Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1K3 on May 27, 2005, 10:37:24 PM
-
(I took this from aircaft/vehicle section. Sorry Fongman)
(http://big5.china.com/gate/big5/tuku.military.china.com/military/pic/2005-05-27/1020487_153317540.jpg) (http://big5.china.com/gate/big5/tuku.military.china.com/military/pic/2005-05-27/1020487_153319844.jpg)
:cool:
(http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/aircraftcarrier_1.jpg)
-
I was expecting a Riksaw toting AN12 parts.
-
Wow....what's funny is those really look like F4s....especially the one by the Island.
Good thing, hopfully this will increase the navy's funding.
EDIT:
Is the thing gonna be for STOVL A/C only? That's the only reason I would put a sloped launch deck on it????? What kind of A/C are those?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Wow....what's funny is those really look like F4s....especially the one by the Island.
:confused:
those planes on the mock-up are J-10 fighters and navalised MiG-29s...
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Is the thing gonna be for STOVL A/C only? That's the only reason I would put a sloped launch deck on it????? What kind of A/C are those?
It's a pure conventional aircaft carrier. The slopeed launch deck makes up for its lack of catapult launcher.
-
btw it is schedulled to go in MASS PRODUCTIOn by 2010.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm
-
Originally posted by 1K3
It's a pure conventional aircaft carrier. The slopeed launch deck makes up for its lack of catapult launcher.
wow no cats? How do they expect to take off with fuel and ord?
seriously they'd have to be light as hell. F18s and Super hornets would eat them alive.
-
What's the Chinese word for Varyag?
-Sik
-
The Chinese have 2 Ex Soviet Carriers.. Minsk and Varyag.
One's a musem, the other i believe was scrapped. Seems they lacked the technological and operational know-how to get 'em finsished and have opted to 'scratch build' thier own, balanced against the air wing capabilities and airframes they have or can aquire.
China may 'want' a Carrier, but I doubt it'd be much of a threat to us.. about the only thing our Navy know how to do better than operate a Carrier Force is to sink one. ;)
(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/seawolf.gif)
On the other hand, for imposing their will in the South China Sea and intimidating the Vietnamese, Phillipines and their lil rebel state on Formosa a Carrier Group would be imposing as hell.. however, before they can field a credible threat with a carrier task group they also need the escort and screen vessels that go with it along with the sophisticated defensive systems required to protect it from sea-skimmer missiles, subs and fast attack craft that their 'adversaries' will certainly field (all supplied by us).
For 'feel good' Chinese propaganda, priceless. As a credible threat to US intrests if the chips go down.. useless.
-
China's economy has been steadily improving. think they will be able to afford quite a lot of carriers. pretty scary.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
It's a pure conventional aircaft carrier. The slopeed launch deck makes up for its lack of catapult launcher.
No see, really the deck is curled back like that because they put a biiiiiiiig-prettythang rubberband attatched to either side, put the plane in front of it and PUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLL it back until they lock it at the rear of the deck with the tailhook. The bow is bent because the metal is just a little flexible...........
-
well I give them at least 15-20 years to catch up to us. If there's one thing the US military has is an elite carrier force. They are combat proven and experienced with over 60 years of development. I don't think you can learn something like this on a wim, wich sounds like to me the chinese are trying to do.
Seriously, how much/effective can a combat air craft be off a short take off span. Unless they have 200 more below deck and a few dozen tankers to support them (IE: stregnth through numbers) how much power can that project? Even for fleet defense the birds can't be up that long nore carry sofisticated weaponry in proper numbers.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow no cats? How do they expect to take off with fuel and ord?
seriously they'd have to be light as hell. F18s and Super hornets would eat them alive.
Let's keep it that way, too!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well I give them at least 15-20 years to catch up to us. If there's one thing the US military has is an elite carrier force. They are combat proven and experienced with over 60 years of development. I don't think you can learn something like this on a wim, wich sounds like to me the chinese are trying to do.
Seriously, how much/effective can a combat air craft be off a short take off span. Unless they have 200 more below deck and a few dozen tankers to support them (IE: stregnth through numbers) how much power can that project? Even for fleet defense the birds can't be up that long nore carry sofisticated weaponry in proper numbers.
Guns, my brother tells me the catapults on his old boat (CV19) were guarded.. 'top secret'. Seems the biggest hurdle for the chinese is the catapult technology. My bro sez he wast told that 'it's easier to make a nuke".
FWIW..
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Seriously, how much/effective can a combat air craft be off a short take off span. Unless they have 200 more below deck and a few dozen tankers to support them (IE: stregnth through numbers) how much power can that project? Even for fleet defense the birds can't be up that long nore carry sofisticated weaponry in proper numbers.
I'm pretty sure that the photographed ship is the Former Soviet ship "Varyag" Assuming that the Chinese were to come up with a similar design, your question about "how effective can a combat aircraft be off a short take off span?" is answered by the Su-33. Not a bad plane all things considered.
Now, granted, we would still be talking about a single Carrier with a small compliment. But it's more of a threat than anything anyone else would be pointing at us.
-Sik
-
Maybe those that dont like China having alot of carriers should be happy instead. Would be far worse if they used all that money on even more high-tech attack subs and boomers.
-
It heavily resembles Kuznetsov. I wouldn’t brush off this threat (to Taiwan) just because its made in China. That ideology is ridicules. China has proven before that Zerg rush strategy works.
-
Here's some intersting reading about this topic
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2004/Winter/art6-w04.htm
-
Originally posted by Russian
It heavily resembles Kuznetsov. I wouldn’t brush off this threat (to Taiwan) just because its made in China. That ideology is ridicules. China has proven before that Zerg rush strategy works.
Thats because it was the Russian's 2nd ship of the Kuznetzov class..they never completed it and sold it to a "private" firm in china to be converted into a huge Casino..yeah right.
-
Originally posted by Russian
It heavily resembles Kuznetsov.
i were about to lunch lomac and compare it to kuznetsov... its kinda similary
thx for saving my time :D
-
theres a Navy Cross waiting to happen.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
No see, really the deck is curled back like that because they put a biiiiiiiig-prettythang rubberband attatched to either side, put the plane in front of it and PUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLL it back until they lock it at the rear of the deck with the tailhook. The bow is bent because the metal is just a little flexible...........
I think maybe they just pulled into port a bit fast during sea
trials and bent the bow on the dock :p
-
Just a bigger target!!
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I'm pretty sure that the photographed ship is the Former Soviet ship "Varyag" Assuming that the Chinese were to come up with a similar design, your question about "how effective can a combat aircraft be off a short take off span?" is answered by the Su-33. Not a bad plane all things considered.
Now, granted, we would still be talking about a single Carrier with a small compliment. But it's more of a threat than anything anyone else would be pointing at us.
-Sik
but how can ANY modern day A/C hope to take off from a short sloped deck carrier and have the Fuel/Ord. to compete with land based fighters. Yes they would be a threat even if they carry ONE missle a piece.
Think about it. They can't carry much fuel cause they need the weight for Ord. They can't stay up too long (fuel) unless they have tanker support (with out a cat. tanker support from a carrier is probably impossible) They burn alot of their fuel on take off using Full AB.
This just doesnt seem to feasable. Maybe it's not meant to stand off against a US carrier.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
but how can ANY modern day A/C hope to take off from a short sloped deck carrier and have the Fuel/Ord. to compete with land based fighters. Yes they would be a threat even if they carry ONE missle a piece.
Think about it. They can't carry much fuel cause they need the weight for Ord. They can't stay up too long (fuel) unless they have tanker support (with out a cat. tanker support from a carrier is probably impossible) They burn alot of their fuel on take off using Full AB.
This just doesnt seem to feasable. Maybe it's not meant to stand off against a US carrier.
I'm pretty sure that the fully loaded weight of an Su-33 is about the same, maybe a little more than the E/F Hornets. I don't know a damn thing about the physics of getting that bird into the air, but whether they use VooDoo or Magic, or luck, the Russians were getting them up.
I don't know what plans they would have for tanking, I would guess they would have to rely on Su-33s with buddy stores, though I don't know if such a mod exists. The more glaring problem is the lack of dedicated AWAC planes. The Russians were working on a variant of the AN-72 that was pretty cool, but they gave up on it. Instead they have to rely on Choppers. Of course if it is operating in the most likely Geographic locations (Taiwan and say, the Spratlys) they will still be within range of land based support from long range Aircraft like the Tu-95s they are supposed to be looking at.
-Sik
-
But no... It's not meant to go toe to toe with one of ours. The small plane compliment attests to that.
-Sik
-
IIRC neither can US carrier fighters take off with full ordnance + fuel but they need to refuel when airborne.
Su-33 has two jets with 13300kg thrust = 26600kg and maximum weight is about 30000kg
For example Phantom II max weight is 28000kg and thrust ~16000kg with afterburners.
F/A-18A max 25000kg with ~14500kg thrust.
F-14A max 33700kg with 19000kg thrust.
I know those US carrier fighters are already old and new models have more powerfull engines but still Sukhoi's power to weight ratio is pretty nice. Put enough power to an aircraft and it can take off vertically.
Sukhoi built an lightweight model for breaking records and that aircraft had almost 2:1 power to weight ratio...
-
Sikboy are you talking about A-50 "Mainstay"?
radar has a detection range of up to 800 kilometers, and can track 200 targets simultaneously
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/a-50.htm
-
Originally posted by Staga
Sikboy are you talking about A-50 "Mainstay"?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/a-50.htm
Staga, no that monster would never get off the deck :p I was talking about one that was carrier capable. I don't recall the designation, but the Nato codename was Madcap. I'll look it up.
[edit] Found it: An-71
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/an-71.htm
-Sik
-
I'm sure the Chinese will buy/build the navalized Flanker in the future. As a pure fighter, that thing kicks F18s ass, especially the big heavy Super Hornets.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
I'm sure the Chinese will buy/build the navalized Flanker in the future. As a pure fighter, that thing kicks F18s ass, especially the big heavy Super Hornets.
Sure in a one on one with the equivilent amount of training.....but that's not how modern day tactics work.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Sure in a one on one with the equivilent amount of training.....but that's not how modern day tactics work.
Nor do modern day tactics pit carriers 1v1.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Nor do modern day tactics pit carriers 1v1.
-Sik
no but that's far from what we are talking about here.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
theres a Navy Cross waiting to happen.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
no but that's far from what we are talking about here.
I'm sorry. I misunderstood you when you asked if it was meant to stand off against a US carrier.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I'm sorry. I misunderstood you when you asked if it was meant to stand off against a US carrier.
-Sik
I should have been more specific. What a meant was a carrier battle GROUP.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I should have been more specific. What a meant was a carrier battle GROUP.
Even so, I don't think that group v. group actions are very realistic either.
But what are we talking about here? I'm actually getting confused posting in both Chinese Carrier threads lol.
-Sik
-
Why make your own when you can always get a fully working one from ......
In late 1995, France is reported to have offerred the Clemenceau for free, provided that China bought radar and communications systems from French companies. Nothing came of the offer.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Why make your own when you can always get a fully working one from ......
If i were China I would go for the French option. Proven design that works.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Why make your own when you can always get a fully working one from ......
I imagine that the maintenance and operations costs of that Antique are probably prohibative, especially considering that I don't think they would be able to operate the Sukhoi's off of them. China does seem heavily invested in the Su-27, including license building them in country.
So the free carrier could conceivably cost a ton of money and not actually do what they want.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I imagine that the maintenance and operations costs of that Antique are probably prohibative, especially considering that I don't think they would be able to operate the Sukhoi's off of them. China does seem heavily invested in the Su-27, including license building them in country.
So the free carrier could conceivably cost a ton of money and not actually do what they want.
-Sik
Why cant they operate Su27's from them? They are not designed to work with them, but making that happen should not be that costly. When you see all the work they are doing on the russian ship, that cant be cheap either.
The spanish carriers they were offered could prolly not launch SU27's or that would prolly have been the cheapest option.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Why cant they operate Su27's from them? They are not designed to work with them, but making that happen should not be that costly. When you see all the work they are doing on the russian ship, that cant be cheap either.
The spanish carriers they were offered could prolly not launch SU27's or that would prolly have been the cheapest option.
That is a good point. I had actually forgotten about the French Carriers using Cats. I don't know how much of a technology swap it would be to get them going.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Even so, I don't think that group v. group actions are very realistic either.
But what are we talking about here? I'm actually getting confused posting in both Chinese Carrier threads lol.
-Sik
to recapp,
My assumption was that an Air Craft that was not catapult assisted from a CV could not have much on board as far as Weapons, Special Avionics, and Fuel. They would be less combat effective than an F/A-18 hornet.
Then spitfire made the comment:
I'm sure the Chinese will buy/build the navalized Flanker in the future. As a pure fighter, that thing kicks F18s ass, especially the big heavy Super Hornets.
Wich to me is not applicable because modern day air combat tactics arent like Ace High in that a 1v1 fight probably wouldnt happen. Thus the chinese would be at a disadvantage tacticaly (mostly numbers here but also weapons as well) and logisticaly (lack of re-fueling)
If there's one thing our Nations military has is top notch carriers and naval air combat capability.
My whole assertion is that with out a catapult assisted launch any A/C would be at a HUGE disadvantage in combat againts an american CVN Battle Group.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
That is a good point. I had actually forgotten about the French Carriers using Cats. I don't know how much of a technology swap it would be to get them going.
-Sik
Im guessing that weapon storage, fuel transfer systems, spare parts and _maybe_ elevator sizes and stuff would have been some issues. Communication equipment would need to be compatible, but on the plus side they could prolly launch some sort of tankers and awacs system from it alot easyer than with the russian one.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
to recapp,
My assumption was that an Air Craft that was not catapult assisted from a CV could not have much on board as far as Weapons, Special Avionics, and Fuel. They would be less combat effective than an F/A-18 hornet.
Russian designers didn’t implement catapult, not because they couldn’t, but because it’s so bloody troublesome to maintain it. If it would affect fighters so much that they cannot operate to full potential, I’m sure they would spend extra money on spies and get needed technology. :aok
Btw – notice combat radius operation of aircraft discussed. Also special version of Su can refuel.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
My whole assertion is that with out a catapult assisted launch any A/C would be at a HUGE disadvantage in combat againts an american CVN Battle Group.
]
In that case, I just have to again point to the Su-33 and respectfully disagree.
As a Navy man myself of course I agree that US Carriers and Carrier aviation are top notch. But I disagree that the lack of catapults is such a deficiency in the Kuznetsov design, considering the planes embarked. Compare the Su-33 to the French Rafale (launched via catapult from the CDG), or the F/A-18.
Of course as a "tin can" guy, I'd have to say it's all about the Aegis :p
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Russian
Russian designers didn’t implement catapult, not because they couldn’t, but because it’s so bloody troublesome to maintain it. If it would affect fighters so much that they cannot operate to full potential, I’m sure they would spend extra money on spies and get needed technology. :aok
Btw – notice combat radius operation of aircraft discussed. Also special version of Su can refuel.
but can you get a refueler off of a CV w/o a catapult?
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
]
In that case, I just have to again point to the Su-33 and respectfully disagree.
As a Navy man myself of course I agree that US Carriers and Carrier aviation are top notch. But I disagree that the lack of catapults is such a deficiency in the Kuznetsov design, considering the planes embarked. Compare the Su-33 to the French Rafale (launched via catapult from the CDG), or the F/A-18.
Of course as a "tin can" guy, I'd have to say it's all about the Aegis :p
-Sik
but as an aviation guy I KNOW that you cannot fully load up an A/C to it's full potential if you have limited take off space. That's going to limit it on the battlefield.
This is were tactics come to play wich would not match this A/C up well against a hornet. OR more realisticly a SQAUDRON of fully fueled Fully armed awacs supported AGEIS supported Hornets.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
but as an aviation guy I know that you cannot fully load up an A/C to it's full potential if you have limited take off space. That's going to limit it on the battlefield.
This is were tactics come to play wich would not match this A/C up well against a hornet. OR more realisticly a SQAUDRON of fully fueled Fully armed awacs supported AGEIS supported Hornets.
I just wonder if there's a Chinese guy wondering why US CVs don't have a ramp.
[edit]
Upon further research, I agree with Gunslinger.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow no cats? How do they expect to take off with fuel and ord?
seriously they'd have to be light as hell. F18s and Super hornets would eat them alive.
Reminds me of the "light" carriers the British Royal Navy has with the sloped decks for their Harriers.
IIRC, the reason why the USN decided to keep the flat deck instead of going to the slope deck the Brits pioneered was that it would limit take off weight.
Wonder how the Commie Chinese carrier compares to one our more modern Super Carriers? The USS Midway that sits anchored in San Diego Bay looks larger than that Chinese tin can.
ack-ack
-
U guys shouldn be afraid the US will always dominate just because they have the most experience, it is also a good reason to spend money on new cv's.
hence the reason to keep such a expensive mutli billion dollar fleet exists.
And our gawddamned navy talkin about dumping its frigates and only sail coastal patrol boats in the future.
sigh.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
U guys shouldn be afraid the US will always dominate just because they have the most experience, it is also a good reason to spend money on new cv's.
hence the reason to keep such a expensive mutli billion dollar fleet exists.
And our gawddamned navy talkin about dumping its frigates and only sail coastal patrol boats in the future.
sigh.
I'm also concerned (and in awe) that the Chinese will turn out more scientists, engeeneers, chemists, ect. Chinese Students mirror that of the soviet children back in the 50's-60's.
-
US still beat them to the moon. HA!
but now the same US relies on Soyuz to take their astronauts to the ISS.
cancel HA!
-
we should bomb the thing now before it has a chance to sail. mark my words...you'll regret it later if we don't.
Sincerely,
G.W. Bush
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
US still beat them to the moon. HA!
but now the same US relies on Soyuz to take their astronauts to the ISS.
cancel HA!
Every time I think that you've posted the dumbest post ever,
you manage to top yourself, bravo!
-
We should arrange for it to have an accident like their embassy did.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Reminds me of the "light" carriers the British Royal Navy has with the sloped decks for their Harriers.
IIRC, the reason why the USN decided to keep the flat deck instead of going to the slope deck the Brits pioneered was that it would limit take off weight.
Wonder how the Commie Chinese carrier compares to one our more modern Super Carriers? The USS Midway that sits anchored in San Diego Bay looks larger than that Chinese tin can.
ack-ack
Actually...the slope allows heavier take off weight...for the harriers anyway...looking for the source now.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Actually...the slope allows heavier take off weight...for the harriers anyway...looking for the source now.
ASTAC, I think what Ack Ack was refering to is the same thing that Gunslinger was refering to: You can't put as much weight into the air with a ramp as you can with a catapult.
In looking into the Kuznetsov (and the Varyag which is the carrier referenced in this thread) really gives you a window into the Long range plans the Soviets had when the wheels came off the Commie train.
While US Naval Doctrine focuses on power projection, the Soviet's focused most of their resources on Submarine warfare. The bulk of their surface assets were geared towards ASW operations, and this includes their Sea going naval aviation units. If you look at the actual and planned Avation ships, you can see a very clear evolution.
The first operational Aviation ships in the Soviet fleets were the Helo-Carriers "Moskva" and "Lenningrad." These were som ugly bellybutton ships. But they provided the utility of having a dozen or so ASW Helos. I imagine they also carried one or two OTH targeting Helo's as well, but I'm not sure about that. The point being, this first step in Seagoing Aviation was primarily to serve as an ASW platform.
The Second step in their evolution were the Kiev class ships. These were the first to carry fixed wing aircraft. The Yak-38 was as ugly an airplane as the Moskva was an ugly ship. But I would suggest that the Kiev was still primarily an ASW support ship. The meat of the aviation wing was geared towards the same Ka-25/27 units that were on the Moskva ships. While the Yak-38 has some a2g/anti-ship capabilities, I believe they were primarily relied on to provide fleet air defense. We used to joke about them comming equiped with Hull mounted sonar since they spent so much time in the drink.
That brings us to the Varyag.
These ships carry conventional fixed wing aircraft, and this is a first for Russian aviation. However, they are still very limited in capability. I don't have a lot of research on it, but according to John Pike over at globalsecurity.com, they can not launch heavily loaded planes which precludes the use of ground attack varients of the Su-33, and limits them to an Air Defense role. Obviously the Su-33 is a significant upgrade over the Yak-38, yet still the Ship is limited in its ability to project power. But just as important as providing improved fleet air defense, these ships were going to pave the way for the next generation of ships. The Kuznetsov and Varyag would be used to train a cadre of Carrier pilots who would man the next two ships to come off the lines.
These are the ships that were never built. The Soviet plan was to build actual fleet carriers with a full flight deck including catapults. The Varyag and Kuznetsov would still be used as Air defense carriers, but the new CVs would have a much greater offensive capability.
Thats my $.2 anyhow.
-Sik
-
They Kuzentsov class also has 192 SAM's and 12 ASM missiles. Dunno what the Chinese will do regarding that tho.
-
I agree with your analasis Sikboy.
This is exasctly what we in the US Navy have always figured about the Russian CV programme...They did have a ship on the building way that was much larger more modern CV that was scrapped before much work was done due to the cost to build it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
They Kuzentsov class also has 192 SAM's and 12 ASM missiles. Dunno what the Chinese will do regarding that tho.
While I imagine that they would want to make use of the SAM capability, I'm not sure what would happen with the ASMs. The next Generation of Russian Missiles is well underway, and the Chinese have some promising designs as well.
The PLAN has been loading up on SS-N-22s for the past 5+ years, but I would think that they would be more forward thinking if they were going to put anything on the Varyag.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I agree with your analasis Sikboy.
This is exasctly what we in the US Navy have always figured about the Russian CV programme...They did have a ship on the building way that was much larger more modern CV that was scrapped before much work was done due to the cost to build it.
Well where do you think I came up with the story? lol. I was a Russian Linguist in the Navy in the early-mid 90's. We probably went through bootcamp around the same time.
-Sik
-
Maybe the Shipwrecks are part of the package. They are getting old, but they have great range, and if one of them hit the target there wouldnt be much left of it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Maybe the Shipwrecks are part of the package. They are getting old, but they have great range, and if one of them hit the target there wouldnt be much left of it.
Yeah, you really do want that 300 mile range when you're talkinga bout your Carrier. I mean, if the enemy is within range of a Sunburn, you've already failed lol.
-Sik
-
300nm is alot of range around Taiwan. On the high seas its another matter entirely
-
It's twice the range of the SS-N-22, That's what I mean, if you let a target get within 155 miles of your Carrier, you've already screwed up.
-Sik
-
The deal on both the commie rafts was pretty restrictive. Neither ship was equipped with any commo gear, armament of any type or even the propulsion systems. Picked clean steel hulks.
Which is why the chinese pretty much scrapped any idea of reworking the boats and decided to go with their own renditions from scratch.
Again, the value of a carrier force to the chinese is in 'brown water' force projection (contested spratley islands, phillipines, vietnam, formosa) and defense of home waters against intruding yankee-dog pirate subs. HAAAR!
In a wierd way, the emergence of a pacific naval power is good.. we'll likely be continuing with our own super carrier build and development program, this assures the continued presence and importance of our own navy's force projection program.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Every time I think that you've posted the dumbest post ever,
you manage to top yourself, bravo!
I was talking about the 'soviet children of 50s and 60s' .
tell me if what I said isn't 100% true.
-
From what I've read Hangtime and Sikboy pretty much covered it. The Chinese are starting to show some pretty lofty aspirations in the region and internationally. They also tend to be impatient and historically seem to be overly ambitious in areas they don't have much experience in. That said, they also have learned that they can skip entire generations of painful engineering lessons through "buying" technology they don't want to develop themselves. The carrier hulks serve as a great engineering lesson so that the Chinese can reverse-engineer the russian experience and then design/build their own similar design.
Chinese have lots of opportunity to test a new carrier out in brown-water operations anyway (as Hangtime pointed out). Nothing like a CV to help and influence some local decisions to favorable conclusions. Whether it turns into a true Blue-water type force is unclear but that would require a lot more than just building some CV's as I'm not aware they have anywhere near the supporting ships they'd need for that style of operation.
-Soda