In China, preparations began for sea trials with carrier-based aircraft flights of the third aircraft carrier of the PLA Navy

In the People's Republic of China (PRC), preparations are underway for the upcoming sea trials of the new aircraft carrier of the Navy of the People's Liberation Army of China (PLA) "Fujian". This is reported by the South China Morning Post.

During the tests, it is planned to carry out test flights of the deck aviation. Lu Lishi, a former instructor at the Taiwan Naval Academy, claims that electromagnetic catapults were installed on the aircraft carrier a few months ago, and now it is planned to fly J-15T fighter jets.

According to some reports, carrier-based aviation flights will take place in August-October 2023. They can be timed to coincide with one of the significant dates for China - on August 1, the country celebrates the Day of the Foundation of the People's Liberation Army of China, and on October 1, the Day of the Foundation of the People's Republic of China.

Recall that the J-15T fighters are a modification of the J-15 fighter, developed on the basis of the Su-33 prototype. These aircraft were specially adapted for electromagnetic catapults. As for aircraft carriers, the PLA Navy currently has two such ships, the Liaoning and the Shandong.

In 2022, the third Chinese aircraft carrier, the Fujian, was launched. The ship will enter the PLA Naval Forces after the completion of the cycle of all tests, including tests of carrier-based aircraft. In China, the aircraft carrier is called the largest ship ever built by an Asian country.

Comments

[Nexcom]

that a few months ago, electromagnetic catapults were installed on the aircraft carrier, and now it is planned to conduct flights of J-15T fighters.

Did you develop e\m catapults yourself?? Or were there small ethnic Chinese American pilots and / or technicians on US aircraft carriers ???

[Silver99]

What can I say? China is becoming the first maritime power in terms of the pace and quality of weapons.

[Sulla__Glorious]

I agree with the comments. For weapons, especially - EXPENSIVE navy, must have a PURPOSE, while we see from the facts that even during the NWO - the Black Sea Fleet is INACTIVE, and the ships are HID in far corners.

They use long-range weapons (Caliber), but they can also be used from the Caspian, even from the Baltic Fleet. Why then do we need ships of the first rank at all ?! To hide them from long-range and high-precision weapons?! Comparison with the USA, so they are FAR overseas; Otherwise, they simply cannot approach and bring troops to remote theaters of operations: they are forced to have a huge fleet. But this is only out of NECESSITY. For the Russian Federation, in the next HALF A CENTURY - large military operations at a considerable distance from the mainland - are NOT envisaged, and after such a time - VERY much will change.

Conclusions: today, a large tonnage surface navy, like dreadnoughts once, is LOSING its advantages. With the rapid development of hypersonic weapons and other means of destruction, the transition to the submarine and crewless fleet, as carriers of long-range precision weapons, is obvious. With the rapid development of high-precision and other weapons, the concepts and composition of the fleets should soon change radically.

[tralflot1832]

Stop lying, who from the Black Sea constantly nightmares Ukraine with Calibers, read the Painter, she has an "honorable" duty in the morning to report to the inhabitants of Odessa how many ships of the Black Sea Fleet are in the sea.

[ramzay21]

China has been lucky with the leadership of their country and with the leadership of our country over the past 35 years. While our leadership was ruining our country, the Chinese were picking up technologies and personnel for a penny or for free, having received a Soyuz spacecraft, an aircraft carrier, missiles, Su-27, Su-33, MiG 1.44 fighters, Il-76, S-300 transport aircraft, now here are the construction technologies wide-bodied aircraft and S-400.
And the Chinese are great, this is how a really great country should live and develop.

[Doccor18]

Quote from Silver99

China becomes the first maritime power in terms of the pace and quality of weapons

In terms of pace, yes. The quality is questionable. Little time passed until the Chinese fleet showed itself in action ...

[Sergey39]

In terms of pace and quantity, they are already leaders, but one can argue with the quality of weapons. All Chinese weapons are copies of weapons of the Russian Federation and the West or their symbiosis. Very few developments.

[arnulla]

And this is so important - did you develop it yourself or copied it? For some reason, we don’t even have one or the other planned ...

[Nexcom]

You talk apolitically, I swear on my honor! (With)
On the nose of the 17th - a grain deal .....
And in general - Mishustin flew to us in the Urals - for the second day they ride on a Mercedes Pullman specially brought from Moscow (and where was the fastened Aurus - clamped?) - Innoprom examines the exhibition of achievements, distributes instructions, talks with Belarusians (unmanned tractors were brought) and so on. .. The second day Ekaterinburg is blocked - hellish traffic jams ... So everything is in business, worries.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Nexcom

Did you develop e\m catapults yourself??

Most likely - yes, they could well have taken as a basis the electromagnetic trains that the Germans built for China by EMNIP, but here I can be wrong, of course

[Andrey Nikolaev_4]

Even judging by the picture, it looks more like a container ship ..)

[Nexcom]

And this dual purpose is being tested. If something is loaded onto the take-off deck with twenty containers of Chinese consumer goods and vpired - trade. Carefully approach the issue of operating military equipment. The containers will be unloaded, the planes will be lifted from the holds onto the deck - that's the argument right away to buy it quickly. And what? Well thought out.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Andrey Nikolaev_4

Even judging by the picture, it looks more like a container ship ..)

So the completion is afloat, and these sheds cover the unfinished catapult tracks.

[ism_ek]

All our fighters are laid up. They are very expensive and highly vulnerable.
Looks like the days of aviation are over. Subsonic aircraft will remain to launch high-precision weapons from their territory and that's it.
Let the Chinese continue to indulge in airplanes.

[tralflot1832]

Read the newspaper "On Guard of the Arctic" and do not drive bullshit that aircraft from an aircraft carrier are laid up.

[ism_ek]

Quote: tralflot1832

Read the newspaper "On Guard of the Arctic"

Our war is not in the Arctic.
Lancets worth a million destroyed as much enemy equipment as our VKS with a budget of a trillion.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ism_ek

Lancets worth a million destroyed as much enemy equipment as our VKS with a budget of a trillion.

It remains only to find out how many lives and equipment were saved by those very Aerospace Forces, preventing enemy aircraft from operating. And yes, the statistics on destroyed equipment by the forces of the Aerospace Forces and the forces of the UAV are also interesting

[tralflot1832]

The PRC took full advantage of the golden rain of Western investment, since they had a lot of space for new miracle shipyards.

[Nexcom]

Not only shipyards - there are plenty of workers who plow. By itself, an aircraft carrier will not be built.

[tralflot1832]

But once quite recently, the PRC handed over 4 BODs and EBNs, out of the kindness of their hearts, 3000 "Volga" handed over.

[Sergey39]

If I'm not mistaken, the Chinese have 12 or 14 shipyards, the Americans have 6 or 7, they are building warships. We have 5 and also Kerch connected.

[Kaufman]

In general, I don’t understand why the Chinese need aircraft carriers? Where are they going to project power with their help? To Africa?

[Nexcom]

Taiwan will be a nightmare and will defend their new artificial islands. there they famously turned around - well, it’s necessary - the islands are already being built from nothing ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: kaufman

In general, I don’t understand why the Chinese need aircraft carriers?

To do this, you first need to understand why they are needed at all.

[AdAstra]

Well, obviously the Chinese understand this. """"""

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from AdAstra

Well, obviously the Chinese understand this.

Of course. This, in general, is understood by everyone who is really interested in the fleet.

[Sergey39]

They have the Pacific Ocean and southeast Asia to Africa. The Chinese invested the most in Africa and managed to open one naval base there.

[Tim666]

Quote: arnulla

And this is so important - did you develop it yourself or copied it? For some reason, we don’t even have one or the other planned ...

And do we need it? The Chinese are going to take Taiwan and nightmare Vietnam, but who will be scared by the aircraft carrier of the Russian Federation-NATO countries?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from Tim666

Do we need it?

Theoretically, it's outrageous. Without a normal and capable AB, we will not be able to deploy anti-aircraft submarine forces in Norwegian. In practice, we are very far from an aircraft carrier, since even such paramount things as ensuring the release of SSBNs on combat duty have not been resolved - there are neither enough corvettes, nor PLO aircraft, nor minesweepers, nor modern non-nuclear submarines, and the number of multi-purpose nuclear submarines is declining ...

[Sergey39]

I can agree with you, but we need to take into account the deployment of nuclear submarines in the Arctic Ocean and the emergence of new weapons and tactics for their use. Please tell us how many SSBNs go to the BS and how many ships are needed to ensure access to the sea. Look at the composition of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, how many different minesweepers, MPKs are there (still walking and, of course, there is no replacement yet), corvettes.
What is the modern submarine (the presence of VNEU), our Varshavyanka are not new projects, but modernized to such a level that NATO called them “black holes.” The noise of the boat merges with the external noise of the ocean. The last example was when the British in the Mediterranean could not deal with one submarine.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Sergey39

Please tell us how many SSBNs go to the BS and how many ships are needed to ensure access to the sea.

How many SSBNs go to the BS - the info is pretty secret, but you can say how much it should. If we take KOH = 0,33 as a rule (if there are, say, 6 SSBN 2 constantly on duty) and assume that this duty takes about 2 months, then we get 12 exits a year - once a month, roughly.

Quote: Sergey39

and how many ships are needed to ensure access to the sea.

I don’t know the naval topic so well to give an exact answer, but in essence it is about preventing the enemy nuclear submarine from “tailing” the outgoing SSBN. To do this, you need to control at least the coastal zone (200 miles from the base), but ideally - the near sea (up to 500 miles). At the same time, it is impossible to take and lead a couple of corvettes along the SSBN route (this means simply revealing the route), that is, the events must go much wider and for a long time so as not to "burn off" the fact of the exit ... Offhand - 8 modern corvettes and the same number minesweepers + aircraft - this is the most minimal minimum for one base.

Quote: Sergey39

Look at the composition of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, how many different minesweepers, MPKs are there (still walking and, of course, there is no replacement yet), corvettes.

Let's see SF. There are no corvettes at all, the IPC of the Albatros project - as many as 5 pieces, are tightly outdated. minesweepers - as many as 6, but more or less modern of them 1, but even he can deal with modern mines ... with big reservations.

Quote: Sergey39

What is modern submarines (the presence of VNEU)

Or LIAB, but conventional diesel-electric submarines are also possible, provided that the fleet can ensure their safety in battery-charging areas. The fleet can't.

Quote: Sergey39

our Varshavyanka are not new projects, but modernized to such a level that NATO called them "black holes".

"Black holes" they were called in the 80s of the last century. Since then, 40 years have passed.

Quote: Sergey39

The noise of the boat merges with the outside noise of the ocean

Low-frequency illumination does not care about this ... And the main thing is the distance of mutual detection of submarines. Amers from "Improved Salmon" have noises close to the noise of the ocean, and the HAK is more powerful than on diesel-electric submarines.
offhand 636.3 can cope with the "Improved Elk", but with the "virgin" ....

Quote: Sergey39

The last example was when the British in the Mediterranean could not deal with one submarine.

And what forces did you understand?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Lu Lishi, a former instructor at the Taiwan Naval Academy, claims that electromagnetic catapults were installed on the aircraft carrier a few months ago, and now it is planned to fly J-15T fighter jets.

Ooooh, what envy they take ....
.

[Tim666]

Quote: kaufman

In general, I don’t understand why the Chinese need aircraft carriers? Where are they going to project power with their help? To Africa?

Including, in Africa, China is serious and seems to be for a long time. There is also Vietnam, Taiwan, India

Quote: tralflot1832

The PRC took full advantage of the golden rain of Western investment, since they had a lot of space for new miracle shipyards.

And don’t say godfather, bastards, they are not only using Western investments, they are also forced to give loans to poor Africans, they never naively thought that they would be forgiven, but it wasn’t there)

[Tim666]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Quote from Tim666

Do we need it?

Theoretically, it's outrageous. Without a normal and capable AB, we will not be able to deploy anti-aircraft submarine forces in Norwegian. In practice, we are very far from an aircraft carrier, since even such paramount things as ensuring the release of SSBNs on combat duty have not been resolved - there are neither enough corvettes, nor PLO aircraft, nor minesweepers, nor modern non-nuclear submarines, and the number of multi-purpose nuclear submarines is declining ...

Theoretically, the USSR desperately needed 60000 tanks, theoretically it is possible to use BMD and Octopuses as part of a paratrooper, theoretically Zoo-1 and Krasukha work ... But in practice, all these underwater anti-aircraft forces are Wishlist from a bygone era. Each Antey or Yasen will be chased by several fighter boats and surface ships, if at least the ability to cover SSBNs with multi-purpose boats for the theoretical time of a possible retaliatory strike is preserved, this is already very good.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from Tim666

if at least the ability to cover SSBNs with multi-purpose boats is preserved

How do you imagine that?:)))))

Quote from Tim666

Each Antey or Ash will be chased by several fighter boats and surface ships

If we are talking about Norwegian, then they will chase, but if the air group covers from patrol aircraft, then it will be oh so difficult to catch up.

[turbina2367]

The Chinese can only be envied. Having shot thieves and embezzlers of public funds, they forced the business to work for the country, and not for offshore, unlike us. Only a very rich state can afford to have an aircraft carrier fleet!
Well, the States, which have invested trillions of dollars in China, counting on a future confrontation with Russia, are a little offended, because something went wrong ...
But the main thing for us is that if it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, it cannot be ruled out that the SSBNs of the Russian Navy will be destroyed even before they occupy the missile launch lines. There is nothing to cover their exit, you won’t find an adversary’s submarine without naval aviation, all floating trifles will be destroyed from the air by NATO aircraft carriers.
And we don’t even know about their presence in the foreseeable space, because the space is also profaned offshore.
So without AWACS in the ocean, that is, without full-fledged aircraft carriers, you need to shake the nuclear baton more carefully ...