China plans to have four aircraft carrier battle groups in service by 2030, but those plans could change as budgets shrank and some departments were cut as a result of an unprecedented military overhaul, the insider said. Other political and economic factors were weighing on the programme, too.
“A shipbuilder had been scheduled to build another Type 002 carrier, the country’s fourth, in recent days but it was postponed … amid the ongoing trade war with the US,” he said. “Beijing doesn’t want to upset Washington further – the economy has already slowed since the two countries started their trade disputes.”
The naval source said China was also well aware there was still a huge gap between the People’s Liberation Army Navy and its American counterpart, which has 11 aircraft carrier battle groups, eight of which can be ready for combat at any one time.
I was struck by the comment that they can only get about 1000 hours or so out of the engine technology they have for their jets. They need 5 times as many jets in inventory just to have an equal number available. (Compared to our F18’s)
Russian jets do not require spotless airfields; a Russian Mig cannot suck a loose bolt into the engine on takeoff or landing. In contrast, our airfields require a daily walk by large crews to pick up any loose stuff laying on the ground. Our jets, WILL suck loose debris into the engine on takeoff or landing.
I think Russian design philosophy may be better in this case. If a war was on, they do not have to walk their airfields looking for loose junk; we would. And considering aircraft are being shot at, it seems very likely there would be lots of debris laying about.
good lord kevin, did you just post something that stupid????
which of the 2 and a half million mig are you talking about, the Su migs????
I would love to see the source for that comment. A MIG cannot suck a loose bolt into the engine? You really have to explain that one.
I was watching you tubes about various jets, and one of them mentioned that Russian planes commonly have shutters that redirect the jet intake to avoid sucking things on takeoff and landing.
Was also watching some tank museum videos, and one guy went pretty in depth about the Russian definition of quality. Basically, “when it breaks, anyone can fix it with common tools” is quality in Russia.
The T34 apparently the track rivets were not held in by anything. But there is a plate that knocks them all back in as they roll by.
Hate to break to you but T-34 was a wee bit less sophisticated than a modern jet. Besides it was maintenance intensive, much less reliable and harder to repair in the field than contemporary M4 Sherman. At best, late war production T-34s were about as reliable as contemporary German tanks and less so circa 41-43.
As for the “Russians don’t have to clean runways line”. You don’t have to look for Russian sources to know this is bullshit. MiG-29s are/were used by NATO countries as well. They keep their runways clean even for soviet made jets. Wonder why did they do that?
Wasn’t the point of the original article that this came out of that Russians tended to position engines so they are less likely to pick up debris. I doubt a Russian jet engine can suck in a bolt and not be damaged.
well I just watched a history documentary about Migs.
the ruskkies at the time of british pm clement attlee(sp) were allowed to buy some 40 or so of the existing best rolls royce engines.
which promptly ‘disappeared’ in the soviet ‘technology gulag’ and showed up again as refined clones in the Migs used in N Korea,
whut a dumbfcuk move that was to ‘promote sales’.
no mention of what they did about loose debris on the runway. Im skeptical about that claim.
No, not five times more jets but certainly some more jets to allow for the down time when changing engines. Except a carrier can only carry so many jets. They need many more engines in their supply train and for the carrier the space taken up by more spare engines isn’t available for combat supplies (ammo, fuel, rations), other spare parts, crew comfort, so their carriers have less range and endurance as well as carrying a smaller fighting force.
Trump was 100% correct that US trade deficits were paying for the Chinese military buildup.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/trade_deficits_paying_for_china_military_buildup.html
There is no such thing as a trade deficit.
Yes, like Grit budgets, trade deficits balance themselves.
LOL, that is even retarded by your standards.
UnMewl has standards?
Yep … maths is hard … for leftist tools.
It’s not that they don’t exist, it’s that they’re sometimes not a problem. I have a trade deficit with Safeway, who never buys goods from me. But I’m OK with that.
Copying a design doesn’t guarantee success.
A guy I worked with in the past was involved with design of a high power RF transmitter and the transistors were purchased from a US company. The owner of the company was invited to visit China and was shown into one of the Chinese transistor fabs. They excitedly asked him to view their latest transistor design under a microscope. His comment was .. this looks like our (US) transistor , to which the Chinese host said , oh yes , we copied it completely , but it doesn’t work , can you tell us how to fix it ?
He politely declined the offer.
I know it’s a minor point, but does anyone else think “The People’s Liberation Army Navy” sounds really stupid? Maybe it sounds better in the original Chinese.
It must sound better in Chinese, if only because the Party says so.
Only slightly worse than the “Army Air Corps”.
“Maybe it sounds better in the original Chinese.”
It does, because it makes more sense both idiomatically, historically and culturally for Chinese speakers.
“The Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27 fighters have a special intake design to prevent ingestion of FOD during take-off from rough airfields. The main air intakes could be closed with mesh doors and special inlets on the top of the intakes temporarily opened. This would allow enough airflow to the engine for take-off but reduced the chances of the engine sucking up objects from the ground.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage
https://theaviationist.com/2012/07/16/yak-130/
So various things I see from time to time is the source of that comment about Russian military aircraft being designed to make FOC unlikely (not eliminate entirely).
So it is not impossible for a MiG-29 to suffer FOD, just less likely than an American plane because of design decisions.
I wonder if the Chinese definition of quality is closer to ours, closer to the Russians, or just something completely different?
China has a lot of guys, they can probably get their runways swept regularly and thoroughly. (And if one of those guys gets sucked into an jet engine’s air intake, well, they have a lot of guys …)
Sure, in case it escaped your attention russian definition of a dry dock is a wet one.
well now unDork….erm kevin, now that you’v clarified your comment a little, one has to wonder why you would post that when discussing $$$$$$ as to building boats (aircraft carriers).
IOW Americans are paying a massively destructive tax to sort of maybe slightly reduce China’s military buildup, which had no chance of catching up to America’s military anyway. Trumptard “brilliance” at work
The tariffs are a tool to equalize trade and more importantly trade rules between the US and China. When China enacts fair Reciprocal Trade Rules, stop stealing Intellectual Property, and forcing unfair business practices, the tariffs will end.
Last report I saw showed the Chinese are paying most of the tariffs. Prices on their goods are only up 4-5%, and the amount the Chinese receive is down twenty percent. IOW, the Chinese are paying most of the tab, not their US customers.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/21/free-trade-economists-fail-china-paying-trump-tariffs-not-u-s/
Who is the ‘tard?
“Last report I saw showed the Chinese are paying most of the tariffs. ”
Bzzt. That’s not how tariffs work. The consumer always pays 100%, even if the cost comes in the form of reduced choice than just higher prices. In any event, an increase in 4-5% is still unacceptable. Breitbart is also not a news source.
“The tariffs are a tool to equalize trade”
All trade is inherently equal so long as it is voluntary and free of fraud. Trade wars are just competitions in self-harm.
“The consumer always pays 100%, even if the cost comes in the form of reduced choice than just higher prices. ”
Your knowledge of basic static trade model from Econ 105 (the short bus economics for non specialists) is about as impressive as your ability to regurgitate the back of covers of libertarian classics. Still you’re not even a an autistic libertarian, just a libtard pretending to be one.
One cent in the pocket of the enemy is too many. Let’s see what a great deal you got on that iPhone when the Chinese navy are shelling San Francisco.
The Chinese see trade as a means to acquire the wherewithal to defeat and conquer the United States in war, and with it the world.
China will cease to be a threat to the United States when the Chinese are relieved of their ability to make war on the United States, by means of a strategic atomic bombing campaign aimed at destroying China’s industrial base, and reducing her population to a level easily controllable by a US occupation force given the task of opening China to American and European settlement.
You will have to pay more for your cellphone. You’ll get over it.
unDork, your type of stupidity also graced the news and personal comments when Reagan was in the WH, and then the wall came tumbling down. Why don’t you try working for CNN, they love extra stupid!
That is the thing about numbers tho…
So the Chinese need 100 jets engines for every jet.
In WW2, it took 10 Shermans to take down one king tiger; but the Americans produced at far greater than a 10 to one rate..
I remember reading some military stats somewhere that the Americans figured out they would need 10 times the troops to defeat the guerrilla tactics of the north Vietnamese. One thing about the Chinese, they beat us on numbers. And other numbers like a 4X numerical advantage is what is required to overcome a technological advantage.
And you know the Chinese have their Rosenbergs and such in place for years. Because there are always socialists. So there is likely no technological advantage.
And as an aside, why do any of you even bother with enema or unme? I just skip anything some people write after reading who the author was, cause there some who comment here who never add anything to any conversation. No point reading, or responding to a comment from a troll that essentially always boils down to simple logical fallacy.