Not just normal-sized fighters, big ones. The Su-33 is 74 feet long - 10 feet longer than the (roughly equivalent) F-15, and 20 feet longer than the Typhoon.
It’s not the size of the plane that matters.
It’s the number of women, under the control of their Chinese social-networking-overlords, who announce a sexual preference for Chinese fighter jets.
Heh, anything that’s the same size as a frontline fighter for a major power (like, say, the 72-foot Su-27) is a “normal fighter”. I conceptualize the Typhoon as “smallish”.
Also, this thread is apparently no longer about Chinese military capability, but nitpicky detail talk about fighter aircraft. =P
The Su-33 is basically a navalized version of the Su-27, so it’s not surprising that it’s the same size. 
The Su-27 is unusually large; as I said, the F-15 is 62 feet long (as is the F-22).
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Minor nitpick, but Varyag was designed for normal-sized conventional fighters, just not many of them–two squadrons of Su-33, by my understanding.
[/QUOTE]
My own recollection (I’m not going to look it up right now) was that it was a ski-jump style carrier and the planes were short take off and landing type air craft, not regular fighters. I could be misremembering, however.
But even if it will take ‘regular’ fighters that would mean the Chinese would have to design a naval version of this stealth fighter, which is going to take even more time I should think (let alone building the training and doctrine not just to fly the plane effectively but to use it for carrier operations).
-XT
It was a ski-jump carrier, but the aircraft were regular fighters. The Harrier used a ski-jump because it could carry a larger payload that way; conventional fighters need a ski-jump just to get off the ground (especially on the smaller carriers everyone but the USN builds).
The Soviet STOVL aircraft, the Yak-38, was launched from smaller Kiev-class carriers. One of those is now the Indian Navy’s Vikramaditya (or at least will be once its refit is complete). Two of the other three are scrap, and the fourth is in China, but in use as a floating museum.
Meanwhile China is laughing at you because “all your debt is belong to us”. Military power is becoming irrelevant. How are your 11 carrier battle groups going to help you pay down your 14 trillion dollar debt?
A the same time, other countries have surpluses… remember those? Hint Clinton was the last to have one.
[QUOTE=coremelt]
Meanwhile China is laughing at you because “all your debt is belong to us”.
[/QUOTE]
Even leaving aside who would be laughing, the Chinese have actually divested themselves lately of some of that debt…IIRC they went from over a trillion dollars to less than $800 billion.
If that’s the case then why is China steadily increasing their military budget?? Or have they not gotten the memo yet?
Well, I suppose we could charge admission.
(Or did you think you were going to get a serious answer to such a silly question?)
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
It was a ski-jump carrier, but the aircraft were regular fighters. The Harrier used a ski-jump because it could carry a larger payload that way; conventional fighters need a ski-jump just to get off the ground (especially on the smaller carriers everyone but the USN builds).
The Soviet STOVL aircraft, the Yak-38, was launched from smaller Kiev-class carriers. One of those is now the Indian Navy’s Vikramaditya (or at least will be once its refit is complete). Two of the other three are scrap, and the fourth is in China, but in use as a floating museum.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as I said, I might be misremembering. I thought only the largest Soviet era carriers were able to have ‘regular’ (naval variant) air craft, and I didn’t think this was one of the larger ones.
-XT
If China and the US goes to war (which would be the only reason that the US would want to sink the Varyag), that debt vanishes anyway. So yeah, 14 Carrier Battlegroups would indeed help pay down that debt.
Please don’t say this where a congressman can hear.
China is probably just beefing up their navy in case they have to come over here and repossess some stuff. If we can’t make the payments, maybe they’ll try to repo one of our carrier groups while the admiral isn’t looking.
As has been said by mlees, if China launches a war of aggression (against Taiwan or perhaps the Spratlys or the Phillipines, which are the only even halfway reasonable scenarios where we have to sink Varyag), there will be a significant portion of the world who will cheer us on for declaring the debt of a rogue nation null and void.
Do you actually have any idea what my political opinions might be, or are you assuming that because I have a working knowledge of military hardware and who would win in a given wargame scenario that I must somehow be a Tea Pary conservative?
Varyag is a Kuznetsov-class, the big one, and would have carried Su-33s if it hadn’t been mothballed before being sold to China. It’s a big boat; twice the size of the British Invincible-class carriers which won the Falklands War, and bigger than any non-American carrier until the Queen Elizabeth class enters service.
Minsk and Kiev, the scrapped ships I mentioned above, are the smaller ones you’re thinking of. China has them, but it will never be able to make them seaworthy. They’re purely for academic use (ie., the forthcoming indigenous Chinese carrier will be a copy of them).
We could always do what Ukraine did. Sell them to China in 20 years when they are obsolete.
China better hope the U.S. economy does well. It’s not as though they could force America to pay them if we decided to stiff them on the debt. The only economy that would probably be hurt worse than America’s if that happened would be China’s.
Of course, I also don’t see why two large trading partners would necessarily want to harm each other’s economies. Seems bad for business.
With the Cold War over, many people feel the need for a Great Enemy, so are looking for one. China, terrorism, Muslims, whatever.
“By 2020, the United States will have 123 million high-skill jobs to fill—and fewer than 50 million Americans qualified to fill them.” -Waiting For ‘Superman’, 2010.
Seems like Green Cards may be given away with Happy Meals in the not-to-distant future!
With 1.4 billion ‘expendables’ and a awaiting WWII-contrite Nihon ‘de~fence fauxce’, they could build a human bridge and walk across!
…except Russia and Iran and Pakistan and North Korea and Burma and Venezuela and the rest of the Middle-East; most of which have threatening agendas of their own. Has a very ‘late 1930s’ flavour to it. Don’t you think?
Then you’re misunderstanding the level of ‘fear’ and that it’s far from irrational; rather, prudential observation and deliberation of the militaristic goings on in a Communist country who - in order to maintain power (the fundamental, at-any-cost bent of any Communist regime) and to satisfy their less than clandestine irredentist leanings - have key interests in keeping their populace as nationalistically indoctrinated as possible and how integral a component a conflict, or an ‘enemy’, plays in this precariously balanced equation.
‘Prepare for calamity not yet in bud.’ -Chinese proverb.
No. It has an “every period in human history” feel to it.
:rolleyes: This isn’t Mao China, these guys are Communist in name only. The Cold War is dead.
China isn’t Communist. They are an authoritarian socialist state with a mostly free market economy. Irredentist? Why don’t you take a look at what that well known left wing loony Henry Kissinger thinks of China:
“He says they are content to remain within their restored historic frontiers, willing to await a peaceful reunion with Taiwan, and most determined to continue their remarkable economic growth and to eradicate China’s still widespread poverty”
You have revealed yourself to be sufficiently ill-informed about DoD information security policy to really comment on this. Even non-classified military projects are routinely classified as NOFORN (that is, no foreign nationals (i.e., green card holders!) are allowed to even see the project, let alone work on them!). I work with this security level every day, and my company has two employees who are not permitted to see any of the information and code produced by our government contracting division.
Since we’ve apparently left reality, I’m comfortable thinking that Japan’s Unicorn Cavalry will handily stop such an attack attempt.
In reality, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense force has two light carriers, eight bluewater destroyers in the Arleigh Burke-class (largely equivalent to our Ticonderoga-class cruisers, in other words), two anti-sub helicopter destroyers, 30 frigates (all modern American-style bluewater frigates), and sixteen attack subs. There is no way, even WITHOUT American intervention, for the Chinese to mount a successful amphibious assault on Japan in today’s world.
Russia? China is the biggest single strategic threat to Russia–they’d (at least privately) cheer the hell out of us kicking them in the financial dick, even if they publicly abstained from comment, ESPECIALLY if China went military-expansionist. The rest of those countries? They are not strategic threats to us in any sense.
Well, Venezuela’s got a lot of oil, but otherwise, yeah.
Not even slightly. Nobody thinks that. I’m beginning to doubt that you think that. But I think a troll would be able to come up with better arguments. Russia and China have an antagonistic relationship. Both countries enjoy better relations with the United States than with each other. Pakistan and America closely cooperate on military matters. In fact, with the exception of China and North Korea, none of the countries on your list are allies. Large chunks of the Middle East enjoy a quite cozy relationships with America. For instance, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE are much closer with America than China and Venezuela. China is in fact surrounded by several large powerful nations who are much more likely to side with the U.S. in a hypothetical showdown. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are all economic powerhouses, close U.S. allies, and have no love for China. Russia and India are two huge and powerful nations who haven’t gotten along with China in recent history and are much more likely to see China as a threat and a competitor than the U.S. Hell, Vietnam is probably likely to side with the U.S. over China.
Sort of has a “Sablicious is ignorant and unintelligent,” flavor to it. Don’t you think?