China lands first jet on its aircraft carrier

In this May 2012 file photo provided by China's Xinhua News Agency, Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning cruises for a test in the sea. / Li Tang,AP Photo/Xinhua, File

BEIJING China has successfully landed a fighter jet on its first aircraft carrier, which entered service two months ago, the country's official news agency confirmed Sunday.

The Liaoning aircraft carrier underscores China's ambitions to be a leading Asian naval power, but it is not expected to carry a full complement of planes or be ready for combat for some time.

Xinhua News Agency said the landing exercise marked the debut of the J-15 fighter jet, a carrier-based fighter-bomber developed by China from Russia's Sukhoi Su-33.

The Defense Ministry's website carried photos of the jet taking off from and landing on the carrier.

Citing unnamed naval sources, Xinhua said that the carrier platform and J-15 capabilities met all requirements and achieved "good compatibility."

Xinhua says the J-15 is able to carry anti-ship, air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles and precision-guided bombs.

Since China's Liaoning ship formally entered into service on Sept. 25, its crew members have completed more than 100 training and test programs, Xinhua said.

China bought the former Soviet navy's unfinished carrier from Ukraine in 1998 and spent years refurbishing it.

[dave-is-dave]

China lands first plane on carrier.....how high did the plume of smoke go?

[nonpolitico]

In 1900 the British Empire ruled the world with its massive and flexible fleet.
In 1960 The American Empire ruled the world....still does if you only count the Navy, one heck of a force projector.
However in 1905, the Japanese destroyed the Russian Navy, and in 1941, the Japanese (derided at the time by many in US), sank the US battleships at Pearl Harbor!
US Carriers from 1941 onwards smashed the Japanses capability at sea.
From 1945, US and RN fleets showed the flag around the world.
(But force multipliers such as Nuclear subs variously armed) from 1960s have held the balance of power even.
World should watch the Chinese as they have for a long,long time had eyes on Taiwan, the "other" China!
Present Chinese bullying of the Japanse over Japanese Islands in the S China sea should alarm Washington. (But as Pres Obama has second term, mebbee he thinks a few drones will do the job of the US Pacific Fleet?
Very hard to work out Chinese intentions, but Obama plans to CUT US Armed forces, not build up its capability further.
Remember China is Socialist in nature. Maybe they think they can "do business" with our socialist President??

[Rafterman11]

Except that we don't have a socialist president.

"The United States did not vote for socialism. It could not do so, because neither party offers socialism. Both parties champion a free enterprise economy cushioned by a certain amount of social insurance. The Democrats (mostly) want more social insurance, the Republicans want less. National politics is a contest to move the line of scrimmage, in a game where there's no such thing as a forward pass, only a straight charge ahead at the defensive line. To gain three yards is a big play."

----David Frum, GOP Strategist

[signseeker1717]

Thanks for the little history lesson, but you completely ignored the fact that the Cold War is OVER, and the attendant MADD approach no longer exists. Military needs also now depend much less on conventional weaponry and large standing armies and much more on high technology solutions.

BTW, CONGRESS funds National Defense, not the President; only THEY can increase or decrease spending. With the need for deficit reduction, it's inevitable that some defense programs WILL be cut, especially since the Iraq War is OVER and the Afghan war soon will be, and there are boondoggles that can and should be cut. Even the PENTAGON has said there are programs that should be cut, and has asked for LESS money than Congress wants to give them. And NO ONE expects drones to "do the job of the US Pacific Fleet"; that's not their PURPOSE, and NO ONE has made that suggestion.

We have the world's largest military (largest navy, largest air force), larger than the next eight nations COMBINED. We have a military presence in over 100 nations worldwide, in every major sea and every ocean on the globe, and space above the earth crammed with military satellites.

How much is ENOUGH? That question, and realigning military priorities to fit 21st century realities are valid issues being addressed by the the President, the DOD, the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon and Congress.

[Rafterman11]

I have a special place in my heart for carriers and for the peacetime projection of power (aka, the small brush fire wars occurring around the world), they are vital. But once a shooting war with a strong opponent (Russia, China) starts, they are hugely vulnerable. Submarines are still the force multiplier in an active conflict.

But for China, I will be more impressed when they develop and build their own weapon systems from scratch, instead of buying or stealing them.

The Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier is an interesting attempt by Russia/China to build and deploy a conventional aircraft carrier, but it is limited in capability.

[1redfish1]

Subs are the force equalizer. In the last major sea borne war - the Falkland war, the British nuclear powered submarine the HMS Conqueror sank the Argentinean cruiser, General Belgrano outside of the military designation zone set-up by the British. This action caused the Argentine Navy to rethink using their lone aircraft carrier the Veinticinco de Mayo in this conflict due to possible Royal Navy submarine activity. This led to all air attacks by Argentine aircraft by mainland aircraft on Royal Navy ships and only allowed 2 to 3 minutes combat time over the Falklands due to fuel constraints of the Skyhawk and Mirage fighter-bombers.
In the advent of war thought - USN aircraft carrier task groups have their own Attack Submarines assigned to them - and in case of war with a enemy with a strong submarine force of their own I have read up to 3 or 4 subs would be assigned per task group to protect the carrier from under-sea attack. Best anti-submarine platform is a another submarine!

[OwnerBatCaveRiverCottages]

Wonder who they got the design from & hope it wasn't improved

[takacrat]

Russia and England, this isn't a true Carrier. The boat is a Russian Battle Ship.

[OwnerBatCaveRiverCottages]

The 1st of many to come i am sure!

[takacrat]

No, China may build one more, but that will be it. A Carrier is a 25 hour per day job, Min.!!

[pilot757]

Look at their boat....
No elevators.
No peripheral catwalks.
The J-15 is a large aircraft, considerable larger than the F18. How many can they store on that flightdeck? Not many from the looks of it. No way they can perform cyclic operations as we do daily. Without elevators they can't perform maintenance on the hangerdeck. The Liaoning is little more than a training ship. (It was formerly the Russian Varyag, which they gave-up on) Expect their learning curve to be steep.

Look at the youTube videos of their CQ (carrier qualifications). They use an EXACT copy of US operational techniques. Right down to the color and makeup of the flightdeck crew's vests and crainials. The landing area foul-lines, cross-deck pendants, the LSO platform, the planeguard destroyer and helo.....all exactly as we do it.

I'd give a month's leave to be out there when they do their first NIGHT CQ. The Russians tried it on Adm. Kuznetsov; and promptly quit.

[pilot757]

As we know, they're very good at copying things. If you want to see the future of Naval Aviation, see this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&feature=colike

[Rafterman11]

It has two elevators, but they are flush with the deck and hard to make out in a low rez photo.

Also, the Russians quit the Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carriers because of cost of operation, not due to any real operational problems. They also wanted to develop a specific carrier aircraft just for their carriers instead of modifying current MiGs and SU's but, again, cost. They have less capability than a Nimitz class carrier, but the are not an insignificant threat.

Final comment, the British in the 1920s are the one s who actually developed many of the operational characteristics of carrier operations we use today. They also developed first the steam catapult and the angled flight deck.

[skeezix06]

They couldn't have done it without the jobs and income that was outsourced to them.

[jhaan2]

and you could not wear your cheap $10 t-shirts if we didn't outsource jobs to china.

[duzmafuzt]

Chillax, You all forget Hong Kong. The greatest asset of all, and much more relevant to your whining. Go ahead, blame outsourceing, (Japan, Korea, Britain, all countries do this) being the culprit, for all your spendthrift solutions to a bankrupt nation's woes. The Chinese would have easily, long ago, taken over the world's economy, if Democracy was the winner over Mao. China has demonstrated immense restraint, stability, and flexibility, nevertheless continues to fool itself, in believing centralized control, is the only answer. You anti out sorcerers would blame your own children, for not being able to produce. A world baby boomers continue to place constraints, and stifle production in.

[robert1129]

Now we have around 22 cariers to their one. Let's not let the hawks in Congress and the administration use this to try to increase the defense budget.

[nojoy01]

Sorry Robert1129, but we have exactly half of that 22 you specified in commission. The list is this Ten plus the Enterprise:

USS Nimitz (CVN 68) 3 May 1975 / -- Active -- see Fact File
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) 18 Oct 1977 / -- Active -- see Fact File
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) 13 Mar 1982 / -- Active -- see Fact File
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) 25 Oct 1986 / -- Active -- see Fact File
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) 11 Nov 1989 / -- Active -- see Fact File
USS George Washington (CVN 73) 4 July 1992 / -- Active -- see Fact File
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) 9 Dec 1995 / -- Active -- see Fact File
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) 25 July 1998 / -- Active -- see Fact File
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) 12 July 2003 / -- Active -- see Fact File
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) 10 Jan 2009 / -- Active -- see Fact File
PCU Gerald R. Ford(CVN 78) under construction / -- Active -- see Fact File
PCU John F. Kennedy(CVN 79) under construction / -- Active -- see Fact File

And the Two that are being built are to replace Four that are over 30 years old.

[skeezix06]

I suspect carriers will become the "sitting ducks" or "fish in a barrel" of the future.