Military Review

The Chinese military blog "Chusyao" published data on the carrier wing of the aircraft carrier "Liaoning"

35
In the Chinese military blog "Chusyao" published detailed data on the deck of the aviation wing of the carrier "Liaoning", reports blog Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.




If in Russia deck fighters are part of the 279 separate shipboard fighter aviation regiment separately from other vehicles that are based on an aircraft carrier, in China a new organizational structure has been created for them - the aircraft carrier wing with the status of a military unit with its commander and support services.

In the composition of the wing - shipfighter J-15, helicopters Z-18J (AEW), Z-18F (PLO) and Z-9C (search and rescue). According to the Chinese media, the ship will be X-NUMX aircraft J-24, X-NUMX helicopters Z-15F, 6-Z-18J and 4-Z-18C. In addition, the JJ-2G training aircraft entered the wing.

“The most important difference between the Chinese aircraft carrier program and the Russian one is its political status. In China, the aircraft carrier program is a “national project” with a status similar to a manned space program, high-level coordinators and constant attention from senior management. It is also an occasion for nationwide pride. Russia still does not fully understand what to do with the aircraft carrier program inherited from the USSR and probably does not have a clear vision of the long-term development of ship aviation", - noted in the material.
Photos used:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. saag
    saag April 29 2015 11: 12 New
    -3
    "-Can you torpedo him?" movie "Election Day" :-)
    1. milann
      milann April 29 2015 11: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: saag
      Russia still does not fully understand what to do with the aircraft carrier program inherited from the USSR

      It seems that Russia fully understands everything. It’s just not enough for everything at once. First you need to complete the planned before 2020 year.
      1. Nissa-on
        Nissa-on April 29 2015 11: 34 New
        +2
        I agree completely. There is also a gift from the Crimea - "THREAD".
        Where does the information about the "management" with the aircraft carrier program come from?
        Well, China does not need aircraft carriers, with the growth of economic power, it is necessary to comply with the military, otherwise they will devour it (all the more so they have already done this to China once)
      2. Lindon
        Lindon April 29 2015 11: 41 New
        +7
        Quote: milann
        It’s just not enough for everything at once. First you need to complete the planned before 2020 year.


        And who is enough ??? I also need to complete what I had planned - to finish building the cottage, to buy a fur coat for my wife, a bicycle for the children, etc. Well, what kind of aircraft carriers are there ??? People live with everyday problems - where to grab their piece from the state pie.
        In China - there is an ideology, a party, punitive bodies - they will build it, but they will plunder it under the oligarchs.
        Everyone needs to complete the planned year before 2020, and there already in London.
        1. Nissa-on
          Nissa-on April 29 2015 11: 50 New
          +4
          Well, probably because, because, to build an aircraft carrier is not "great to buy my wife."
          Even China, with punitive bodies and the Communist Party, has not yet set up a squadron of aircraft carriers.
          By the way, how is it like in Russia with such a terrifying situation
          People live with everyday problems - where to grab their piece from the state pie.

          continue to build a nuclear icebreaker fleet?
        2. lelikas
          lelikas April 29 2015 12: 12 New
          +2
          Quote: Lindon
          And who is enough ??? I also need to complete what I had planned - to finish building the cottage, to buy a fur coat for my wife, a bicycle for the children, etc. Well, what kind of aircraft carriers are there ??? People live with everyday problems - where to grab their piece from the state pie.
          In China - there is an ideology, a party, punitive bodies - they will build it, but they will plunder it under the oligarchs.
          Everyone needs to complete the planned year before 2020, and there already in London.

          No one is missing, but everyone has it all! The magic.
          It is clear that we will not receive an aircraft carrier in the next 10 + 15 years, of course it’s a pity, but what to do.
          1. jjj
            jjj April 29 2015 12: 16 New
            +2
            I believe that in the "division of military labor" between Russia and China, it fell to our lot to restrain the US and NATO, and China - the APR. Accordingly, we are intensively building up the strategic nuclear component, and China's strike expeditionary forces
      3. Blondy
        Blondy April 29 2015 12: 21 New
        0
        Quote: milann
        Quote: saag
        Russia still does not fully understand what to do with the aircraft carrier program inherited from the USSR
        It seems that Russia fully understands everything. It’s just not enough for everything at once. First you need to complete the planned before 2020 year.

        Let's call a spade a spade - let's remember how retired Soviet admirals betrayed the country and sold "Minsk" - hence all the misunderstandings and current problems.
    2. Giant thought
      Giant thought April 29 2015 12: 15 New
      0
      Russia is a continental self-sufficient power, China receives a lot of resources by sea, its very life forces it to have an aircraft carrier fleet.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt April 29 2015 13: 09 New
        0
        Quote: jjj
        Accordingly, we are steadily building up the strategic nuclear component, and China's strike expeditionary forces
        China and the ground forces are developing intensively. Where will they be used? They can defend their investments and markets in Central Asia. If a series of conflicts starts there, they can intervene (in the medium term).
        1. Basarev
          Basarev April 29 2015 13: 45 New
          +2
          Quote: Thought Giant
          Russia continental self-sufficient power

          A power cannot be continental when more than half of its borders are maritime. I believe that these tales of the continentality of Russia are intended to hide one thing: the fleet is in deep touch and no one wants to restore it. I believe that in order to restore the status of a maritime superpower, Russia should build not classical carriers, but nuclear-powered ekranoplanes. Speed ​​will protect them from anti-ship missiles, and light armor from anti-aircraft missiles - perhaps the situation where Lun was elusive and invulnerable on the march has passed (for those who do not remember, I explain: when Lun went to the ocean, he was unstoppable: anti-ship missiles managed to aim at such a fast-flying target, and anti-aircraft and aviation - could not reach such a low-flying target). Perhaps aircraft missiles have been finalized and now they can hit the ekranoplan. Yes, and the fighter cannon was preserved ... Therefore, it is the light-armored ekranoplan that seems to be the best way out - air missiles and rapid-firing guns cannot bite it, and the RCC both then and now are unable to sight the flying ekranoplane.
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 April 29 2015 14: 04 New
        0
        Quote: Thought Giant
        Russia is a continental self-sufficient power,

        Open the map and calculate the length of the sea coast, and here the Northern Sea Route will soon become year-round soon, of course I understand that you are going to provide combat stability until you reach the RPKSN and SSBN combat patrol area from the coast or with mosquito forces. fool
      3. Sergey Vl.
        Sergey Vl. April 29 2015 16: 08 New
        +1
        My friend, but Peter the Great for some reason considered that Russia couldn’t live without the sea.
  2. Basarev
    Basarev April 29 2015 11: 21 New
    +2
    Somehow there is too much bureaucracy - a ship is one military unit, and its air wing is another.
    1. Dr. Livesey
      Dr. Livesey April 29 2015 12: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: Basarev
      Somehow there is too much bureaucracy - a ship is one military unit, and its air wing is another.

      Rightly noticed, I also had a similar thought. I presented it - the commander of the "ship" military unit received a combat order, decided to discuss its implementation with the commander of the aircraft wing, and he said to him - "Fuck you, I didn't receive such an order, I have my own tasks!" laughing
  3. captain
    captain April 29 2015 11: 25 New
    +6
    We had the Minister of Foreign Affairs Kozyrev. So he said in an interview that Russia and aviation do not make me laugh. We still have airlines with state participation prefer foreign aircraft. We feed foreign workers, our liberals have not needed their own for a long time.
  4. Caduc
    Caduc April 29 2015 11: 27 New
    +4
    But do Russia really need aircraft carriers? As an indicator of power?
    Why are aircraft carriers needed?
    To deliver aircraft to the shores of the enemy. Do Russia need foreign territories?
    I think not.
    Removal of interceptors against aviation by a likely enemy? Also unlikely. It turns out that only for prestige is nothing more.
    1. Nissa-on
      Nissa-on April 29 2015 11: 35 New
      +1
      But do Russia really need aircraft carriers? As an indicator of power?
      Why are aircraft carriers needed?
      To deliver aircraft to the shores of the enemy. Do Russia need foreign territories?
      I think not.
      Removal of interceptors against aviation by a likely enemy? Also unlikely. It turns out that only for prestige is nothing more.

      ABOUT! New expert !!!!! We will be familiar.
      1. NordUral
        NordUral April 29 2015 11: 50 New
        +3
        And the critic is old.
    2. saag
      saag April 29 2015 11: 36 New
      +3
      Quote: Kaduk
      But do Russia really need aircraft carriers?

      Like an air cover of a ship’s group
      1. Horst78
        Horst78 April 29 2015 12: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: saag
        saag (2) Today, 11: 36 ↑ New
        Quote: Kaduk
        But do Russia really need aircraft carriers?
        Like an air cover of a ship’s group

        In the USSR were so stupid that they would not create something similar to the Amer fleet? The goals are simply different for the fleets.
    3. NordUral
      NordUral April 29 2015 11: 49 New
      +1
      For cutting a multi-year budget. They didn’t give us a damn thing.
      1. Nissa-on
        Nissa-on April 29 2015 12: 19 New
        +2
        You can cut the budget on everything.
        For example: Moscow. Mr. Reindeer-breeder covered everything with tiles, so that's the problem, every year it's new! The old one is erased quickly. And the curb - there, if you count - well, the aircraft carrier is unlikely, but the "Bison" can be built
  5. Bezarius
    Bezarius April 29 2015 11: 29 New
    +4
    As for me, we do not really need aircraft carriers, because rather, they are weapons of attack, it is better to develop weapons of retaliation and anti-aircraft defense.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. April 29 2015 11: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Bezarius
      As for me, we do not really need aircraft carriers, because it is rather an attack weapon
      Personally, I don't need an aircraft carrier for fishing either, but I'm not talking about the entire fleet and Russia's interests. For yourself, write in columns what you consider to be a weapon of defense, and that attacks, I'm afraid, with this logic "it is better to develop", little will remain of our army and navy. In general, "retaliation" can also be a preemptive (preemptive) strike of an attack, and not only the shield, but initially the sword itself has always served as a defense.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt April 29 2015 13: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: Kaduk
        But do Russia really need aircraft carriers? As an indicator of power?
        But look at what is happening in Syria now. Aircraft of NATO and its allies inflict airstrikes on IS (you can criticize the selectivity of goals and effectiveness, but they are bombing). Assad is our ally and we provide him with military assistance. We don’t have bases near Syria, we don’t have the opportunity to help Assad with air strikes on militants. A full-fledged aircraft carrier would help. How would NATO members react then if the sky became crowded with the "Russian Avengers" ...? laughing
  6. Prussian
    Prussian April 29 2015 11: 47 New
    +3
    We need a network of coastal airfields, all the same, even American AUGs are not able to withstand a well-functioning coastal infrastructure, the capabilities are simply not comparable. And it is too early to set tasks for projecting forces over long distances.
  7. Dimo No. 1
    Dimo No. 1 April 29 2015 11: 50 New
    0
    I do not agree with my superior comrade, aircraft carriers are more likely to be a presence factor and they are needed, and what is better to develop air defense / missile defense or an aircraft carrier fleet does not sound, to put it mildly, correctly.
  8. Yuri from Volgograd
    Yuri from Volgograd April 29 2015 12: 09 New
    +2
    In the title "Lenin", the Chinese made two mistakes!
  9. VadimSt
    VadimSt April 29 2015 12: 12 New
    0
    The most important difference between the Chinese aircraft carrier program and the Russian one is its political status. In China, the aircraft carrier program is a “national project” with a status similar to a manned space program, high-level coordinators and constant attention from senior management.
    The Chinese now also have the main geopolitical "aspirations" towards the island countries of the Pacific region.
    1. VadimSt
      VadimSt April 29 2015 12: 44 New
      0
      Judging by the reaction, some of the "all the fighters" have information about the Chinese version of "Barbarossa" directly from the PLA General Staff! Oh well. Even the West understands that Russia is not a "colossus with feet of clay."
  10. Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 April 29 2015 12: 13 New
    0
    Quote: saag
    Quote: Kaduk
    But do Russia really need aircraft carriers?
    Like an air cover of a ship’s group


    Isn't it easier to create good air defense / missile defense ships as part of a ship group? In my opinion, it will be more consistent with our concept, and indeed cheaper, there will be no need to strain the whole country again. Besides, "Nakhimov" and "Peter the Great" should be included in the grouping and let them sail the oceans for the glory of the Russian fleet.
  11. fomkin
    fomkin April 29 2015 12: 14 New
    +2
    The reasoning in Soviet times was remembered. Carriers are a weapon of aggression. We are not like that. Then they began to do the type of Moscow, then the type of Kiev, and there Kuznetsov, laid the Varyag and even Ulyanovsk. It turned out that fighting submarines is better away from our shores, and not in territorial waters, when it is too late to drink Borjomi. And ship groups are more convenient to defend from enemy aircraft directly in the waters of their operations, and not from the coast. If someone does not know, then sometimes it is not even visible. Imagine for a second if the northern convoys were protected by aircraft carriers. Maybe there would not be a famous tragic film. In general, a self-respecting state is obliged to show its flag. There is an opinion among people who know what they are saying that the money invested in the construction of an expensive ship is an investment in a peaceful future. And the last, the construction of carrier ships, as I recall, did not turn the USSR into an aggressor. But pride in the country that we went to the oceans cannot convey. Hello to everyone who swims finely.
  12. Ostafyevo 86-88
    Ostafyevo 86-88 April 29 2015 12: 24 New
    +1
    Hello people. I have specially registered, I want to say about the Eagles, which is in question. But what if everything needs to be changed globally there, not to bathe in cruising stuffing on these hulls, but leave the EC, to make of them a baaaalsh catamaran with a baaalsh flight deck. Here everyone on the site dreams of an aircraft carrier - as for me, this is a really quick way for us to build it, so at least these hulls will go into business, and not on needles.
    1. Nissa-on
      Nissa-on April 29 2015 12: 27 New
      0
      Well done!!! Brilliant !!!! Super!!!!!!!!

      True, there are two maaaaaaalenky questions.
      1) The price of this performance?
      2) Where to serve these monsters?
  13. Eternal
    Eternal April 29 2015 12: 27 New
    +1
    To take this yacht of Abramovich, to disperse it, and to smash it on this "Liaoning". It would be very good. But seriously, the Chinese scoff at us. We bought our national treasure for a pittance, on which hundreds of thousands of highly qualified specialists worked. Well, nothing, there will be no oligarchy, we will build aircraft carriers better.
    1. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab April 29 2015 16: 22 New
      +1
      you can wonder - when the oligarchy intends to end?
      1. Eternal
        Eternal April 29 2015 19: 10 New
        0
        Sure, not a problem. When the Lord decides, then the oligarchic yoke over Russia will die. These rats are already biting each other and are already nibbling people's hatred for them - a material thing. It will take some time and kirdyk oligarchy. They stole grandmothers, everything that can and cannot be stolen, well, soon their turn will come.
        1. Dr. Livesey
          Dr. Livesey April 30 2015 10: 06 New
          0
          Quote: Eternal
          Sure, not a problem. When the Lord decides, then the oligarchic yoke over Russia will die.


          I remembered something - "Trust in God, but don't do it yourself!" This is so, by the way ... wink
  14. Asadullah
    Asadullah April 29 2015 12: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: PRUSSAC
    We need a network of coastal airfields, all the same, even American AUGs are not able to withstand a well-functioning coastal infrastructure, the capabilities are simply not comparable. And it is too early to set tasks for projecting forces over long distances.


    So are your coastal airfields. as stationary targets, will be ideal targets for attack with the same AUG cruise missiles. Well, if you only assume that they will be dumped by a "canopy". But the aircraft carrier itself can maneuver at a tactical distance unattainable for the sides from your "coastal" airfields. Rangers in this case, will also become ideal targets without cover. The submarine remains the main struggle with the AUG, which alone will also be difficult after the first salvo. It is the aircraft carrier that can become the destroyer of the American tactics of unpunished shelling, when the board is like a missile extension, without engaging in aerial combat. And the personnel of onshore and other facilities can run from cover to cover, epilating their ass along the way. Given the position of the United States, it can wage a similar war for decades, while developing the economy and dominating the world. Unlike Russia, which will be limited in development, being under constant fire and in hostile isolation. That is why a new doctrine has been announced that determines the unpredictability of decision-making on the use of nuclear weapons.
  15. abc_alex
    abc_alex April 29 2015 12: 47 New
    0
    Quote: Asadullah
    So are your coastal airfields. as stationary targets, will be ideal targets for attack with the same AUG cruise missiles. Well, if you only assume that they will be dumped by a "canopy". But the aircraft carrier itself can maneuver at a tactical distance unattainable for the sides from your "coastal" airfields. Rangers in this case, will also become ideal targets without cover. The submarine remains the main struggle with the AUG, which alone will also be difficult after the first salvo. It is the aircraft carrier that can become the destroyer of the American tactics of unpunished shelling, when the board is like a missile extension, without engaging in aerial combat. And the personnel of onshore and other facilities can run from cover to cover, epilating their ass along the way. Given the position of the United States, it can wage a similar war for decades, while developing the economy and dominating the world. Unlike Russia, which will be limited in development, being under constant fire and in hostile isolation. That is why a new doctrine has been announced that determines the unpredictability of decision-making on the use of nuclear weapons.



    Why did you so softly odibilize the situation? A whole ONE submarine was sent to the entire AUG. :) Do not hold back. For example, you can expand the thesis on the defenselessness of coastal structures more strongly. Carefully hide the very fact of the presence of object-based air defense as a class and add dramatism to the pictures of personnel poking through the cracks. :)
  16. Asadullah
    Asadullah April 29 2015 13: 09 New
    +1
    Quote: abc_alex

    Why did you so softly odibilize the situation? A whole ONE submarine was sent to the entire AUG. :) Do not hold back. For example, you can expand the thesis on the defenselessness of coastal structures more strongly. Carefully hide the very fact of the presence of object-based air defense as a class and add dramatism to the pictures of personnel poking through the cracks. :)


    We are not drawing a specific scenario, it is possible to exaggerate in one square), and the colorfulness has not hurt anyone .... Air defense is good of course. Here is another moment of brilliance, the boxer, ideally dodging the opponent’s blows, left, took on gloves, fell under the sliding ... in the end, he won the battle by the fact that the opponent hysterically put himself in a beard. Beauty. Only even in the ideal case, as, for example, Israeli air defense, does not always cope with flying telegraph poles filled with picric acid. And as for fixed coastal targets, they are hit 100% at a certain fire density. And in this case, the Russian AUG, cancels the impunity of the attack and makes you get involved in a direct battle.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 30 2015 12: 06 New
      0
      This is not exaggeration, but profanity. To prove his point, the author creates a completely idiotic situation, impossible in principle. :)

      Well, who and when will send 1 boat to AUG? Nobody and never. Even in the USSR, there was NEVER any plans to oppose the AUG with the forces of one boat. The joint operation of several nuclear submarines, a naval group and large coastal aviation units was always planned. Moreover, aviation with a radius of action not less than that of the AUG wing. Moreover, they planned to use nuclear weapons to destroy the AUG.
  17. shans2
    shans2 April 29 2015 15: 11 New
    0
    We have no time for aircraft carriers, frigates of the Gorshkov type have been under construction for more than 5 years, we need to make frigates at a normal speed, with which diesel Varshavian women rivet now .... We even have destroyers of the Leader type in the program only after 2020 ... .. By the way, Kuznetsov could be modernized - to make steam catapults, without them he only defends himself, the planes do not have enough fuel and ammunition, during takeoff on afterburner without catapults. Modernization is something that we can really do while increasing our working experience, team and specialists that have been lost over the past 20 years