Author Topic: Chinese carrier conducting flight ops ... video! (Read 1651 times)

yellowtail3 · « **on:** November 25, 2012, 05:59:10 AM »

Very interesting video of flight ops on the Liaoning. Any Chinese speakers here want to give a summary?

For those keeping track of such things... that J-15 the Chinese navy is operating on the flight deck has more range, payload, and speed than any carrier-capable aircraft in the US Navy's inventory, and can out-fly anything in USAF inventory with possible exception of F-22. Maybe it's Obama's fault?

Anna · « **Reply #1 on:** November 25, 2012, 06:34:08 AM »

Well if its anything like their Submarines, they have the nick name of Blub Blub Boats because they
sink a lot. Hay China ! The object of a Submarine is that it can come back up to the surface intact.

BBF · « **Reply #2 on:** November 25, 2012, 06:53:51 AM »

Built with American funds

Give them another 10 years if it takes that long and they will be the Power in the Pacific. You can thank Nixon for waking up the Sleeping Dragon.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 25, 2012, 07:00:01 AM »

Quote from: Anna on November 25, 2012, 06:34:08 AM

Well if its anything like their Submarines, they have the nick name of Blub Blub Boats because they
sink a lot.

I never heard that - not during my navy career, and not from any friends there after I left.
How many boats has the Chinese navy lost at sea - blub blub? - over the past twenty years since I've been out? Since you've brought this up... provide a link with some documentation?

Could you provide a link illustrating use of that blub-blub boat nickname you related... or did you just make it up yourself? Where have you heard/seen it used?

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #4 on:** November 25, 2012, 07:59:03 AM »

http://ezinearticles.com/?Did-a-Chinese-Nuclear-Submarine-Sink?&id=3299447

Anna · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2012, 09:57:49 AM »

Communist = K19. Thank you cuts. I only hope for thier sake that thier milllitary hardware works
a lot better than some of the mills and lathes I've seen imported from them. Set screws just hammered in with no threads. Electric motors that fry just as soon as you plug them in.
Toys that crater on Christmas Day, like peices of equipment where the parts will not interchange.
Yup, I sure do love finding that made in china logo on anything I buy!

lakota · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2012, 10:36:08 AM »

I am sure China would freely disperse information regarding an embarassing loss of an important military asset like a submarine

. Just because you or your buddies never heard about it doesnt mean that it never happened.

Anna · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2012, 11:07:37 AM »

How long did it take the Soviet Union to disclose what happened to the K19 ? Even though we knew
something was going on, it wasnt until much later that we found out what that was.
China, three gorge dam project. We never hear anything about that either but it has been a complete failure for them going on 70 years now. How many cosmonauts died in space ? Something like 12?
Russia still hasn't disclosed the true numbers on that.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 25, 2012, 11:42:39 AM »

Quote from: lakota on November 25, 2012, 10:36:08 AM

I am sure China would freely disperse information regarding an embarassing loss of an important military asset like a submarine . Just because you or your buddies never heard about it doesnt mean that it never happened.

(shrug) I'm just looking for info. I've not been aware of the Chinese losing any subs, let alone multiple boats. Do you have knowledge on this stuff?

I don't know how many the Russians lost, or the Chinese. We lost Thresher & Scorpion in the 60s.

The we very nearly lost Bonefish in the late 80s... very lucky she didn't sink, she was ruined and never got underway again.

Then we had the Greenville sinking a Japanese research/fishing vessel while hot-dogging, and then a few years ago the San Francisco's captain drove her into a seamount at full throttle... very nearly destroying the boat.

All kinds of ways to lose a sub... how many have the Chinese lost?

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #9 on:** November 25, 2012, 11:44:51 AM »

Quote from: yellowtail3 on November 25, 2012, 05:59:10 AM

Very interesting video of flight ops on the Liaoning. Any Chinese speakers here want to give a summary?

For those keeping track of such things... that J-15 the Chinese navy is operating on the flight deck has more range, payload, and speed than any carrier-capable aircraft in the US Navy's inventory, and can out-fly anything in USAF inventory with possible exception of F-22. Maybe it's Obama's fault?

Doesn't sound so hot to me, a remake of of a Soviet fighter, that the Russkis aren't impressed with. Even the F-35 single engine fighter appears to out power it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:16:12 PM »

Quote from: Cuts Crooked on November 25, 2012, 11:44:51 AM

Doesn't sound so hot to me, a remake of of a Soviet fighter, that the Russkis aren't impressed with. Even the F-35 single engine fighter appears to out power it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15

Well, the F-35 ought to be better - it's design is a whole generation newer, and it's a stealth (semi-stealth?) aircraft. But all the Su-27/30 derived a/c have more range, payload, and speed than the F-35.

The J-15 is far more capable than the USN's main combat jet, the F-18 (regardless of version).

Hey, do you know what we call F/A-18 drivers? FAGS (Fighter Attack Guys)

Anna · « **Reply #11 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:22:33 PM »

Simple, go read all about it on JANES.com. Pay the subscription price for a lot of their articles and there you are.
But JANES isnt real fond of anyone exporting thier stuff, so unless your a hacker good luck in doing that. And it just so happens that Cuts is exactly right about that J-15 Chinese fighter.
I just looked it up on my dads account over there. And it is a knock off of a Russan fighter that even
they abandoned due to aerodynamic problems and rampant fuel consumption just to stay aloft.
It will not outmaneuver our own F18 hornets, its said its more like trying to enter a one ton truck
in a sports car rally.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:36:12 PM »

Quote from: Anna on November 25, 2012, 12:22:33 PM

Simple, go read all about it on JANES.com. Pay the subscription price for a lot of their articles and there you are.
But JANES isnt real fond of anyone exporting thier stuff, so unless your a hacker good luck in doing that. And it just so happens that Cuts is exactly right about that J-15 Chinese fighter.
I just looked it up on my dads account over there. And it is a knock off of a Russan fighter that even
they abandoned due to aerodynamic problems and rampant fuel consumption just to stay aloft.
It will not outmaneuver our own F18 hornets, its said its more like trying to enter a one ton truck
in a sports car rally.

Oh come on, Anna, that ain't so. I remember when the decision was made to get rid of the F-14 - thanks a lot, Dick Cheney, for ordering the tooling destroyed - the navy was all distressed that they wouldn't have a long-range strike aircraft. The F-14 in BombCat guise worked well, was ready to be further developed... and the navy got that little F/A-18. No way is that a 'strike' aircraft. It's a fine airshow performer, and might ought fight a Su-27/30/J-15.. but only at right above stall speed. Again - the Russian/Chinese a/c has more range, payload, and far more speed than the F/A-18 or even the F/A-18E/F - essentially a new airframe? - can ever dream of. I remember back in the mid-nineties thinking we should have bought some Su-27 airframes, navalised them, put in PWs and US electronics... and then the navy would be happy.

how do you see an F-18 as better than any of the Su-27 derivatives? Name some areas of superiority, other an maintenance hours/availability. go ahead...

briarpatch · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:52:48 PM »

Look at any russian or china fighter and you will see American know how and technology behind it. Every new plane they build will be a close facsimile to an American plane. Neither country has in the last century developed anything on their own. Communist countries steal not invent.

Anna · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2012, 01:28:42 PM »

Quote from: yellowtail3 on November 25, 2012, 12:36:12 PM

Quote from: Anna on November 25, 2012, 12:22:33 PM
Simple, go read all about it on JANES.com. Pay the subscription price for a lot of their articles and there you are.
But JANES isnt real fond of anyone exporting thier stuff, so unless your a hacker good luck in doing that. And it just so happens that Cuts is exactly right about that J-15 Chinese fighter.
I just looked it up on my dads account over there. And it is a knock off of a Russan fighter that even
they abandoned due to aerodynamic problems and rampant fuel consumption just to stay aloft.
It will not outmaneuver our own F18 hornets, its said its more like trying to enter a one ton truck
in a sports car rally.
Oh come on, Anna, that ain't so. I remember when the decision was made to get rid of the F-14 - thanks a lot, Dick Cheney, for ordering the tooling destroyed - the navy was all distressed that they wouldn't have a long-range strike aircraft. The F-14 in BombCat guise worked well, was ready to be further developed... and the navy got that little F/A-18. No way is that a 'strike' aircraft. It's a fine airshow performer, and might ought fight a Su-27/30/J-15.. but only at right above stall speed. Again - the Russian/Chinese a/c has more range, payload, and far more speed than the F/A-18 or even the F/A-18E/F - essentially a new airframe? - can ever dream of. I remember back in the mid-nineties thinking we should have bought some Su-27 airframes, navalised them, put in PWs and US electronics... and then the navy would be happy.

how do you see an F-18 as better than any of the Su-27 derivatives? Name some areas of superiority, other an maintenance hours/availability. go ahead...

LOL, I do like you YT, but I said maneuverbillity and nothing about the F14 or the F16. Mass VS
Centrifical force, if this thing is capable of doing all that she must be one heavy mama !
In no way is she going to be able to hang in there in a tight turn, much less in a close dog fight
with a Super Hornet. That Hornet would be all over her like flies on an elephant !
I don't see our top brass being to concerned about this, but thank you YT for a great conversation .
I'm only going by what JANES is saying about this J-15. But I will admit you do seem to have a pretty
good bead on what your saying. Carry on .

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 25, 2012, 02:05:01 PM »

C'mon, Anna, show - name me any areas where the F-18 has tangible superiority over the Su-30/J-15 a/c. I'll give it maintenance man hours... but that's about it. Probably a little better avionics, but I wouldn't count on it. With pilots of comparable training and flight time, I think I'd put my money on the Sukhoi, even in a low-speed turning fight. There is nothing dynamic the F-18 can do, that the Sukhoi cannot do better.

Historical note... remember the Zero? That was the ONE THING it could do better in a a fight - sustained turn at slow speed, along with low-speed climb angle - it turned out that wasn't nearly enough, once Zero's adversaries learned not to fight on its terms.

the Aussies agree with me... and they operate the F-18:
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

finisher · « **Reply #16 on:** November 25, 2012, 02:19:55 PM »

Quote from: Anna on November 25, 2012, 09:57:49 AM

Communist = K19. Thank you cuts. I only hope for thier sake that thier milllitary hardware works
a lot better than some of the mills and lathes I've seen imported from them. Set screws just hammered in with no threads. Electric motors that fry just as soon as you plug them in.
Toys that crater on Christmas Day, like peices of equipment where the parts will not interchange.
Yup, I sure do love finding that made in china logo on anything I buy!

****************
You wouldn't want them to actually "vote"

[size=78%] [/size]for more government regulation. They might actually start exporting a quality product. But we are the ones that buy Chinese exports every day, by the ton; all coming over here by the box car full on cargo freighters along with hundreds and hundreds of Chinese illegals.

Bob Riebe · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2012, 02:41:25 PM »

The Chinese acquired computer technology with Pres. Bill Clinton's blessing, the only thing he ever did that was dangerously stupid.
They advanced decades with it.

There are a number of military, aviation and space based sites on the web, so using Wiki is not the best idea.
My cousin has been subscribing and therefore I have been reading Aviation Week & Space Technology for decades.
Do not sell their equipment short, but their pilots may be another thing.

finisher · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2012, 02:41:41 PM »

I also witnessed the phasing out of the F-14, and in my opinion, way before it's time. Cheney must have had some serious stock in McDonnell Douglas. But hey MD did produce the F4 Phantom which was proving itself even up to the first gulf war.

The two aircraft I mentioned were like the Muscle Cars of fighter aircraft. Sure, they suck a lot of JP-5 but on the good side they were also big and heavy

[size=78%]... [/size]oops, I mean extremely fast and powerful; capable of carrying heavy payloads and from the stories I've heard, capable of sustaining quite a bit of damage.

I don't see the F-18E (albeit a good aircraft) as being so durable with its carbon graphite housing. Nor do I see it as capable of performing on the same level of power as the F14. Today's fighters are only as good as what the pilot can physically withstand.

The F-18 has yet to prove itself in any kind of combat other than the turkey shoots in Iraq and Saudi Arabia for which it has been used.

BBF · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2012, 04:30:56 AM »

Being an Old Fart I like this one. A big engine, small wings and a "saddle for One" !

guzzijohn · « **Reply #20 on:** November 26, 2012, 04:37:28 AM »

The F-104 is a cool looking but deadly beast. I think the German AF lost over 180 F-104 pilots.
GuzziJohn

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 26, 2012, 04:58:23 AM »

there was a saying in Germany, that the best way to obtain a -104G was to buy a plot of land, and wait for on to crash there.

Erich Hartmann, top gun of all top guns, told the Luftwaffe it was a bad choice...

BBF · « **Reply #22 on:** November 26, 2012, 05:05:03 AM »

Cripes!!

When you got something like that( I still like the looks) you don't need to worry about enemy aircraft.

BTW Was the Supersabre any better......................way back then.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 26, 2012, 05:54:53 AM »

Quote from: BBF on November 26, 2012, 05:05:03 AM

Cripes!!

When you got something like that( I still like the looks) you don't need to worry about enemy aircraft.

BTW Was the Supersabre any better......................way back then.

The Hun? Super Saber (F-100) was a ground-loving whore. There were lots of ways to get killed in one - true about many early jets - the AF lost over 100 Huns in 1958 alone, and half the pilots. Very grim. One of America's great test pilots and truly great combat pilots, George Welch of Pearl Harbor fame, was killed testing an early one.

BBF · « **Reply #24 on:** November 28, 2012, 08:21:46 AM »

I just recalled that one of those flown by a ANG pilot crashed on approach to Tucson when I lived there.

Bob Riebe · « **Reply #25 on:** November 28, 2012, 09:51:17 AM »

Starfighters are still flying.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/-jon-/2507191310/

Here are some more boys still flying the veteran war-planes.

http://www.atacusa.com/atac_company.html

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #26 on:** November 28, 2012, 10:00:19 AM »

hum , why would you paint fighter planes yellow ?
and even if they are the best fighter in the world and can out fly every other fighter made two things come to mind. first can they out fly missles ? and second if one of our fast attack subs took out the carrier can those fighters land on water ?
I would guess a sub has been watching since they went to sea. or maybe a satilite .
I also wonder it the USA has weapons we don't know about yet ? if not we need to get hopping .

finisher · « **Reply #27 on:** November 28, 2012, 04:15:38 PM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on November 28, 2012, 10:00:19 AM

hum , why would you paint fighter planes yellow ?
and even if they are the best fighter in the world and can out fly every other fighter made two things come to mind. first can they out fly missles ? and second if one of our fast attack subs took out the carrier can those fighters land on water ?
I would guess a sub has been watching since they went to sea. or maybe a satilite .
I also wonder it the USA has weapons we don't know about yet ? if not we need to get hopping .

*****************
You know, Shootall, a lot of the stuff that was supposedly science fiction when I was a kid suddenly turned into reality by the time I got in the service. As far as the simple stuff goes; like small arms, it seems like the boys, as a force, started getting all the cool and new shorty M16's with all the bells and whistles (Iron sights for me).

People said that the F18 would never replace the F14 (just as I said as a kid, that the F14 would never replace the F4 Phantom). When I first got in, we heard rumors of stealth ships and automated missile battery ships. And they were supposedly just at the conceptual level at that time. And then 10 or 15 years down the line, I seeing these things actually being deployed.

Like I said before, we've gone as far (and beyond) with aircraft technology as any pilot could physically handle. I think that like most wars in history, it is not entirely the new technology that wins because it is expensive and requires time to train personnel in its use and deployment. The only way technology and fancy toys win the war is if it happens quick and decisively.

Otherwise, in the long term, it has always been economical industry and logistics that win out. And we're hurting in both with regards to being economical.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #28 on:** November 29, 2012, 03:09:37 AM »

This is why I get frustrated when some complain that we no longer have the number of planes and ships that we had years back. Well yes they are correct but why have so much of our tax dollars been spent on the military? Modern ships, tanks, and planes are so expensive because they are suppose to have the technology to be "force multipliers". One plane, tank, or ship being able to do what it use to take multiples of these to complete a mission, so we DO NOT NEED THE NUMBERS WE ONCE DID! Look at the kill ratios of F-15s and F-16s let alone what a F-22 may be able to do. Look at the kill ratio on the Abrams tank, something like about 2,000 to one. The military is going to have to accept cuts just like social services education are being expected to take cuts. We will still survive folks.
GuzziJohn

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 29, 2012, 04:49:03 AM »

Quote from: finisher on November 28, 2012, 04:15:38 PM

People said that the F18 would never replace the F14 (just as I said as a kid, that the F14 would never replace the F4 Phantom). When I first got in, we heard rumors of stealth ships and automated missile battery ships. And they were supposedly just at the conceptual level at that time. And then 10 or 15 years down the line, I seeing these things actually being deployed.

F-14 was a very successful replacement for the Phabulous Phantom - same mission, more capable, could do all the same roles much better. Not so with the F-18 - it cannot replace the F-14 in long-range strike role. It just doesn't have the legs.

F-18's selling point is low maintenance, high availability, and filling both fighter (F-14) and attack (A-6) roles - imperfectly in both cases. The navy had hoped for the A-12 stealth for A-6 replacement, but it didn't work out.

we shoulda bought some SU-27s from the Russkies and navalised them...