Chinese Aviation Developments

[Griz882]

An article to keep some of the “eating our lunch” comments in perspective.

Chinese J-15 Fighter Crash ‘Exposes’ PLA’s Carrier Woes; Beijing’s Naval Ambitions Face Reality Check

The J-15, a reverse-engineered Russian Su-33, has long been criticized for its underwhelming WS-10 engines, short combat range, and high maintenance demands. It also struggles with ski-jump takeoff limitations on China’s carriers, preventing it from carrying full fuel and weapon loads.

www.republicworld.com

 

[Brett327]

An article to keep some of the “eating our lunch” comments in perspective.

Curious how you arrived at that conclusion. A mishap (or mishap rate, which we aren't privy to), doesn't correlate to capabilities. Also, in the who's eating whose lunch debate, the J-15 isn't the platform of concern.

 

[KODAK]

@Llarry , I'm new-ish here. What's your background and basis for analysis?

I’d also love to hear the answer to this..

 

[Griz882]

Curious how you arrived at that conclusion. A mishap (or mishap rate, which we aren't privy to), doesn't correlate to capabilities. Also, in the who's eating whose lunch debate, the J-15 isn't the platform of concern.

Because of the direction of this thread I decided to start looking deeper online. There is a remarkable amount of very pro-Chinese propaganda thinly veiled as aviation (or maritime) technology journalism but you have to search quite a bit to find more balanced reports. In one example I was three or fours pages in before I found an article stating that China has cancelled their next two carriers because of operational issues with the first set. I’m not trying to dismiss China’s advances, but one should try to balance out their research.

 

[Llarry]

I’d also love to hear the answer to this..

I replied privately to Faded Float Coat, but since you surface this again, I must admit that I am not a 1310/1320, but a retired Chinese language cryptologic LDO. I certainly do not have the technical aviation background and skills that a winged aviator does, though I had a bit of stick and rudder time decades ago. I was an enlisted EP-3 naval aircrewman as a CTI. I am long retired but keep up with Chinese naval and air developments. I am also the son of a naval aviator (VF and VA background 1942-1968) and have had a lifelong fascination with and grew up around Navy air. I like to think that I am pretty sharp on the history of naval aviation.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

I’d also love to hear the answer to this..

This as a follow up to the posting of "What's your background and basis for analysis?" is not productive to a strong discussion.

The fact that an opinion is openly expressed, allowing us to respond with our opinion, is what these forums are all about.

 

[taxi1]

I replied privately to Faded Float Coat

That means just you two and the Chinese are reading it.

 

[Brett327]

Because of the direction of this thread I decided to start looking deeper online. There is a remarkable amount of very pro-Chinese propaganda thinly veiled as aviation (or maritime) technology journalism but you have to search quite a bit to find more balanced reports. In one example I was three or fours pages in before I found an article stating that China has cancelled their next two carriers because of operational issues with the first set. I’m not trying to dismiss China’s advances, but one should try to balance out their research.

AW threads, news stories, and especially your own research are poor indicators of actual military capabilities. There are processes in place within DoD and DoN to assess, in a fully informed way, relative capabilities, and where gaps exist. While "eating our lunch" isn't a term I would use, we are right to respect China's capabilities, especially where they have outpaced and exceeded our own. I would caution against Paper Tiger thinking vis-à-vis China.

 

[Griz882]

AW threads, news stories, and especially your own research are poor indicators of actual military capabilities. There are processes in place within DoD and DoN to assess, in a fully informed way, relative capabilities, and where gaps exist. While "eating our lunch" isn't a term I would use, we are right to respect China's capabilities, especially where they have outpaced and exceeded our own. I would caution against Paper Tiger thinking vis-à-vis China.

I don’t think you can accuse me of “paper tiger” thinking, nor am I convinced the Chinese are the masters of the Pacific. On the other side, I certainly hope both DoN and DoD have processes in place to assess these things, they always seemed to before.

 

[Brett327]

I don’t think you can accuse me of “paper tiger” thinking, nor am I convinced the Chinese are the masters of the Pacific.

If you'd like to pick a number from 1 to 10 indicating how you personally feel about China's military capabilities, I can tell you that you're wrong in a more quantitative manner.

 

[Griz882]

If you'd like to pick a number from 1 to 10 indicating how you personally feel about China's military capabilities, I can tell you that you're wrong in a more quantitative manner.

How I personally feel doesn’t really matter, especially since I didn’t mention feelings.

 

[BigRed389]

If you'd like to pick a number from 1 to 10 indicating how you personally feel about China's military capabilities, I can tell you that you're wrong in a more quantitative manner.

4.2

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

If you'd like to pick a number from 1 to 10 indicating how you personally feel about China's military capabilities, I can tell you that you're wrong in a more quantitative manner.

Nothing encourages sound discussion like knowing that no matter what you say (or number you choose), Brett will say you're wrong. Since of course, his opinion is always better than anyone else's. Silly me, I thought Moderators were supposed to encourage users of this site. Oh well.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

基于战斗力和可持续性 五点五