Flying over the Liaoning: problems of the Chinese copy of the Su-33

More is better?




A little less than a year ago, Popular Mechanics reported that China surpassed the United States in the number of warships: according to experts, at that time, the Celestial Empire had thirteen warships more than the US Navy. For many then this was a signal of the loss of the status of the most powerful world power by the United States. But is this really so?

Everything, of course, is more complicated and does not rest on the nominal number of surface ships and submarines. Especially when it comes to the US Navy, which are used to taking not so much quantity as quality. “Unwind” a little back. After World War II, almost everyone understood that the basis of the tactical potential of a powerful modern fleet - These are aircraft carriers, or rather, large aircraft carriers. The most striking modern example is again the American Navy, which has ten aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type at its disposal, which will be gradually replaced by new ships of the Gerald R. Ford type, the first of which is already operational, although encounters with different problems.

The basis of the strike potential of an aircraft carrier are fighter-bombers. Now it is (with the US Navy) F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, and in the future the basis will be the new fifth-generation fighter F-35C. The states were "late" with the adoption of this deck on arms: he began to serve only in 2019, although the other two versions were put into operation a few years earlier. In total, approximately 90 aircraft and helicopters will serve on board the Gerald Ford, including, of course, the aforementioned F-35s.


Industrial "copy-paste"


This example is needed in order to understand how difficult it will be for China to snatch real primacy at sea. Recall that now he has only two aircraft carriers in service: Liaoning and Shandong. The first one is the well-known second Soviet heavy aircraft carrier (TAVKR) project 1143.5, first named “Riga”, and then renamed “Varyag”.

The second is more interesting. If only because it is already a “Chinese” development. Recall, “Shandong” (aka the project “Project 001A”) was commissioned in December 2019. The Chinese ship can be called, of course, conditionally. Everyone who saw the Russian “Admiral Kuznetsov” in the photo will easily see the “kinship” between him and Shandong. China, however, needs to be given credit: the Chinese removed the completely unnecessary strike weapon in the face of the P-700 Granite missiles (or its conventional Chinese counterpart), leaving only defensive weapons. A smart move. Sorry, this can not be said about everything else.


Recall that the basis of the strike potential of Shandong and Liaoning is a Shenyang J-15 fighter. This is an aircraft built on the basis of the Soviet decked Su-33, which in turn is a decked version of the Su-27. Earlier, China bought from Ukraine the T-10K, one of the first prototypes of the Su-33, but the Chinese themselves do not like to call it a “copy” of the Soviet aircraft, they say that we have before us the development of the Chinese J-11B. Which, however, is a copy of the Su-27th itself.

Be that as it may, there is no doubt that China has updated the electronics and equipped the car with the ability to use modern aviation weapons of destruction: at least by the standards of the post-Soviet space. From open sources, we know that an aircraft can probably carry up to eight medium-range PL-12 air-to-air missiles with an active homing radar. This in itself puts the J-15 at a level higher in combat capabilities than the Su-33, which in its arsenal does not carry missiles with the ARGSN, having outdated R-27 missiles with a passive homing radar as the basis for armament. She fetters the pilot in a maneuver after launch, not allowing to realize the principle of “shot-forgot”: at least if it comes to the final section of the flight of the rocket. On the other hand, we know that at least part of the Su-33 has undergone cost-effective modernization in recent years with an updated cockpit. This is already something.


It is known that the J-15 aircraft can also carry melee air-to-air missiles, but we are much more interested in strike capabilities: the very ones that the original Su-33 is practically devoid of. China is not a state that will talk about all its bombs or missiles. However, in November last year, Jane's drew attention to a photograph where you can see a couple of J-15 aircraft. On it you can see the KD-88 air-to-surface missile, as well as the anti-radar YJ-91 or anti-ship YJ-91A. All this suggests that China has dramatically increased the capabilities of the J-15, bringing it closer to what generation four plus is called in Russia, Europe and the United States.

Flying over the Liaoning: problems of the Chinese copy of the Su-33

Again, it’s impossible to speak confidently about the belonging of a machine to one or another (sub) generation, but data from a number of media indicate that the aircraft will receive or have already received an airborne radar station with an active phased antenna array in favor of increased combat qualities compared to the Su-33 (AFAR). But the Russian Air Force, not to mention the Navy aviation, still does not have at its disposal a single fighter with a radar with AFAR. It was supposed to be the first serial Su-57 of the fifth generation, but it crashed during tests.

The problems have not gone away


Does this indicate the superiority of Chinese military aircraft over Russian? Not at all. In general, any data on Chinese military equipment can be both exaggerated and understated: these are the realities of a totalitarian state. Obviously, even through the prism of propaganda, not the most pleasant things for the Chinese side are visible. The traditional Chinese problem is engines. According to Western experts, the WS-15 engines created for the J-10 are notable for their low reliability, and in addition are not powerful enough for such a heavy machine. The Americans counted at least four J-15 crashes with a total number of fighter jets of this model at about 20-25 units.

One of the problems is the saturation of air with salt, which is fraught with problems for the glider and the engine of the aircraft. We also note that earlier The Asia Times wrote that the Chinese media often criticize the plane and call it "jumping fish" for the inability to work effectively from the deck of aircraft carriers.


One can talk endlessly about various kinds of technical difficulties, “childhood diseases” (the aircraft was put into operation relatively recently), but this is not the main problem. The main thing is that the J-15 is too big for ships like Liaoning and Shandong, and is overweight. The normal take-off weight of the machine is 27 tons. For comparison: the American F / A-18E has 21 tons.

However, even this flaw (or rather, a “feature”) could have been closed if not for another conceptual problem - the lack of stealth technology. Nowadays, when all new fighters use it to one degree or another, the J-15 is becoming a machine of the last century. Earlier, the media called the promising fifth-generation Chinese J-31 as an alternative to it, but this aircraft is still under development and there is no information that it will be part of the Shandong or Liaoning aircraft groups. Or even go to the series someday.


Thus, in the context of a geopolitical confrontation with the United States, the capabilities of China's carrier-based aviation look completely unsatisfactory, despite some improvements in the J-15 compared to the Su-33.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

69 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy April 23 2020 18: 16 New
    • 12
    • 3
    +9
    The US Navy, which is used to taking not so much quantity as quality.
    Well, somehow it’s not patriotic, rather, despite the quality, they take a mass, eh? That's better, I think so ...
    As for attempts to explain where, at what level is Chinese, the question arises, is this really required? repeat
  2. Pvi1206 April 23 2020 18: 17 New
    • 37
    • 6
    +31
    Copying products (including military ones) is the shortest way to industrialize the country .... The USSR also started from this ... Over time, its own developments appeared ... The main thing is not to stop ... China is constantly moving forward ... Russia lost 20 years due to betrayal ...
    1. Surian April 23 2020 18: 57 New
      • 15
      • 7
      +8
      one snag, the Soviet Union copied until the 50s, that is, 20-30 years, and the Chinese have been copying since the very creation of the People's Republic of China, and only now they have begun to try to do their own thing, and the Soviet Union did not copy everything, but mainly the engines with which they had problems, and the Chinese copy stupidly everything, from machine guns and machine guns to planes and missiles
      1. Narak-zempo April 23 2020 21: 39 New
        • 8
        • 16
        -8
        Copy to the very end. Read what the EU computer.
        1. ikrut April 23 2020 22: 41 New
          • 11
          • 1
          +10
          And what is BESM-6? More helpful EU-1020 will be. Did you count all aviation and missiles on it?
          1. Narak-zempo April 23 2020 22: 44 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: ikrut
            And what is BESM-6? More helpful EU-1020 will be. Did you count all aviation and missiles on it?

            What am I talking about?
            Cars, aircraft engines, etc. in the 30s were copied according to objective necessity, because they lagged behind. But the computers started flush, and even at some points ahead, but in the end they decided to copy anyway. Paradox?
            1. ikrut April 23 2020 22: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The EU series turned out to be more technological. Yes, and in the end, the EU personnel have arrived in time. And then everything collapsed.
              1. Narak-zempo April 24 2020 08: 48 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: ikrut
                And then it all collapsed

                It’s just that someone decided that a market economy is more technological and should be copied.
                1. alexmach April 25 2020 00: 25 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  It’s just that someone decided that a market economy is more technological and should be copied.

                  The development of personal computers and all related technologies, including including our exchange of views, could only be ensured by a market economy.

                  And then we would have learned the news from the newspapers and we would have expressed our opinion at the meetings :)
      2. Usher April 23 2020 21: 53 New
        • 8
        • 15
        -7
        Quote: Surian
        one snag, the Soviet Union copied until the 50s, that is, 20-30 years, and the Chinese have been copying since the very creation of the People's Republic of China, and only now they have begun to try to do their own thing, and the Soviet Union did not copy everything, but mainly the engines with which they had problems, and the Chinese copy stupidly everything, from machine guns and machine guns to planes and missiles

        So what? do not confuse the first half of the 20th century and the end of the 20th century. In the beginning, there simply weren’t a lot of technologies and they weren’t so fundamentally complex, and the USSR had been hurt by engineers and leaders since tsarist times. Under the USSR, they advanced. China had none of this academic and fundamental science. And modern technologies have a longer production cycle and R&D. Now there is nothing fundamentally new, nothing at all, and under the USSR everything was just beginning (rockets, radars, jet aircraft, nuclear power, assault rifles, helicopters, night vision, combined armor, astronautics) and all were innovators. And now what to invent, and what seems to you copies, you can also say about any Heklekokh’s rifles and others, they are all copies of the M16. Su-57 copy of the F-22. Type10 copy of Leo2. But only China copies everything, and the rest themselves come up with? Do not flog nonsense eh?
        1. ser56 April 24 2020 19: 35 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Usher
          nothing at all,

          Seriously? The system of reconnaissance, informatization and control has fundamentally changed ... new types of radars, electronic warfare, the same Ratnik ... hi
          Quote: Usher
          Su-57 copy of the F-22.

          are you sure? bully
          1. Usher April 24 2020 19: 45 New
            • 1
            • 9
            -8
            The reconnaissance system and radars are secondary technologists. At that time there was a fundamental change, fundamental, and not what you write here. For example, if they would now take LASERS into service (as in a movie, that is, as the main weapon) RELSOTRONS, space warships, or Mechs appeared. It is clear now, but not the development of old technologies. At the expense of the Su-57, in the sense of sure? Of course I am sure that I will explain for those who are in the tank and do not understand the words. I’m not literally saying that the copy, you are making faces here, the Su-57 is a conceptual copy, not a direct one. You don’t jerk, ok? Can you provide concepts of the 5th generation of the USSR? I only think of the MiG-141, it looks like a Typhoon, and the S-47 is an experimental model. So the F-22 became the prototype for the Su-57, just like the MiG-25 for the F-15. Why should I chew OBVIOUS things?
            1. ser56 April 24 2020 19: 56 New
              • 5
              • 2
              +3
              Quote: Usher
              Reconnaissance system and radars, these are secondary technologists

              a common misconception in the USSR - just understand - the English developed the Addicus and the radar between wars - which allowed them, in many ways, to win the war in the air and at sea ... hi and also decryption, it doesn’t shoot either ... hi
              Quote: Usher
              fundamental change

              Quote: Usher
              assault rifles

              you already define in terms and examples ... request Fedorov created the first machine gun in 1916 hi
              Quote: Usher
              about is as the main weapon)

              is the laser rangefinder not the main weapon for you? bully those. SUR is that nonsense? But it qualitatively changes the performance characteristics of guns bully
              Quote: Usher
              RAILS

              rave... laughing at the current level of powerful pulse capacitors ... wink
              Quote: Usher
              I’m not literally saying that the copy, you are making faces here, the Su-57 is a conceptual copy, not a direct one.

              Quote: Usher
              Su-57 copy of the F-22.

              1) learn to express your thoughts accurately and clearly, and not gaff on your opponents request
              2) Su-57 universal aircraft - works on the ground, F-22 only for air targets - completely different concepts of aircraft ... hi
              Quote: Usher
              why should I chew OBVIOUS things?

              because you sat in a puddle of your ignorance of platitudes ... request
              1. Usher April 24 2020 20: 19 New
                • 1
                • 6
                -5
                What are you carrying? I tell you about Thomas, you tell me about Yarema, and who was the first who invented the machine? I know who invented that you are poking me little things about working on the Su-57 land? I’m not explaining this about it, but about the fact that one comrade believes that in China they’re just copying everything, I write back to him that this is a common practice everywhere, and you don’t need to twist your lip and say “fi”. Clear?
                And you started to write nonsense to me here. You stumbled upon some unknown things to me, you WHAT? What capacitors, I wrote about them, I wrote an EXAMPLE (do you understand this term?). An example of new fundamental technological trends in military equipment and tactics. And do not talk about particulars, they didn’t. The submarine was generally used since ancient times, and Gatling invented automatic weapons. And the prototype of the airplane was described by Mozhaysky (do not try to flaunt me with encyclopedic knowledge), but then he flew away from the Wright brothers.
                So this comrade, writes that the USSR says he was also engaged in copying, and then he began to do his own thing, but China supposedly only copies, does not do his own thing. For objectivity, I explained that he was wrong. The USSR copied and bought in the pre-war time (the same Christie (BT) tanks, guns, ships, the same Tu-4, Li-2 aircraft), and began to develop and make a technological breakthrough with the experience of war and the technological progress that began. RADARS, ANALOGUE COMPUTER SYSTEMS, MISSILE TECHNOLOGY, REACTIVE AVIATION, NUCLEAR POWER ENGINEERING, KOSOMS. And I don’t need to poke here when and who invented, a rocket was invented several thousand years ago. This is not about that.
                And now there is Nothing fundamentally new, modern technologists, these are natural fruits of the development of those technologies. Even then, they understood that there would be electronics, etc. I'm talking about the middle of the 20th century. And what was or was not, this is politics. So, all modern supposedly NEW developments, this is the same invention of a bicycle. These are all the same tanks, as the MBT (T-64) concept appeared and they did not change, as the BMP appeared, they did not change. Everything else is already particular. Sights there, engines, armor. This is not important, not about this conversation. And China is now also developing its technology and copying. Just like us, for example, BUMERANG, what? Not a conceptual copy of STRANKER'S PIRANIAS and the like machines? Our Tiger, not a copy of the Humvee? Nobody is ashamed of this, so why should the Chinese be ashamed?
                1. ser56 April 24 2020 21: 15 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Usher
                  What are you carrying?

                  the truth is the uterus ... then you have a stream of consciousness ... bully

                  Quote: Usher
                  then you poke me little things about working on the Su-57 land

                  because of this "little thing" the United States was forced to create an F-35 request
                  Quote: Usher
                  then to me unknown things, you WHAT ABOUT? What are capacitors

                  if you don’t know, it doesn’t mean that there is no problem ... but I know .. hi
                  Quote: Usher
                  I wrote an EXAMPLE (do you understand this term?)

                  I understand that you are a lyricist and do not answer for the words ... request
                  Quote: Usher
                  And now there’s nothing fundamentally new

                  even zircon? repeat I understand that you didn’t understand something else, well, good luck ...
                2. Shteffan April 24 2020 22: 28 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Not a copy, but an analogue.
                3. Cypa 30 June 2020 08: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  'Tiger' has nothing to do with Humvee
    2. Far East April 24 2020 10: 39 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      One question, what did the Chinese invent? in the 21st century. (gunpowder, wheel) ours (USSR) when copying, improved, introduced a new rational (GRAIN) look at the Chinese, NOTHING! Ah, Russia! nothing too! I personally do not care what the Chinese are building there for the Navy Air Force. but for ours, well, very disappointing!
      1. ser56 April 24 2020 19: 36 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Far East
        Ah, Russia! nothing too!

        and zircon? repeat
        1. blackice April 25 2020 07: 29 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          and zircon?


          Now we have a child prodigy which we will shut up our mouths?
          Correctly the person writes. Russia lost the potential of the Soviet academic school that gave us good designers, not only Zircon.
          1. ser56 April 25 2020 15: 51 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: blackice
            Soviet academic school, which gave us good designers

            it’s a pity that you don’t understand the level of stupidity in your phrase ... request
            1. blackice April 26 2020 04: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What a delight that you understood her
      2. Usher April 24 2020 19: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, yes, well, yes, before you write, at least they learned something? For example, the J-8 and J-10 fighter j-7 development which in turn is a licensed copy of the MiG-21. H-6 improved licensed copy of the Tu-16. Y-20 transporter in which the roots of An and Il are guessed. Type-99 development of the T-72, Type-04 BMP which developed from the BMP-2. And much more. There are direct copies, there is a purchased equipment. But there are some developments. So don't be smart.
    3. alexey3312 April 27 2020 16: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Not only 20 years (time), but also the collapse of production and agriculture.
  3. really April 23 2020 18: 22 New
    • 2
    • 8
    -6
    Nice review, thanks
  4. A1845 April 23 2020 18: 22 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Pvi1206
    The USSR also began with this.
    and not only the USSR
  5. Pavel57 April 23 2020 18: 25 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Everything is not bad, only the author has a confusion with the heads of rockets in his head.
    1. Vladimir_2U April 24 2020 03: 08 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Yes, and consider China
      these are the realities of a totalitarian state
      a totalitarian state, this is also some kind of confusion, stronger than with heads.
  6. paul3390 April 23 2020 18: 51 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    They are hiding everything from each other that they can, even Americans who are fingered. And what they can’t steal - they’re buying from grief .. So - China is by no means original here ..
    1. agond April 23 2020 19: 46 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      The J-15 was created on the basis of the Su-33, which means it is close in size, and both of them are too big for a deck aircraft, like their common predecessor, the Su-27, for aircraft carriers they need something smaller like the Mig-35, but it would be more correct to start mastering aircraft carriers from aircraft of a dimension close to the Yak-130
      1. Angry 5 May 2020 23: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, something like that. We just got the Tavkr Tbilisi, that is, an aircraft-carrying cruiser, on which both the Yak 141 were supposed to fly and the MiG-23/27 with the KIS and Su-25 were planned ... But Perestroika struck, and for the most part, the anti-communist revolution ... Then we from Tbilisi TAVKR are trying to make AV Kuznetsov ... And of the suitable aircraft, only Su-27/33 and MiG-29. Both have major flaws. But Mig adapts better to carrier-based aviation than Su ... I understand that it would have a Mig-29K air defense squadron, NAP Su-25 squadron, and Su-33 reconnaissance unit. And that would be enough for today. At the same time, in order to save budgetary funds, dismantle all defensive weapons, since they are minimal on AV in other countries of the world, and we need to put in four bends and four duets. All other offensive and defensive weapons should be on the BNK and nuclear submarines of the escort.
  7. Avior April 23 2020 19: 29 New
    • 8
    • 6
    +2
    The Chinese say that they created the deck version themselves, someone (nobody knows, by the way) says that they copied from the early prototype su33.
    Evidence neither one nor the other does not lead, which is characteristic.
    But one thing can be said, there is some similarity between them
    The Americans counted at least four J-15 crashes with a total number of fighter jets of this model at about 20-25 units.

    That's a lot.
    And what about su33, why didn't the author mention it?
    Very simple - 26 serial copies were issued, the number of accidents with the loss of aircraft is 7.
    Can we conclude from this that the Chinese have a copy of su33?
    All the same, fewer accidents ....
    1. kit88 April 23 2020 20: 16 New
      • 15
      • 1
      +14
      Quote: Avior
      All the same, fewer accidents ..

      And how many years?
      Be more careful with such statistics. And then we get that the safest plane is the one that has never taken off. And accordingly, never fell.
      1. Avior April 23 2020 20: 19 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        It is more correct to clarify not how many years, but which raid.
        But this is a double secret
        We can say for sure, the first five accidents were in 10 years from 1991 to 2001
  8. Mihail2019 April 23 2020 19: 36 New
    • 12
    • 2
    +10
    The author has a confusion not only with the "heads" of missiles ..
    The worst thing is the confusion in one’s own head: how did this lack of stealth technology that didn’t fully prove itself suddenly become a “conceptual problem” for the main attack aircraft of an aircraft carrier ?!
    1. JD1979 April 23 2020 22: 42 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Yes, no problem, except for the return of the first shot to the enemy)).
  9. Andrey VOV April 23 2020 19: 40 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Something I did not understand what the author wanted to say, mentioning the crash of one SU-57 .....,
    1. Mihail2019 April 23 2020 19: 58 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      Yes, there’s just a couple of authors on VO that “scribble”, really in pursuit of the printed signs: Ilya Legat - this one is not yet accelerated, and the second, Kirill Ryabov, is generally a graphomaniac !!! Well, or loves the style of American allegedly "scientific broadcasts." In fact-really propaganda broadcasts .. And dumb to the impossibility. And Ryabov took them directly into one of their styles - repeating the same thing from paragraph to paragraph .... He steamed already !!!
      1. Usher April 23 2020 21: 57 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        For allegedly American scientific broadcasts, a separate plus))) Western documentary films also infuriate me, they repeat the same thing 100500 times with a smart look, a lot of water.
  10. Azim April 23 2020 19: 51 New
    • 2
    • 9
    -7
    But the Russian Air Force, not to mention the Navy aviation, still does not have at its disposal a single fighter with a radar with AFAR.

    But does the MiG-31 have no AFAR? Passive, but still?
    1. Mihail2019 April 23 2020 20: 02 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      Namely, the MiG-31 has a passive phased array (PFAR). And AFAR is an active HEADLIGHT!
    2. donavi49 April 23 2020 20: 03 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Division by zero is the same.

      MiG has an old Barrier by modern standards, which has been living in its modernized form for two decades, and will hit the original product 2 and before retiring. wink It is PFAR or PESA according to the English classification.
      1. Mihail2019 April 23 2020 20: 13 New
        • 2
        • 6
        -4
        Well, I said that PFAR, only the 31st today are actively modernizing .. But how - it’s clearly state secrets ..
    3. Mihail2019 April 23 2020 20: 07 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Well, as for what the VKS or the Navy aviation has or does not have, it’s better to know less .. It’s calmer, you know, it will sleep ..
    4. Mihail2019 April 23 2020 20: 10 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      And, by the way, this is the first production car in the world with a headlight in general, as such, on board. Also with the onboard computer connected to it ..
  11. DDT
    DDT April 23 2020 20: 33 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    And what did this War Torment incur in China ?! Here, look, enjoy, to which the genius is no longer Soviet, but Russian technical thought! Link here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz0YhjDd8do&list=PL3G9qpm-YZSgOxNrc4W6RByzo7BlFcNlB&index=3
  12. Lopatov April 23 2020 20: 43 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Somehow it's all ... spherical.

    There are Americans. Ready to aggressively “confront” China close to its borders, using resources and meat from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia, if possible.

    There is China, which is going to defend itself against US aggression, and not to organize "AirSea Battle" (c) on the east coast of the USA.

    The author is trying to portray the Chinese as whipping boys for the American Navy. But this, to put it mildly, is not so. Chinese aircraft carriers are just a backup designed to "clean up" the aircraft working from ground airfields.
    1. Mihail2019 April 23 2020 21: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Really, sensible!
      That's really what China is hard to suspect, because it is underestimating the threats at its own borders!
      And - the boundaries of potential spheres of influence ...
    2. Boa kaa April 24 2020 16: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Spade
      The author is trying to portray the Chinese as whipping boys for the American Navy. But this, to put it mildly, is not so.

      Unfortunately, the Chinese fleet is skewed towards NK and this is its Achilles' heel. The thing is that out of 3 Wolves, 2 are aimed at Pacific Fleet. I think Gini and Elk will stomp there too.
      Now imagine: an AVU approached the D2 / AD area with an air wing ready to gain dominance in the designated water area. It is logical to assume that the Chinese comrades will abandon their surface fleet to oust the Yankee ships. Let us keep silent about their BRs of type DF-21D, because it is one thing to shag the drawing of the automatic control unit on the sand of the landfill and it is quite another to get into the maneuvering automatic control unit at sea. Personally, I’m not sure that the PLA fleet’s NK fleet will go through the positions of the Yankee strike submarines deployed in their path. And I’m not at all sure that these same boats (even vaunted EMs like D-055) will be able to repel the Yankee strike 158C ...
      And Chinese submariners, and NK, can’t oppose the American submarines today. Those rattles (that's for sure - buckets with bolts!) That the comrades have (3 cases type 091-old, 1 generation; and 3 units type 093, positioned as the initial Los Angeles, but is that really a question) . These forces cannot be held back. And here is something about the construction and launching of the “Kitays autumn even keep quiet” submarine, pushing against the aircraft carriers that they are going to plan on as many as 6 pieces! And they have already confirmed this. This is to complement the UDC, which they are also building at an accelerated pace ... forgetting about the balance of the fleet.
      (Apparently, Comrade Xi decided to spend the Chinese Overlord in Taiwan and the surrounding area ... laughing )
      1. Lopatov April 24 2020 16: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: BoA KAA
        And I’m not at all sure that these same boats (even vaunted EMs like D-055) will be able to repel the Yankee strike 158C ...

        What about aviation?
        I do not think that they will not use it.

        Quote: BoA KAA
        Let us keep silent about their BR DF-21D, because it’s one thing to shred the drawing of the AVU at the training ground and it’s quite another thing to get into the maneuvering AVU at sea.

        Overcome the naval air defense of Americans, Japanese and Koreans, I think. they will succeed. And destroy ships and supply ships there.
  13. 16112014nk April 23 2020 21: 41 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    Napoleon said about China:

    So he woke up. Indeed, it would be better if he slept.
  14. Pavel57 April 23 2020 22: 01 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Michael2019
    And, by the way, this is the first production car in the world with a headlight in general, as such, on board. Also with the onboard computer connected to it ..


    A F-14 does not count?
  15. Klingon April 23 2020 22: 45 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    there is still a sore point of this project and similar types of aircraft-carrying ships - this is the complete absence of a catapult, because of this, the aircraft cannot be fully equipped with the entire range of TC weapons. the springboard is not enough to take off with full combat load, without the plane after taking off from the deck does not plop into the air hole due to insufficient speed.
    An aircraft like Yak-141 with an explosive or take-off with a short take-off would be more suitable for such a ship
  16. certero April 24 2020 00: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The future lies with ships that carry unmanned autonomous drones.
    1. Boa kaa April 24 2020 16: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: certero
      The future lies with ships that carry unmanned autonomous drones.

      Sure, not a problem! The Yankees understood this for a long time and tested their X-47B from the deck of the AVU.
      1. certero April 24 2020 20: 39 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Only then, for some reason, this program was closed
  17. Pavel57 April 24 2020 01: 13 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    In fact, comparing the J-15 with the Su-33 is not correct. Aircraft have one ancestor - T-10, but represent different generations. This is like the MiG-29 and MiG-29K in the latest version.

    Can I upgrade the Su-33 to the level of the Su-35? probably yes. Need? - most likely - no.
    It is possible to make deck aircraft from a Su-35 or Su-57, most likely - yes. The only question is when the ship will be under them.
  18. EvilLion April 24 2020 10: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The main thing is that the J-15 is too large for ships such as Liaoning and Shandong, and is overweight. The normal take-off weight of the machine is 27 tons. For comparison: the American F / A-18E has 21 tons.


    Competency Level God.
  19. Thrombus April 24 2020 11: 24 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Again, blah blah blah, you see how many aircraft carriers are in operation and not on paper, there were 2 recently, then one trumpet, and he ran two shifts on duty in a row, he was repairing right up to his throat and the team got sick, all the docks are blocked by aircraft carrier repairs, the rest are in line they’re repairing, Ford’s out of order is not good to lie, maybe he’ll enter by the year 25, there are problems with airplane elevators with an electromagnetic catapult and still lots of others, the teganderogs are 40 years old, everything has decayed there, the weapons are old, they can’t get the money back s, forgot how to build, shots left ovyh not hard workers there Negro ispanomeksikano, they're set up, amer coming to an end, even in speculative financial ihnem market weapons in the hands of 500 MU Soon they will shoot each other for food and the coronavirus is a trigger that has already been pulled, rest in peace with the USA and there was something good in you)
  20. Bobik012 April 24 2020 15: 21 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    not indisputable facts:
    F-35 is better than J-15. According to flight data, it’s definitely worse (well, if you reset a bad engine from the Chinese). The presence of so-called "stealth technology" as a real advantage in battle is not proven. The F-117 and that in Yugoslavia were discerned and shot down, and for these the level of "invisibility" is, to put it mildly, somewhat lower, as I understand it.
  21. Bobik012 April 24 2020 15: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    not indisputable facts:
    F-35 is better than J-15. According to flight data, it’s definitely worse (well, if you reset a bad engine from the Chinese). The presence of so-called "stealth technology" as a real advantage in battle is not proven. The F-117 and that in Yugoslavia were discerned and shot down, and for these the level of "invisibility" is, to put it mildly, somewhat lower, as I understand it.
    1. Bobik012 April 24 2020 15: 36 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Further:
      "completely unnecessary strike carrier in the face of P-700 missiles" - no one has ever proven! AUGs of the USA have practically no effective anti-ship weapons. What hangs on the F-18 is a vulgar parody of a miserable misunderstanding. Harpoons on the "Burke" and the Papuans are not scared. against the serious air defense in the sea, the American fleet is powerless. It just so happened, there was no real enemy. Admiral Kuznetsov at sea is an independent combat unit, Nimitz without an escort is a blind, deaf, defenseless target. Americans can afford it. What about the Chinese - I don’t know. Still, neither Kuznetsov, nor Chinese fakes, these are not aircraft carriers, in the full sense of the word. So Kuznetsov at least a full-fledged cruiser. So the presence of long-range anti-ship missiles is hardly a minus for such a ship. Moreover, their lack of advantages did not add to him. Perhaps they were not delivered due to lack of availability
      1. Alexey RA April 24 2020 18: 13 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Bobik012
        AUGs of the USA have practically no effective anti-ship weapons. What hangs on the F-18 is a vulgar parody of a miserable misunderstanding.

        The range of anti-ship missiles AUG USA - more than 600 miles. At least at the end of the Cold War strike at a distance of 600 miles for AUG was typical.
        Yes - these are subsonic "Harpoons". But for the vast majority of modern ships, there will be enough of them, especially taking into account the flight profile and the radio horizon.
        Quote: Bobik012
        against the serious air defense in the sea, the American fleet is powerless.

        And who has a modern overseas naval air defense? Well, at least on the basis of air defense systems (I don’t even talk about air defense with aviation and AWACS).
        Without the possibility of air defense systems to work beyond the horizon, the same "Harpoons" can safely approach the ship for 30-35 km.
        Quote: Bobik012
        Admiral Kuznetsov at sea is an independent combat unit, Nimitz without an escort is a blind, deaf, defenseless target.

        That's just the price of the pseudo-universality of "Kuznetsov" was the size of the air group and the area of ​​the hangar. And still, for 11435 you need an escort.
  22. ser56 April 24 2020 19: 40 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    "IP Gerald R. Ford, the first of which is already in operation, although it faces various problems."
    DEPL type 667 Lada is also in service, but is facing some problems? request
    etc ? bully
  23. Scharnhorst April 25 2020 07: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Purely theoretically, in the battles of modern "stealth" PFAR looks preferable to AFAR. Given that the opponents are armed with missiles with ARGSN and modern intelligence systems and electronic warfare.
  24. wisealtair April 26 2020 17: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    > does not have at its disposal a single fighter with a radar with AFAR

    And on the MiG-35, is it not AFAR?
    1. barin 3 May 2020 09: 40 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      So they are not yet request
  25. wisealtair April 26 2020 17: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Michael2019
    Well, I said that PFAR, only the 31st today are actively modernizing .. But how - it’s clearly state secrets ..


    Their main purpose now is the launch of the Dagger. Target designation gives them clearly not MiG radar. So they have enough of the Barrier, which is.
  26. Mig41 15 June 2020 11: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “The PRC, however, needs to be given credit: the Chinese removed the completely unnecessary strike weapons in the face of the P-700 Granite rockets (or its conventional Chinese counterpart), leaving only defensive weapons. A reasonable step. It’s a pity, this can’t be said about everything else. " “Who's that sorry?” And why? Does anyone really think that the Chinese are our friends?