can they get the J11 to be airworthy alone, or with Ukraine's help? Or will they just go and buy some US World war 2 planes, maybe some Phantoms and F-8s to fly off the Varyag for the next fourty years.

I am not trying ( I repeat again ) to be very anti/bashful, but the parade of never before seen technologies, composed of nothing remarkable really lowered my expectations of China's military capability and its R&D.

H6-DU tanker at the parade : http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/china60_10_01/c22_20570501.jpg


Plasma

I don't really see what your point is. If they have a need for tanker and it takes time to develop the transport needed for a tanker, then why not convert an existing platform that can be produced relatively quickly. As for something like H-6K, it gives them something that can carry 6 long range LACM and be used against pretty much every target that they would want to engage against in possible conflicts. In terms of current requirements, the H-6U tanker and H-6K bomber pretty much achieves all immediate requirements while they are waiting for the large transport to be developed. It's not about getting all platforms that are flashy and modern, but rather getting platforms that are useful for their needs.

China has made great strides. (i.e. J-10 for example) Yet, its still a very long ways from catching the Russian's and unlike India. It doesn't have access to European or US Military Technology!


Remember, the current J-10 is approximately the equal of many western designs. Many of which are decades old. Other designs like the Chinese Badger Bomber are flat out obsolete. Then let's talk of China's Submarine Fleet! (Noisy)

In short China has shown great improvement. Yet, that hardly means they are at parity or can go it alone anytime soon.

They are certainly at parity with West in many areas like the new strategic LACM, ballistic missile technology, HQ-9, ZTS-04, their many new UAV designs, J-10B, KJ-200/2000, the many new Y-8 Surveillance planes they have and 054A. As for submarine fleet, they actually have more modern diesel subs than any other navies when you add in Yuan, Kilos and Songs. You show very little understanding actually.

Maybe the material that is in service with the Russian armed forces. But there's no doubt in my mind that Russian industry is far superior in production capabilities and design.

Care to name anything in Russia armed force right now that matches 052C, 054A, 071 LPD, KJ-200/2000, new Chinese PGMs, KD-88, BZK005, BZK006 and the many Y-8 special missions platform they just developed?

Furthermore, it could very well be that the Chinese are on par, but not that much through effort of their own. Even the designs that are 'original' are not groundbreaking, and doubtlessly have had a lot of input from other sources i.e. espionage and the sort.
And it go's to show, because China is still dependant on import for its jet engines. Apparently those designs proved more difficult to steal then those of airframes.

they haven't stolen any air frames recently. They got license production and ToT. You obviously missed that part.

I think Russia did good not selling any SU-33's to the Chinese, they would've bought three and then steal the design. Just as they steal any other design in any other field of industry (as you might suspect, this pisses me off, as I used to study industrial design so I know the Chinese scourge)

As I mentioned many times before, the Russians are not selling su-33s because China wanted to make a small order and the Russians couldn't justify re-opening production line for such small orders. And they are already developing naval flanker and a model of which is on the wuhan training platform. Without Russian help, it'd just take them longer. The Ukrainians have certainly never stopped assisting China's naval air programs.

Let them think of something themselves, I'd go even further and say lets boycot china period. With everything but above all, dont let em look at your military equipment.

But that's not what this thread is about, so my apologies for the offtopic.

Why would they build a mockup for training which they cannot land aircraft on? Are they gonna train launch procedures or something? Seems a little much just for that.. I dont get it, please explain why they build such a big and axpensive building to put a mock up flanker on it?

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about and have spent too much time reading strategypage.

They have a similar training center on land for nuclear submarine. The bridge should be the same as the ones in future carriers allowing for testing the electronics/radar on the island + training crews on using them. The floors below the roofs will be a replica of the rooms in the real carrier, allowing training the crews for real operation.

 

[qw56q]

Further instalation

coordinates 30 59 2.25N 121 20 24.89E

It looks like a section of the Varyag ramp though the dimensions appear are to large for it to be an exact replica.

 

[plasmahawk]

I don't really see what your point is. If they have a need for tanker and it takes time to develop the transport needed for a tanker, then why not convert an existing platform that can be produced relatively quickly. As for something like H-6K, it gives them something that can carry 6 long range LACM and be used against pretty much every target that they would want to engage against in possible conflicts. In terms of current requirements, the H-6U tanker and H-6K bomber pretty much achieves all immediate requirements while they are waiting for the large transport to be developed. It's not about getting all platforms that are flashy and modern, but rather getting platforms that are useful for their needs.

<very generic statements here>

I am hopeful and confident in the China's future and development, however, the catch up and copy game must end at some point. I have worked in China and lived in China, the biggest drive in China is a quick/fast copy for benefit and profit.

The greatest word ever abused in China is personal benefit and personal advantage, and anything is done to achieve this personal advantage. However, a nation to move to the forefront and leading edge must do more than adapt and replicate, they must innovate and create new unique technologies, which would set them apart on the world stage.

Sadly to achieve the personal benefit and personal advantage in China short cuts are very common. And taking the benefit and personal advantage in China * unlike japan, or korea * does not come with taking/accepting full ownership and responsibility, I believe this is another major stumbling block as well.

Plas

 

[tphuang]

<very generic statements here>

I am hopeful and confident in the China's future and development, however, the catch up and copy game must end at some point. I have worked in China and lived in China, the biggest drive in China is a quick/fast copy for benefit and profit.

The greatest word ever abused in China is personal benefit and personal advantage, and anything is done to achieve this personal advantage. However, a nation to move to the forefront and leading edge must do more than adapt and replicate, they must innovate and create new unique technologies, which would set them apart on the world stage.

Sadly to achieve the personal benefit and personal advantage in China short cuts are very common. And taking the benefit and personal advantage in China * unlike japan, or korea * does not come with taking/accepting full ownership and responsibility, I believe this is another major stumbling block as well.

Plas

Yes, but in matter of national security where you are not allowed purchases of advanced items, you have to do what's needed to get the best possible weapons. Now, if you are just referring to the general Chinese practice of copying foreign systems, I'd agree with that.

Even that, I don't think it's a huge problem. The bigger issue is denying market access to foreigners. But these are economic issues and I'd rather not get into that.

In the case of Varyag, they essentially thought they could do a better and cleaner job of refitting the ship and putting it back in service than the Russians can. And looking at Russia's recent record of shipbuilding, it is hard to argue against that.

 

[Feanor]

The question isn't whether they can do a better job in terms of shipbuilding, that's indisputable at this point. The question is whether they can develop carrier operations independently. The area where China needs help is in terms of pilot training, coordination of naval assets, experience in operating the ship, etc.

 

[T.C.P]

The question isn't whether they can do a better job in terms of shipbuilding, that's indisputable at this point. The question is whether they can develop carrier operations independently. The area where China needs help is in terms of pilot training, coordination of naval assets, experience in operating the ship, etc.

If the Varyag is commissioned then will a navalized version of he Jh-7 be produced or will the land based versions just be modified for use from the carrier.

 

[Feanor]

J-15 is supposedly the new carrier plane, a T-10K derivative with J-11B features.