The NYT is all a-gush about China’s increasing transparency and military prowess:
The J-15 Flying Shark is China’s newest attack jet, a sinuous fighter with the folding wings, shortened tail cone and bulked-up landing gear it needs to serve on China’s first aircraft carrier, which is expected to start sea trials soon. It is indisputable evidence of China’s growing mastery of military technology.
The machine was reverse-engineered from an Su-33 imported from the Ukraine after the Russians refused an export license. It’ll have shorter legs than even the FA-18 (!) because of the ski jump take-off CONOPS. And the Chinese have yet to operate a high performance aircraft off the deck of an aircraft carrier, which trust me, is harder that it looks.
“Mastery,” you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Surely Cap’n Lex, you must realize that the New York Times knows far more about carrier borne aircraft and operations than anyone who might have merely spent their life actually doing the same
I mean, Tom Friedman will surely be able to point out the self-evident superiority of the J-15, and by extension the entire Chinese aerospace industry as a whole. Didn’t you get the memo that they do everything better over there?
Too much sarcasm on my part? Does my disdain for the Gray Lady show too much?
I can’t wait to see if they reverse engineered the Russki ejection seats. They’re going to need them, though I doubt we’ll see many vids.
Maybe no vids, but the Varyag is often photographed by Chinese military enthusiasts, should she get dinged up enough to need a trip to the yard for repairs those photos will make the internet. Lord knows we’ve had plenty of bad fires that required major work to fix; something like that would be very hard to cover up. We’ll also probably get plenty of news about crashes during FCLP.
It looks pretty hard when we do it. I wonder what the “learning curve” will cost them in dollars and pilots.
True enough. But then, they have plenty of both, the latter by selling us cheap consumer goods using grossly underpaid labor – having the added advantage of destroying our manufacturing base to boot. Their rate-limiting step will be production of planes.
Which leads me to a question for you, Lex. How long does it take to train someone to fly an airplane off of a perfectly good ship, and land it back thereupon with sufficient skill that both the pilot and the plane will fly again?
How long does it take to train the deck crewmen and maintenance crews such that when the pilot is ready to fly again so is the plane and the deck?
Ron, there’s a fair amount of evidence that China’s economy isn’t nearly as robust as reported. In fact, there’s a possibility that they will be facing their own version of a burst bubble the next 5 years or so.
Naturally China would be pushing the “economic powerhouse” angle as hard as they can; it’s in their best interest.
In fact, there’s a possibility that they will be facing their own version of a burst bubble the next 5 years or so.
North Korea achieved building nuclear weapons at the cost of making people eat grass. What can China do if they’re willing to go to even half that length?
North Korea is on the verge of collapsing into absolute chaos. There is no evidence that China is either that stupid, or that desperate. Their attempt to create a capitalistic system in China is the precise opposite of what happened in North Korea.
“Makin’ it look easy is the hard part.”
I think a new and vibrant redefining of the pejorative…”A Chinese Fire Drill”…is in the offing. Best
+1…”Chinese Fire Drill”…beautiful. Life is pretty cheap for them and we’ll see how many “trained pilots” they go through in the first few years….Gravity is pretty unforgiving.
They’ll have to translate “Leemer” and “Ramp Strike” into Chinese, along with “Aw sh!t”.
Ah, glasshopper, carry much power to avoid a lamp stlike..
Funny how until you actually crawl the trenches on any endeavor, you really have a merely superficial comprehension of the process….
Let’s see, what was the name of that book about that nation that was going to surpass America in the 80s? Oh yeah, “The Japan Who Can Say No.”
1) Soviets had an abundance of time watching us operate (and learn) at times very up close and personal. Doing it for real, however, is another matter, not to mention the operating expense and shore-tail necessary. Lots of hidden costs in this one that have been amortized by us over decades.
2) Ref the sinuous flying shark (give me a f-ing break – well, it is the NYT…
) – let’s see if they’ve got that whole engine thing really figured out. That took the Soviets/Russians a long time to get right and some question whether they ever did. What’s the life between changes for the J-15′s engines? Not like they will be in a benign environment and all.
w/r, SJS
I understand the Red Chinks haven’t gotten engines right yet.
SJS quipped: (well, it is the NYT… )
Leftist state-run media do tend to stick together, don’t they?
I know it’s apples and oranges, but everytime I read about awesome Chinese technology based only off of a photo, I can’t help but to think of those new Taylor Made R11 drivers ($400 retail) that can be found on ebay for under $50, shipped from China, brand new and still in the plastic.
Yes. That’s what I want. A cheap jet using stringent copy techniques of other a/c instead of up front design analysis and rigor. They’ve created a…Frankenplane.
OK, they’ve got a one trick pony that may or may not work. How long until they have Blue Water capabilities? i.e. COD, inflight refueling, AWACS capable aircraft… We have all those for a simple reason, we NEED them.
Times quote: “[The Flying Shark] is indisputable evidence of China’s growing mastery of
military technologyripping off Russian technology. ”There. Fixed for y’alls.
Technology, I might add, which first flew back in 1985.
…Next up, China announces a state of the art CPU based on the Intel 80286, only with better segmented memory architecture.
Shorter legs than an F/A-18???? Geez, are they at holddown when they launch? Without tankers, will they even be able to CQ?
Therein lies the REAL question. It’s one thing to develop an airplane that can operate in the corrosive environment of salt=laden air and moisture. It’s even fairly straightforward to take off from a “ski-jump” flight deck. Eventually they’ll even figure out how to get the planes back aboard sans damage.
the real trick is mastering air to air refueling. From carriers. That’s going to be important because the BIG limiting factor of that whole ski-jump design flight deck is that it’s nigh-on impossible to get a plane airborne with a full bag of fuel AND weapons.
It’s that whole thing about being able to get airborne, carry a full bag of fuel and a full bag of ordnance. With a ski-jump flight deck, you get to choose two of the three options. That means you need tankers. THAT means either dedicated tankers, or buddy packs, and THAT means fewer combat aircraft in the airwing because of the limited hangar and deck space of that carrier’s design.
It would be very entertaining to be able to cruise alongside her while she’s trying to figure this whole carrier-ops bit out.
Like the man says, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.
Add to that, Tim, the Russian idea of an airwing being comprised of about a third of our present day complement. They ain’t agonna do much of anything if they need tankers, which…
Speaking of running alongside of her, I’m wondering how that whole unrep thing is gonna go down. I’m thinking Three Stooges manning the Bridge. Oh my…
IIRC the Soviet concept of even the Varyag was to be a CAP provider and supplemental ASW helo carrier for a surface action group centered on a Kirov class with Slava and Sovremenny missile slingers. Could such a force, by dint of the CAP, survive with enough force to get within missile range of an allied naval force the large number of powerful SSMs they could fire could very well have posed a significant threat. Could the Chinese be imagining the same thing, i.e. a modest first step CONOPS that maximizes what can be done with a modest first step carrier/air wing team?
On the one hand this could very well be the modern equivalent of the between wars predominant view of the carrier providing scouting and anti-scouting only for the battle line, but on the other hand let’s not forget just how effective Ozawa’s deception was and how close Kurita came to making the landings in the PI a blood-bathed disaster.
There are ways China could make even a small handful of carriers flying only a couple dozen or so Flankers a doorway into a much larger tactical maneuver space that could make their Navy much more effective than it currently is.
sounds about right. It’s a carrier with training wheels for them. Develop procedures, train up an initial cadre of crew to serve as instructors for the next generation, and use it to protect a SAG outside range of land based fighter cover (say, park it south of Taiwan to blockade the island while your land based forces pummel the place to soften it up for invasion).
I’d not be surprised if they’re already working on design and construction of a larger carrier with catapults and/or a refueling capability.
Don’t underestimate the ChiComs. They’re good at what they do, when they want to and they want to be good at modern military stuff.
You see cheap Chinese junk in stores here, that stuff is cheap junk because that’s
1) what the customer ordered. Chinese companies can turn out decent stuff but if they’re paid to make junk they make junk.
2) a bit of misinformation. Make the west think you can’t make good stuff and they’ll forever underestimate you. Of course underestimating a (potential) enemy is the worst mistake a country can make.
Concur. Some of the stuff on the internet about the Chinese recently reminds me a LOT of all those History and Military channel shows about what guys stationed in the PI and Hawaii thought about the “Jap(anese)” before WWII, i.e. that they couldn’t see at night, that they were half-wits with technology, that their inner ear couldn’t handle ACM, etc.
More cold hearted analysis of what their military is about. Less “Been There, Done That, yawn” attitude seems to be in order, at least from where I sit.
I’m going to spray a bit of cold water…let’s not get too cocky.
Remember, it took the United States and Japan, working from a cold start, about fifteen years to go from experimental carriers like the Langley to the fleets that fought at Midway and Leyte Gulf.
And if the Chinese have ripped off Russian technology, the can certainly copy American CV operations procedures. They don’t have to invent much, just develop proficiency. And they are likely to start doing that next year.
As I keep saying “this will be a good show.”
Laugh now, but they are committed to the learning curve, and their planning horizon is measured in decades. In ten years the trajectory is going to be obvious.
What isn’t clear is whether the investment is going to be relevant in ten years or not. In any case they have money to burn to buy the experience and the option to double down. Again and again.
In the meantime, we, hopefully, will get our collective heads out from between our cheeks and will get our own house in order economically, or else we won’t have any long-term investment options to speak of on the defense side.
Much like many overestimated Russian technology and military prowess, many today are overestimating the constant and unwavering resolve of the Chinese. Almost some crude sterotype of the “implacable oriental mind”.
While some ChiCom naval officers may have a planning horizon measured in decades, I think it is simplistic to believe that there are no competing factions within their navy (and across branches) that will jump on each failure (and there will be spectacular failures), point the resources expended, and argue that their vested interests should get those resources. And if their economy slows, that likelyhood gets that much greater. So to pretend that the course plotted today (even though we don’t know exactly what their endgame is) is the course for the future, written in stone, is to engage in the same overestimation nonsense that the US seem prone to engage in.
Fou-er deck! No chance Padders
Concur with those arguing for a little gut check on our cockiness.
The trend in the cold war was to over-estimate Soviet capabilities and how quickly they could put them in service. DNI is now all but admitting that the trend nowadays is for the intel community to underestimate the Chinese and overstate how long it will take them to get their stuff to work and become operational. Not the right side of the equation you want to err on.
Copying a foreign design is not necessarily any worse than using a foreign design. No one sits and points at the Israelis for being unable to make their own fighters and being reduced to using American or French aircraft instead. The Russian engines probably aren’t up to snuff compared to American, but the basic Flanker airframe is credibly very good and the possibility is that the Chinese avionics are better than the Russian ones.
This is an interesting insight into Chinese thinking. I’m not quaking in my boots by any stretch, but I’m not finding much to necessarily mock either (other than NYT reporting of course . . .)
Agree we should not underestimate Chinese capabilities. This first ship is not about operational capabilities or power projection or even port visits (though it may do some or all of those things) – the true purpose of the ship is about starting that vicious learning curve. Everything from rebuilding the ship, to developing the planes, to learning to operate the ship, is a massive experiment and learning experience. Yes, they will probably crash a lot of planes and kill a number of pilots, but this is the cutting edge of Chinese sea and air power and, right now, those risks are worth it.
The first time they splat one on the roof, putting out the fire will be enough put to an abject fear of all things flight deck into the crew. Where they think they’re getting the expertise to train and manage the crew is beyond me. Dilbert videos with subtitles for training?
Then there’s Engineering. I remember one time when the Connie lit off a boiler that went high order back in the 90′s, and how many hours it took an experienced crew to get it put down. Warped deck plates and a very tired crew having to go back into a very, very hot compartment. I hear tell the XO was there the whole time and refused to leave until the emergency was secured, which is not something you train into a crew. They have to want it.
“Mastery.” Heh. You have to start at the beginning to achieve mastery, say with grabbing a Sopwith Pup with yer hands and dragging it down onto HMS Furious. Later, after you learn more, you can do more difficult stuff and (those of you who survive) can transmit lessons learned to the young pups, so that they don’t have to learn them the hard way.
There is an awful lot of Institutional Memory in the USN about how to operate shipboard aircraft, and I betcha a hugely significant part of it is not transmissible by writing, or even video, but only by precept.
P.s. Dunning survived the first-ever carrier landing in the RN. He did not survive the second one. Flying is an un-natural act for humans and Naval Aviation always was, and is, Serious Business.
We had to start somewhere. I’ve seen what happened with the Langley when that former coal ship entered service. There was a pretty steep learning curve back then with propellers and canvas-skinned planes that cruised at 100 mph. It wasn’t pretty. But the difference is that birds were a lot cheaper back then. I’d imagine the learning curve with Mach 2 jets is just a slight bit steeper.
The problem I have with the NYT, as a journalist (in sports, admittedly), is that if they would’ve opened up a Jane’s book, called and asked someone with some knowledge of the Su-33, like a Bill Sweetman, they would’ve realized that this bird is nothing more than a knockoff of a 20-year-old Russkie bird. The always-mentioned bias doesn’t rear its head in stories, but in the gate-keeping function (what and what not to cover). The reporter has an agenda here and I’m at a loss on what it is, except maybe the whole left-leaning refrain of A.) America’s righteous decline and B.) China’s glorious ascent.
I’ve read their indigenous engine, the WS-10, I think, is still plagued with problems, even if it’s ripped off from GE cores sourced from some Boeing airliners we sold them in the 90s. If they’re getting the plans and a single example from the Ukraine, I’d assume that the Russkies will not exactly be bending over backwards to sell them some more engines, especially since they will try to reverse-engineer them like they did with the airframe and avionics.
When they figure out how to launch fully-loaded aircraft on an alpha strike over the horizon against heavily defended targets and have some decent sortie generation rates, call me. I won’t hold my breath. I agree with some of the other comments. Without refuelling and AWACs birds, this carrier’s utility will be strictly limited.
Like you say we had to start somewhere. I’d be surprised at any country that started with the AWACS element instead of the strike and fighter protection element, for a lot of reasons.
Further what’s their strategic use of the Carrier? Launching alpha strikes on advanced faraway countries need not be it. Chinese CVN’s operating within range of land based AWACS and refueling assets (like H-6′s) but providing the advantage of a mobile airbase would significantly complicate American sea control in near the entire Western Pacific. Not all carriers have to be operated the way we use ours because not all countries have the same strategic goals.
Oh, yeah, I’ve seen some of the slow-motion movies of early landing attempts aboard USS Langley. Oww! (The USN started filming carrier approaches and recoveries from the very start, so that they could learn from mistakes.) At least that happened at slow speeds, so that even if one were killed, there was a good chance his body would be mostly intact afterwards. Some people seem to think that’s important.
Heh, maybe a few overstated articles like this will stir up some support for additional navy expenditures…
They might. Hard to argue for additional funds when we’re selling Howitzers for scrap price and there’s not a steel mill left in the country that can make new barrels from scratch.
http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/view?id=4363825&convertTo=USD
Am I the only person wondering how in the hell this came to pass?
– Max
Max, the tubes in that ad are not howitzers. They are the tubes for 16″/50 Mk. 7s.
I do agree that it is a disgrace that we no longer have the manufacturing capability to cast, bore, turn, and rifle these guns.
Found a good photo of the inspection and acceptance marks on one:
http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630831.jpg
U.S. Naval Gun Factory W.N.Y. (I suspect that is the Watervliet Arsenal)
16 in. GUN MARK 7 MOD No. 358
Sup’t F.L.R.P.
Insp’r. G.P.B
1944
Let’s all remember the strategic context here, China need not achieve the same degree of proficiency at Carrier Ops as the USN in order to pose a significant naval threat.
I can’t blame them for reverse engineering either. They have the manpower and the factories to be self reliant in military manufacturing -which is only smart-, they lack the intellectual property, but reverse engineering is the quickest way to catch up vice re-inventing the wheel. As with the J-20, J-10, JF-17 etc. we can see they are making the intermediate strides towards fully indigenous designs.
I don’t see Chinese actions as bumbling at all. I don’t see them being dissuaded by the near certainty they’ll have a crash on the flight deck. I can’t think of a single country that decided to fly aircraft of ships, from the major Navies like the US, UK and Japan in WWII to the smaller navies like the Dutch and Australians in the early cold war and even the Thais flying Harriers off a Spanish built pocket carrier nowadays, that lacked the ability to overcome these setbacks. Instead they learned well and fast from them. Money has by far been the limiting factor for Navies throughout history, can you name a single Navy limited by fear of its crews to not do something the national authority had put its will behind? China has what they need to be successful. Recent developments convince me it’s a matter of when not if they will have a viable carrier fleet. Hope we’re watching them with more interest than derision. Underestimating your enemy, especially a hungry one like China, is not recommended.
Methinks the PRC need a spare hull pierside for when they cock up the first one. Like you say, they’ll learn.
I’m hoping Earless Leader doesn’t get a notion that we need to be over there teaching them how to git er dun.
Oh Gawd . . . don’t give him ideas, please!
Amen!
Hmmm, I see a great opportunity for retired types with at least 400-500 deck landings and 2500 fixed wing hours to go make some serious yuan as instructors. Call USAA beforehand and increase the life insurance significantly however.
Ha-ha, I see you too watched a lot of movies with your girls…now young women. NYT has driveled toward the sensational haven’t they?