China's first aircraft carrier starts sea trial

Agence France Presse (AFP) ^ | 08/10/2011 | Marianne Barriaux

[unkus]

Thanks, Jeff. Will do.
You are to be commended for your good work.

[Jeff Head]

Got another site comparing AEGIS and AEGIS-like vessels of the world. One comparing ROCN vs PLAN over Taiwan. One showing the neat new Tech for the US NAVY in the 21ST Century...we just need to build a lot more of it.

Link to them all from JEFFHEAD.COM

[freedumb2003]

>>No today or tomorrow, but if we continue to sit on our laurels, they could pose a significant threat in the next 10 years.<<

I admit that is the underlying point. And the current holder of that direction is barry the zero, which should scare the crap out of every American (but does not).

Thanks for clarifying — I knew it was a renovation, but I got the era wrong. Thank God the Chinese can’t put together something like Newport News - YET!

[lbryce]

I've been to your excellent aircraft carrier info site linked from previous FR posts. I posted the image of the Ex-Varyag from Google Images believing it was to scale. The jingoist patriot in me got me all riled up. :-)

Thank you for setting me straight.

[andyk]

That carrier looks pretty spiffy since the retrofit. It is definitely nothing to sneeze at. We ignore their new training platform at our own peril. This is no time to be complacent. Plus, it’s good to see you posting, Jeff.

[sukhoi-30mki]

China has one massive advantage-it’s the world’s largest shipbuilder. While naval and commercial shipping is not the same, they do have the infrastructure to ramp up production.

[Dogbert41]

What we need to do is build a Doomsday device and then not worry about China’s new navy.

[Vroomfondel]

SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

[doorgunner69]

We better take them seriously.

Unfortunately, every time this China/Russia comparison comes up, the usual jingoistic "their stuff is crap, we will own them" often surfaces. Often this seems to come from those on, or recently on, active duty. They are not privy to current capability intel I suspect, being well down in the chain of command. They should know what they get to hear is filtered, whether they like it or not.

Being outside of the structure gains new perspective of what intel really thinks of the threat, without the pep talks in the wardroom. Laugh at them at your peril.

[Tainan]

Good to see you back.
Hope all is good...or at least as good as can be hoped.

[spetznaz]

Correct assessment. Which is why I would always prefer overestimating a threat to underestimating a threat. Both approaches are not optimally economical, but I would much prefer the former over the latter when it comes to issues of security. It is much better to develop a solution that is far superior to the problem, rather than to pooh-pooh a problem and come up with a half-baked solution only to realize the problem had teeth to match its growl.

For instance, the development of the F-15 in response to the Soviet 'superfighter,' the MiG-25. The Foxbat was believed to be a superfighter that would outperform all current American fighters, leading to the creation of the Eagle ... only to discover that the Foxbat was no superfighter but rather a high speed interceptor meant to kill an American supersonic bomber that never got developed. Was the F-15 an over-achievement to the threat, particularly when the threat was seen to have been (significantly) mis-read and misunderstood? Well, yes. But then, the F-15 had been built to superlative standards, which is why, even today, the Eagle is still a very serious contender to even very modern 4.5 generation aircraft (and while there are 4.5G aircraft like the Eurofighter, Rafale and the newest iterations of the Flanker, the updated Eagle is still a serious and equal match decades after its initial induction. That says a lot about the designers of the F-15, as well as those who ensured it remained relevant and updated).

On the other side of that scale, it is possible to simply pooh-pooh all the designs that are coming out from other nations, and say we possess a 'natural' superiority to anything out there (without realizing that is because of the effort, hardwork, money and dedication put into being number one, and not because of some magical pixie dust that makes it so). Which is why some comments I see from FReepers (e.g. F-16s and A-10s are enough) are quite worrying. The US is number 1 because it has taken cogent steps to be number 1. Stop doing that, and in a couple of decades things may be quite different.

Anyways, it is much better to 'over react' and have a solution like the F-15 (or, more recently, the F-22) facing off against threats that are not near F-15 level; rather underestimating a threat that turns out real.

[magslinger]

A stall is a very real risk anytime you take off from a very limited space like a carrier. Even a steam catpult is no guarantee of success. I once watched a cold cat shot on a carrier.

The seat didn't work, either. :(