PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

I thought the Chinese were working on the CJ7 turboprop flight trainer based on the Yak-152.

Re: Aircraft Carriers II

PanAsian said:

If Sunni Islamic extremists end up on top locally after the Syrian government falls it will still take them a while to get enough in order to pose a threat to the US and they have a long list of enemies. There will be some cost to the US, and there is high risk but it is slim, but with the likelihood of a very advantageous outcome for the US.

Click to expand...

The most likely scenario, should Assad be defeated, is a fundamental Sunni led, Islamic regime taking power with ties to Al Quida that is far more extreme than Assad. This would be a disaster fot the US and probably lead to war with Israel, which would then involve Iran, and have the potential to pull in Russia and the US on opposing sides.

Assad is a far, far more stable player, even if he is not friendly to the US. Despite this, the Clinton and both Bush adminstrations were able to wrok with him to a point, and then control severe problems by using Israel to play him off against. Assad has kept the lid on Kurd-Shia-Sunni troubles in the area that also involve Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. A fundamental Sunni led Islamic regime with ties to Al Quida will not.

Assad does not out and out persecutre his minorities, including Christians. This will not be the case with a fundamental Sunni led Islamic regime with ties to Al Quida.

Assad has been able to maintain peace and the absence of out and out war with Isreal, a fundamental Sunni led Islamic regime with ties to Al Quida will not.

The list goes on. In the current situation there is no (as in zero) vtial US national interest served by attacking or bringing down Assad in the current environment. There are muitiple US national interests that will be severely endangered should Assad fall and Syrai fall into chaos, or have a fundamental Sunni led Islamic regime with ties to Al Quida take over.

Re: Aircraft Carriers II

Jeff Head said:

NATO/West answer to Putin threatening to reinforce his vessels in the Syrian area. With four Burkes, two or more US SSNs, one or two UK SSNs, and an entire French carrier group, it will be hard for Russia to match that, and you can imagine that Italy also has vessels in the area and Turkey too.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the USS Harry S. Truman and her escorts in the Red Sea. Only a few days transit and through the Suez Canal and Carrier Strike Group Ten is on station in the Med.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

TerraN_EmpirE said:

I thought the Chinese were working on the CJ7 turboprop flight trainer based on the Yak-152.

Click to expand...

CJ-7 is a primary trainer developed by Hongdu with help from Yakovlev and based on the Yak-152. Both use a nine cylinder radial engine.
A small trainer for initial deck flying will be more strongly built and considerably heavier, something of the size and weight of the Super Tucano but even more strongly built. I would like a twin engine aircraft with coaxial propeller.
I also think this smaller carrier might be fitted with EM cats, either in the waist or, my preference, in the ski ramp. These cats might have a third or half the power of cats in main carriers so this might lead to saving money on the development of EM cats. And the aircraft must be designed to use these cats.

Re: Aircraft Carriers II

Pointblank said:

Don't forget the USS Harry S. Truman and her escorts in the Red Sea. Only a few days transit and through the Suez Canal and Carrier Strike Group Ten is on station in the Med.

Click to expand...

The HST just arrived in the region. wants one carrier in the region at all times.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

chuck731 said:

Is the indication for LPH at Changxing still the hull module with large side sponsons for what appears to be an angled deck? If that is an LPH, it would be the first angle deck LPH I know of.

Click to expand...

most western LPHs using VSTOL (Harrier-) - planes, but China didn't have those planes. So they need light-weight fighters to do the same job. And to launch these fighters, they need catapult - and angled deck for landing ...

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

So what you are saying is it's a full fledged CATOBAR carrier in the guise of the LPH.

Re: Aircraft Carriers II

Asif just posted some game changing information regarding the Syria situation in the Middle East thread that I thought worthwhile to repost here. Sorry I couldn't figure out how to link directly to the original post.

asif iqbal said:

If there is a attack on Syria, Iran will not back down and Hezbollah will open a second front

Russia is not going to go easy this time, they are 100% standing by Assad no matter what and they seem hell bent on saving him

Putin is also threatening Saudis, Russia has no intention of letting this one go they have invested too much in Syria for too long

What happens if Russia starts positioning its ships off the coast of Syria and try's to block any attack? Even if a Russian vessel is hit by accident the situation will escalate

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

This definitely ups the ante. Although I believe the US and friends can still come out on top it just got a whole lot more potentially painful for everyone.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

Sczepan said:

most western LPHs using VSTOL (Harrier-) - planes, but China didn't have those planes. So they need light-weight fighters to do the same job. And to launch these fighters, they need catapult - and angled deck for landing ...

Click to expand...

The US spent many years without Harriers on the Amphibious ships. The entire service life of the seven Iwo Jima Class LPHs, most of the service life of the five Taraw class LHAs. It was at the tail end of the Tarawa class and the entore life now of the Wasp Class (whiuch was specifically designed to operate the Harrier AV-8B) before the Harriers came into place.

The French do not have them, Russia does not have them (nor will they with their new Mistrals). Australia is not planning to. Korea does not. Japan does not with their Osumi Class which are their largest amphibiouis ships. And now, the Royal Navy does not. They all use helicopters to give ground support to their amphibious assault or air assault troops.

In fact, for Amphibious assault, really only the US and the UK used Harriees in that role.

The Italians had their Harries for a sea control role on a carrier outfitted for that. The Spanish did the same. Now both have build hybrid carriers that can do both roles (sea control and amphibious operations), and they did that because they could not afford to build both and wanted to maximize their flexability.

China has the money and the will to do both...like the US...and I expect that is what they are going to do.

Their cats and attack fighters (fixed wing aircraft) will operate off of their true carriers.

It is possible to launch UAVs and even something like an OV-10 Bronco off of a straight deck amphib...and perhaps the Chinese will do someything like that, but I still rate that as an outside chance (except the UAVs).

I will predict, with almost 100% certainty, that they do not put cats on their amphibious assault ships. Their cats, when they finally get to them, will be on their carriers.

But that is just my opinion and as in all things, time will tell.

Re: Aircraft Carriers II

PanAsian said:

Asif just posted some game changing information regarding the Syria situation in the Middle East thread that I thought worthwhile to repost here. Sorry I couldn't figure out how to link directly to the original post.

This definitely ups the ante. Although I believe the US and friends can still come out on top it just got a whole lot more potentially painful for everyone.

Click to expand...

This is so off topic it hurts.

But, I cannot help but notice that the report says "Putin Reportedly Threatens Saudi Arabia."

That tells me he probably did not threaten them directly at all.

I believe Putin has set the limits on what Russia is willing to accept with a US/Allies strike on Syria. He will not try to stop it or interfere unless it goes well beyond that. He will ensure that Assad does not escalate things. Putin does not want a shooting war with the US and its allies there...but I do not believe he will let Assad fall either. So he has voiced some sort of limits to the US.

I expect Obama will launch 100-200 Tomahawks at Syria that will ultimately do very little to change the game on the ground there with the civil war itself. He will crow about how tough he was, Puitin will condemn it, and things will go along as they are.

At this point I believe Assad is going to ultimately prevail.

However, the one big fly in the ointment that Putin cannot control...and neither can the US...is Iran. Putin will try and get them into his game plan, and perhaps they will abide it. But you never know with those guys and if they unleash the real dogs of war against Israel, then everything I just said could be overcome by events and things could escalate dangerously and quickly.

Now, back on topic.

SD has a thread bout ther Mid East, both news and military threads. Let's take this there.