Liaoning aircraft carrier

Maintenance.

China has money.

>>31775852
The Chinese are known for making cheap shit but they can be really industrious when they put their minds to it.

>>31775852
Not having an economy based on the value of turnips?

>>31775852
It's worse than Kuznetsov.

>>31776007
They wish their economy was based on turnips. No, really, with oil not being hot shit at the moment they're instead trying for every 3rd world country's last resort and every industrialised country's favourite thing to subsidise the shit out of: agriculture.

Of course, spending all the money they had on guns and trying to breed a pet miniature giraffe for Putin's fucktoy means they don't have the money now for any major investments, such as you'd usually need real bad when trying to retool a large chunk of your economy. And since they don't make any of this shit themselves, nothing you'd want to use at least, their trade balance won't look any better for the foreseeable future.

>>31776031
How so? Is there any actual proof or you're just salty that the chinks could pull off something the """""""mighty""""""" russia couldn't

>>31775852
It's 20 years newer

>>31776069
It has the same exact problems and the aircraft used in it are cheap copies of Russian aircraft and they still have to use Russian engines. Russian electronics will always be superior to Chinese ones, so any skilled navy could sink the Liaoning with no problem.

>>31776117
the difference is just 3 years .. and chinese one was rusting for good 20 years befo.....

oh wait

>>31776138
>Russian electronics will always be superior to Chinese ones

>Russian electronics
>superior

File: 1318554374964_1477246718038.jpg (36KB, 550x359px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 550x359px

>>31776138

File: ss (2016-02-29 at 11.03.03).png (78KB, 869x778px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 869x778px

>>31775852
>What went right?
Owner is a world's first economy.

File: 1463321239419.jpg (766KB, 2592x3888px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 2592x3888px

>>31775852
They have the money to maintenance it while having a strong navy is a priority for them.
Russians didn't have the money and they care less about having a carrier as it isn't really necessary in their doctrine, so most of the funding goes towards other, more important, things.

>>31776159
My Soviet calculator still working 40 years later. The Chinese flashlight i bought last year has already stopped working.

>>31776197
Not necessary when our nukes can turn both China and the USA into dust at the same time.

>>31775852
It floats better because the hull is mostly polystyrene.

>>31775852
Nothing went right. It's a junk carrier for junk navies with junk budgets and pretensions of sea power.

>>31776230
>County comparison
>County
>European union

>>31775852
when spain can have a carrier, why would china not be able to. Its in nice brilliant colours, I bet they are colouring it on a weekly basis. These ships don't operate. At least you can train some people on them. So when shit hits the fan, just give it 20 years to build 4 more and be able to strike back. Ground troops will have to dig in for a while until then...

>>31776069
It's been sitting in port since they bought it, and is such junk they only even plan to use it for training sailors to operate a future Chinese built carrier.

>>31776117
>new

File: obviously.jpg (30KB, 580x434px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 580x434px

>>31776138
>Russian electronics will always be superior to Chinese ones
Just look at all those russian electronics getting exported.

File: 56d59562c36188f54a8b45ab.jpg (119KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 900x500px

>>31775852
When they got the ship, it was nothing but an empty hull

Besides, the chinese took their sweet time (around 10 years) to pick up where the soviet left; from fixing the damn plumbing system as to refitting the the turbines well as some other modification so it would operate on warmer water. Even then they would still encounter teething problem here and there (though it's nothing compared to what the russian had with their Admiral Kuznetsov)

Interestingly, China's newest aircraft carrier is basically an enlarged Varyag, since they've got the blueprint for the design. So we prolly going to see a Kuznetsov done right when the ship is completed

>>31776251
>Russians didn't have the money and they care less about having a carrier as it isn't really necessary in their doctrine, so most of the funding goes towards other, more important, things.

So all those "new aircraft carrier" and "new amphibious ship" is nothing but hot air, right?

Well considering how retarded the design is, I do agree; russia should just forget on having an aircraft carrier. Hell they should just quit having a navy alltogether

>>31776257
The Chinese can build quality shit if you can pony up the cash, which the Chinese government can do. They can also build cheap shit that won't last a week if that's what you want. Because of razor thin profit margins in the electronics industry and the cost of having to ship everything halfway across the world, most consumers get the later.

>>31776571
...Is any nation's first carrier NOT mostly used for training?

>>31777242
Most nation's first carrier is their only carrier.

>>31777137
>Hell they should just quit having a navy alltogether
Don't be fucking stupid, trying is the base for all human development. But currently, yes, prospects for another Russian carrier are merely just concepts for now.
Russian's don't "need" an aircraft carrier because all possible regions of conflict for them are easily accessible by land; first and foremost their fleet and naval doctrine is "defensive".

>>31777260
Russia's new carrier plans are all bluster, entirely for internal consumption.

They can't afford half the projects they're shouting about.

>>31777242
Name one other country whose first and only aircraft carrier is used purely for training crews to operate a ship that does not and will not inbthevfireseeable future, exist. India and Brazil are the only two countries that come to mind as having bought an obsolete carrier with high expectations and been disappointed.

China thought it was getting a deal, got ripped off, and using the liaoning as a training tool is simply salvaging the situation.

>>31777260
Except Syria.

>>31777350
>They can't afford half the projects they're shouting about.

/k/ said the same thing about Armata. According to /k/ Armata was only going to show up by 2030.

>>31777358
Well, the USS Langley, for it's first twelve years at least.

When you have never operated a carrier before, it's generally a good idea to train your crews on your first ship, isn't it.

File: 1474046452883.jpg (155KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x768px

>>31777350
That's what I just said.
>>31777372
The main force was transported by air, they didn't "need" the Black Sea fleet.

>>31777203
Chinese are quite capable of making quality shit for themselves. And as long as the government stares at everything they do to make sure QC is being followed, they'll get quality.
They just sell junk to the rest of the world because they getaway with it. Merchants in the west just want profits...the more the better. Wall Street doesn't care if it sells you rags. China laughs it's way to the bank.

File: Chinese Land Locked Aircraft Carrier.jpg (54KB, 591x625px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 591x625px

>>31777402
Practice practice practice, if not on yours then on someone else's.
Pic related.

>>31776138
i hope you're trolling, because it's sad to be THIS dumb.

>>31777517
>Rags for silk

>>31776571
>since they bought it
people this dumb should really be banned. From life.

Please take your own life, now.

>>31777517
Sure, sure, Bao Shu. 'Quality' by your own understand, not European standards.

>>31777530
Is /r/Asianmasculinity posting even here in /k/ now? Is this some sort of joke?

File: 1333211748220.jpg (363KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1280x853px

>>31776571
uh yeah ok

>>31777548
I don't get it?

File: 1465704555957.jpg (214KB, 1600x868px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1600x868px

>>31777567
>"Sea" Flankers

Here I am wishing for a CATOBAR Su-30 or -35

>>31777358
20 million dollars that they've paid for Varyag (not including the bribes they've paid to get it off bosporus strait) is but a spec of dust in China's coffer, and considering they've got themselves a half-complete ship and they could redo all the things themselves.

For comparison, India paid more than 2 billion dollars for Admiral Gorshov.

When the russian finally gave up on their carrier, who would take it off their hand?

>>31776257
DON'T BLAME THE CHINKS FOR YOUR POVERTY LEVEL OF INCOME, FAGNIK.

LET'S BE HONEST HERE, IN ANOTHER 50 YEARS, THE RUSSIANS WOULD BE EXTINCT DUE TO RAMPANT AIDS AND ALCOHOLISM.

HAVE FUN BEING A DYING PEOPLE.

>>31778005
>this blatant samefagging

>>31775852
>>31775852
Money. China had the thing in port for 10 years and spent a lot of money clearing out tons of old systems, stripping it, building it back to be practically a new ship. They spent a lot of money on that.

The Russian navy doesn't have nearly as much money as the Chinese navy does. They can barely afford to keep the Kuznestov working.

Russia is spending the majority of what it can spend on new SSBNs, SSNs and frigates. Not on carriers, which is not exactly something they need urgently.

>>31777699
China is not nearly as wealthy as you seem to imagine.

File: 1466595184994.png (1MB, 1400x5552px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1400x5552px

>>31777517
The chinese are absolutely capable of creating decent products, but it's a cultural thing. The chinese don't believe in the western tradition of craftsmanship, where similar things are similar prices based on cost and you compete on quality and you build a reputation so you can charge a premium because you always deliver quality. What we think of as "conning" someone, they think is ok because they believe that someone who's foolish enough to be conned should be taken for all their worth. They're so fucking mercenary about this shit that it would make a Jew blush.

They think more along the lines of "You get what you pay for" so if you're looking for a bargain, they're going to find the cheapest, crappiest thing that looks like it's supposed to. If you want something well made, you're going to have to pay a crapload. This is also why the chinese have no problem trashing a brand name, because "brand loyalty" is like "trust" to them, it isn't worth shit except the ability to con people with overpriced product.

It's not just foreigners, they'll fuck over anyone, given the chance.

>>31778280
I remember back when Xi started his anti-corruption push, there was a huge panic in the government because every official had committed the exact same crimes people were now getting shot for in order to get their current position. You simply did not become big in China by being a moral bastion. This also makes the concept of an anti-corruption drive suspicious, because if you aren't in fact arresting every guilty person (ie everyone) you must be using a different metric to find who needs punishment. In short Xi's metric is whether or not you agree with him.

tl;dr China is so fucked up that anti-corruption drives are tools to spread cronyism and more corruption. They have never had a firm rule of law in their entire history, and I don't think they ever will. They've been screwing each other since the West was still hitting each other with clubs.

>>31778208
Chinese immigrants like to pretend China has unlimited money, but they live in USA, Canada or Australia.

>>31776138
>Russian electronics
>superior
Vatniks sure are stupid.

Infantile anti-Russian bias on this board is insane.
Reading shit here one would think Russia is Saddam Iraq-tier and not a great power that's literally challenging USA in the Middle East right now.
Are you so detached from reality or you're just memeing hard?
Reason why Russian Navy is mediocre is because they barely need a fucking navy. Their naval outlook is highly defensive. They could still wipe the floor with all European navies combined.
>b-but muh maintenance it's all rust and smoke
How about you inform yourselves a bit about the state of European militaries? It's not great and tidy as you idiots automatically presume.
Russian arms industry is second in the world after USA of course.
Russian army is the most powerful in Europe by far, and their next relevant competitor in Eurasia is in good relations with them (China).
And even if all this retarded shit you write is true, they still have 7000+ nuclear weapons, and that means they can't really lose.
Even though their economy took a hit, they're playing the geopolitical game far better than West in the last decade or so.
>inb4 le web brigades
>inb4 le vatniks
Fuck off. We could have interesting discussion but instead it's all armchair generals spouting shit about things they don't understand.

File: Noice.png (944KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 1024x768px

>>31778956

>Reason why Russian Navy is mediocre is because they barely need a fucking navy.

>>31778827
Do you think consumer electronics and military electronics are same thing?

>>31778956
>They could still wipe the floor with all European navies combined.

you know how I know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

>>31779001
You know how I know you're one of those idiots who think European militaries are inherently superior because of budgets and "professionalism" without taking into account that Russian state-owned defense industry is a lot more cost-effective and that professional standards in European armies have mostly turned into a joke since the end of Cold War?
Europe is France and UK, and these can compete somewhat, rest is totally irrelevant. Germany, supposed to be the third power, is a fucking joke in every sense, in every military arm.
It's just that you got a really distorted image of reality from circle-jerking too much in this echo-chamber.

>>31778990
so, I happen to have a background in VLSI and semiconductors, and I can tell you right now that, yes, there is a correlation.

But it has little to do with electronics ASSEMBLY.

>>31779050
Of course there is a correlation but the fact Chinese produce a lot of consumer electronics (hinging on Western R&D) doesn't mean they have the edge compared to Russia.
In fact, given how much equipment they buy or copy from Russians would indicate that clearly. Of course with further investment and experience they'll get there, but they're not there yet.

>>31779043
>you're one of those idiots who think European militaries are inherently superior because of budgets and "professionalism"

lol I'm not. I'm Chinese.

>Russian state-owned defense industry is a lot more cost-effective

it's not. The reason Russian hardware is cheaper is due to the fact that most are based on Soviet era infrastructure, and that development cost has already been written off. You can deny all you want, but the Russian portfolio is fairly outdated.

The reason why it's cheaper than US equipment is also due to US hardware comes with chances of foreign military aid

>>31779090
Russian's use western computers because they fell behind on microprocessors. China is mostly up to date and the US is pioneering the field.
The Russians are understandably behind.

>>31779090
>how much equipment they buy or copy from Russians would indicate that clearly.

really? which ones? Which Russian export items have the Chinese bought or copied recently that hinges upon Russia's "advantage" in military electronics?

Look, basically this boils down to radars and EW suites, so tell me which systems have the Chinese bought.

>>31779109
That plays a role too of course, but factors I mentioned are also important.
>outdated
Compared to which other power? Only USA is ahead. Notice I said "great power" in first post, not "superpower". Russia is mostly a regional power. However they are pretty powerful and can play outside of their comfort zone, as seen in Syria lately.
This ridicule and exaggeration of their weaknesses is fucking retarded.

>>31778956
>Infantile anti-Russian bias on this board is insane.

/r/Asianmascunility and the Finns have united to shitpost against Russia. Asians have said they want to kill all Russian men and impregnate all Russian women to create a new Chinese race, these people are sick and demented.

>>31777137
>skijump

What is so hard about steam and electromagnets that other nations cant figure out?

File: 1465001393509.jpg (223KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 736x736px

>>31779142
>China is mostly up to date

Yeah, that's why all Chinese supercomputers use Intel and Nvidia right?

>>31779198
>electromagnets

Even the US can't figure that shit out.

>>31779177
>Only USA is ahead
I'm not a fan of the rampant ameri and eurocentricity on this board, but if you think Russians have a better application of an integrated battlespace than the large euro powers besides germany, you're delusional.

Just because the Russians can win a continental war of attrition against the Europeans (without US involvement) isn't a true indication of the quality of Russian hardware.

Germans, are of course, cucks. After the war, they never had the mandate of independent operation, so they're neutered outside of a US led and supported theater.

>>31779142
>>31779145
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_382_Radar
Here's an example.

>>31779262
The US is the only ones ahead, I mean jesus.

The Soviet, now Russian military just fell apart, from 1975 to 85 they were an actual threat, then they just fell back to being a paper tiger.

>>31779212
what's wrong with off the self stuff? These machines are made to break benchmarks.

Most radars and sonars are either ASICS or FPGAs anyway.

>>31779043
Where does Poland rank?

And for giggles, what about spain/italy? They both have carriers, and according to these threads, that's all that matters.

File: haha.jpg (2KB, 90x38px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 90x38px

>>31775852

>>31777565
It's common knowledge that Russian equipment is all about quantity over quality.

>>31779262
>integrated battlespace
It's just buzzwords. If we are talking about land warfare here, Russia is unmatched in strength, both numerical and in terms of capabilities, in Europe.
French and British high-tech novelties are either deployed in very small numbers or are stuck in permadevelopment.
British couldn't even develop a maritime patrol aircraft based on a 60 year old airframe.
Navy is another, debatable thing, but in terms of land and air capability Russia has no close competition in Europe, excluding US forces.

How salty you need to be about Syria to invent a story about Kuznetsov being in a technical state that would require USN (of all) input?

>>31779339
Russia can't even knock over Ukraine.

>>31779280
so...I got a few questions for you

1) what is your definition of "recently"
2) you think the sea eagle is a copy of the top plate?
3) how retarded are you?
4) how do you explain the type 346 and variants?

>>31779262
>eurocentricity

Please they're hated just as much as Russians and Chinese here. Not that I'm saying this is a good thing either.

/k/ needs to definitely more diverse (not SJW style) if people want to learn about something other that American equipment. I welcome any non-American posters.

>>31779294
Russian army is not the same as Soviet army and they recovered since then.
>>31779302
Poland takes defense more seriously so they rank ahead of Italy or Spain. Both of these are jokes despite carriers and what not.
Still their equipment is really outdated. Most of their tanks and Leopards from 80's and T-72's/local T-72 upgrades. Their airforce is nothing to write home about. But they have a more "serious" mindset. They are the only real obstacle from Russia till France.
Russia has no competition in Europe. I'm talking hypothetically here, if they decided to move into Baltic states tomorrow and USA didn't give a fuck, all Europe could scrap to send would just tickle the Russians.

>>31779319
>It's common knowledge that Russian equipment is all about quantity over quality.

Yeah and Chinese equipment is the same thing but junk quality. Just look J-15, QBZ-95, Type-96 and many more. All subpar junk that perform way below the advertised capability.

>>31779360
You just disqualified yourself from this discussion.

>>31779402
No they've gotten worse, a VDV barracks collapsed last year, they've had to retire most of their surface and submarine forces, moving them to inactive reserve components undergoing "refit" for years.

The Soviet Military was leaps and bounds better than the current Russian military.

>>31779339
>It's just buzzwords.
Saddam and early 90's PLA thought so too.

Then the former got knocked the fuck out, twice, and the latter went into a frenzied RMA.

Russia is a tough customer because of strategic depth and the sheer number of ground assets it can toss into a meat grinder. Don't mistake that for technological superiority.

>>31779422
I'm not that guy, but no, you have, if you can't acknowledge the utter failure of Russian involvement in Ukraine then you don't understand the Russian military itself.

>>31779388
So I got a question for you: why do you think China is buying Su-35?

>>31779452
What makes you think China is buying SU35s? They're building domestically produced flankers, they don't buy them.

>>31779043
If you're talking about navies, then Italy would be third, not Germany.

>>31779451
The Russian military could torn Ukraine in half. They just don't care. They have Donetsk and now Ukraine can't run away like Estonia did.

File: ульяновск.jpg (162KB, 1509x894px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1509x894px

>>31777137
>China's newest aircraft carrier is basically an enlarged Varyag

its probably the development of Ulyanovsk-class that was cut in shipyard in 1992. I bet ukraine sold its plans together with varyag.

>>31779410
I think you meant "untested", because none of these have seen any real action.

>>31779469
Oh yes, they can, and they are.

They couldn't even establish the land route to Crimea, costing them even more to set up infrastructure.

They used VDV, GRU, armored, artillery and infantry units, they failed.

>>31779436
They've gotten worse in terms of capability and numbers, in terms of quality they are far ahead. Soviet Army was the real paper tiger.
Navy is mediocre of course, I said that in the first post.
>>31779438
Saddam couldn't even best Iran, most of his equipment were Soviet monkey models, he didn't have a proper officer cadre, he was a brutal idiot, he led Arabs and so on and so on.
You literally can't compare Russia and fucking Iraq, it's not even remotely similar in any fucking sense.
>>31779451
What failure? They got Crimea, and they got a frozen conflict in east, while Ukraine is slowly sinking into deep shit.
They won in 2014 really, it just takes time to tie things up.
That's the problem here, you say I don't understand Russian military, but you don't understand geopolitics I'm afraid.

>>31779452
WHAT?

>>31779495
They failed in what exactly? Do you even know how that conflict went?
Pro-tip: UA went on offensive several times, and Donbas region is still not theirs.
It was a limited conflict with limited involvement. Creating a land bridge to Crimea would be just too much and a pretty open invasion of Ukraine, and Putin isn't ready for that.

>>31779402
You really think Russia could take on europe? After the memory of russian occupation in east europe still rather fresh? With nationalisitc groups and parties blubbling up everywhere in europe? Russia would be running into a bad suprise.

>>31779198
who actually operates catapults?
>USN
>French navy
>Brazilians
so a total of 12 carriers use CATOBAR, 11 of which are nuclear, the Brazilians operate an ancient French steam carrier
since all of these are in fact steampowered, using a bit of steam for your catapult is a given
if your carrier is not steampowered, like the other 30ish carriers in service around the world, needing a seperate boilersystem and what not is a pain in the ass
especially when skijumps are both cheaper and easier to build and maintain, which is quite a dealmaker if your nation doesnt have a defencebudget like the US

>>31779501
you misunderstood me. I'm saying that integrated battlespace is not just a buzzword. The Soviet union itself understood this, hence the large number of orbital assets and C2I platforms. Unfortunately these assets are expensive to develop and not as glamorous as the tanks and planes, so they were neglected in both maintenance and development.

>>31779546
Of course Russia couldn't occupy Europe, I'm simply talking about combat potential.
They could wipe the floor with European armies. Occupation is another story, they don't have resources for that.

>>31779501
1) quality.
There's a reason why the Admiral Kuz needs a deep sea tug during it's deployment.

2) What failure?

See >>31779495

Tovarish, it is you that doesn't understand geopolitics. The Russians have failed in Ukraine and they're doing their utmost to undermine the international system in Syria, while trying to give their military real combat experience.

They're losing money in their economy.

The PAKFA order keeps getting reduced.

The PAKDA was cancelled.

The T14 turned out to be a mock up on a older chassis.

The only area of the Russian military that has been at a decent state of readiness has been their ballistic missile submarine force.

And don't get me started on GLONASS

>>31779546
The nationalistic groups are pro-Russia.

>>31779540
Because they can't, they actually can't fully invade a nation on their border.

>>31779571
honestly, I think Russia logistics would fail before they even reach France.

>>31779579
>actual war starts
>Russian-backed groups go the way of the German-American Bund after Pearl Harbor

File: 1035042511.jpg (86KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1000x541px

>>31779495
What do you mean by "even establish". Crimea was rightful Russian territory and Russia went there and took it without firing a single shot and with no struggle whatsoever. Moving troops inside Ukraine would be an act of war.

The Kerch bridge is already under construction, again /k/ and /int/ said this bridge would only start being constructed by 2050.

Ukrainian military couldn't defeat some factory workers and now they have an entire Pro-Russian region inside their country.

>>31779579
Just as long as what they hear is to their liking.

>>31779571
Russias military already has problems maintaining everything for Syria and their shadow war in ukraine. Everything large scale will lead to a collapse.

>>31779615
>Ukrainian military couldn't defeat some factory workers

now now, let's be real here. You know, deep down, that there were a lot of Russian involvement.

I mean, who shot down MA flight 17?

>>31779562
Russia still has a large number of orbital assets, and I'm not sure why do you think they declined in C2I capability?
They just have a smaller military, that's all.
>>31779575
>quality
I'm talking about LAND forces.
>PAKFA
>PAKDA
>T-14
What does that have to do with anything I'm talking about here? Besides you're just spouting speculations.
Land bridge to Crimea was just s far posibility, they never seriously attempted that. Crimea is Russian and Ukraine is bleeding in a frozen conflict. How is that a loss?

>>31779591
As I said you don't know shit about geopolitics. Reason why they don't invade Ukraine isn't because they can't. They don't need to. They seized their goals and Ukraine is going to shit.
Ukraine is such a mess that even Poland could do it easily.

>>31779642
The T14 speaks directly to Russian tank development, along with the more effective and real platform of the T90MS, even though it's just a heavily modernized T72.

If we're talking infantry and armored only, the VDV has been modernized. The T90MS is pretty good, and there has been a movement within the Officer corps to actually adopt more western views on Maneuver warfare, more initiative among the enlisted and individual unit.

Ukraine received and will continue to receive a bunch of western money, the Russians will now deal with an economic decline. I'm not keen to see what happens when they fall into a recession.

>>31779546
Europeans are incredibly weak and cucked, Russia could very easily take on the entirety of the EU with few losses. Only a delusional burgertard who knows nothing would think otherwise

>>31779615
>Crimea was rightful Russian territory
Crimea was part of Ukraine as declared in their own constitution, also for the Republic of Crimea to exist the ukraine parliment needs to accept the constitution of Crimea, which didnt happen, when they cut out the part that Crimea is part of Ukraine.

>Russia went there and took it without firing a single shot and with no struggle whatsoever.
This is a blant lie, since Russian "polite green men" overtook government and military buildings with force including shooting and killing at least. Spare us with that russian revionism of the "clean" strike.

>>31779692
You haven't really provided source about T-14 being a sham.
In any case, to adress your other point, do you think money spent on Ukraine, if it ever comes, will be well spent?
You don't seem to understand that Ukraine is a corpse of state.
If Russian economy is bad, Ukrainian economy is in 9th circle of Hell.

>>31779642
>Russia still has a large number of orbital assets

Are the US-A and US-P satellites still in operation? This is a rhetorical question, because they're not. And they don't have replacements.

>and I'm not sure why do you think they declined in C2I capability?

because the Russians are barely hanging onto the late soviet state of readiness, and everyone else is flying brand new airborne EW and SAR assets.

>>31779721
Crimea is more of a moral/historical/political question than legal question.
It was given to them by Soviet government in '54 and no one asked them or Russians what do they want. Ukrainians do everything to shit on Soviet government, but that decision is cool? C'mon now. Most of people there want to be a part of Russia, and it's kinda hypocritical West is in opposition after Kosovo case, isn't it?

>>31779717
I would strongly suggest you dont take your informations from comment sections, that are filled with shills and russian paid news sites. We like to laugh about those, because you basicallly only find them on the internet on open forums or comment sections, with their cucked praissing for degenerate russia.

>>31779733
They've got improved A-50's don't they?
And who's everyone else? Only USA is ahead, as I said.

>>31779770
And I would strongly suggest you don't rely on stereotypes and wild assumptions when discussing this subject.
EU is in crisis, that much is clear. So I'm not sure you're understanding his point. Parties like FN are gaining support around Europe. They are a lot more open to working with Russia than declining neoliberals/neocons. Not the guy you responded to.

>>31779763
See, if Crimea had joined Russia under circumstances like Czechoslovakia split up under, that is, with no foreign military forces in the area, and a very clear cut majority referendum, nobody would care.

It's the striking resemblance to Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland that scares everyone.

Also, Kosovo was because everyone was sick of Milosevic's shit.

The only reason we did that is so Clinton wouldn't be embarrassed by yet another Screbrenica all over CNN.

China has money

And apparently cleaner fuel

>>31779770
haha, are you calling Russia cucked? Your countries are degenerate and weak and have pitiful """"armies""""

maybe if you called murrifarts to come save you you would have a chance, but why would they want to help you?

>>31779824
>thinking the Russian military can take europe

>forgetting about Poland.

Never forget about Poland tovarish.

>>31779810
It doesn't matter why you did that, Kosovo also separated after illegal Western invasion.
It was a striking disregard for international law and elevation of USA to the position of global arbiter. Same with 2003 Iraq invasion. Or shit in Lybia. Or support for openly Jihadist groups in Syria.
It's same shit. Russians also claim Crimeans were threatened by Ukrainian government.
Also, let's be real, there was no way Crimea would ever leave without Russian intervention.

>>31779824
Russia is cucked as fuck by the oil oligarchs. They have no economy except to be a gas station, and failed to invest that money properly.

>>31779763
It is not a question to begin with, it is russians aggression and history repeating. Nazi germany had their Sudetenland incident, now Russia follows those steps, with many more. We are living in a time where there a finally peaceful votes for seperation (e.g. Scottland), but Russia must play imperalist instead and fuck up that whole process for decades to come. And dont get even started to compare it to Kosovo conflict with large amounts of civilian causulties, when we got here fake horror stories from russian propaganda including a crucified boy.

>>31779824
>haha, are you calling Russia cucked?
I wrote:
>with their cucked praissing for degenerate russia
Meaning the ones who praise Russia are the ones who are cucked. I dont comment the rest of your post, because it is the butthurt venting of a degenerate.

>>31779784
>who's everyone else

everyone who matters. Let me list them.

JASDF (E-767)
PLAAF (I don't need to tell you what these guys run, do I?)
ADA (the French)(E-3)
RAF (E-3)
Germany (E-3, NATO squadron)

Then there is the SAAB Erieye system that third world countries on a budget buys.

And out of the 26 A-50s, how many are operational?

>>31779866
Civilian casualties in Kosovo started after US trained and funded rebels started attacking Yugoslav security forces.
Maybe if you actually read about conflict instead of relying on snippets of information which you then fill in with media version of events you wouldn't sound so stupid.
There is no real difference between what Russia and America are doing, or what any great power ever did.
However America seems to be high on globalist empire ideas and Russians oppose that, so they are "good guys", or lesser evil if you will.
Behind that peachy vision of world that you project there are some ugly things.

>>31779911
I don't know but E-3 is same generation as A-50, so what's your point here?

>>31779938
my point here is that Russia isn't behind ONLY the US, which was your assertion.

Did I mention a lot of these E-3s went through RSIP?

>>31779638
>I mean, who shot down MA flight 17?
Same morons who shoot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 and denied everything before wreckage was found.
Yes, there were and still there is a lot of Russian involvement, but it began with somewhere about Ilovaisk operation, not earlier.
>>31779938
A-50 is pretty old, there is only 4 A-50U, and A-100 is under construction now. In other hand they've got working OTH radars, extremely powerful ground radars and Mig-31 which can be used as some-kind of tiny awacs.

>>31779918
Civilian casualties in Kosovo when the Serbs chimped out and used the Soviet armor and artillery stored in their politically-reliable area to kick off a three-way genocide, asshole. Some of us remember when it was on the news.

That said, in retrospect I think we should have stayed out of it.

>>31779854
Kosovo declared independence from Serbia/Yugoslavia the same way Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia did. The Serbs attempted to contest this and the UN/NATO mission in the region slapped their pee-pee.

>>31779918
This is why i hate about talking to shills like you, you just lie so easily, everything is always totaly different and of course there is the outside boogeyman, who is to blame. Debating will not lead far, because everything is faked, forged or hidden, and therefor untrue, while you spew out garbage after garbage, demanding to be taken serious. Furthermore nothing can be discussed to an end, because you drag some new sidetopic into the discussion every second post or you would lose the upper hand, since stuff actuallly is debated to an end for a change. You are the cancer of dicussion, you are the blind that scream that they see the light, you started to creep up so fast in every public easily accessible corner of the internet, but exlusively there, that even the dumbest must ask himself hiw "natural" this has accured.

>>31780000
>Same morons who shoot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812

I don't know, everyone else says it's the "rebels"

File: 1425506738970.jpg (3MB, 3576x2700px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3576x2700px

>>31780038
Every one else blaimed Putin while wreckage was still on fire, when there was only one side of conflict with assets, motive and brain damage to do this. Commission says that it was 1 type of (Russian) missile and it was launched from rebel controlled area, Almaz-Antei experiment clearly showed that it was different type of missile (Ukrainian) and location of launch (government controlled). Their only mistake in that press conference was not to tell straight up that commissions fucked up and Ukrainians fucked up with evidence. It's their Soviet-school political correctness, they are old and don't understand how media work today.

>>31780124
The only ones shooting at planes to begin with down there were the rebels, coming to the conclusion that a plane that was shot down over rebel territory, coming from ukraine, was shot down by rebels, isnt really a big jump of a thought.

>>31780217
Dude, you've got photos of wreckage. You've got course of plane. Next is pure math and some geography. Almaz-Antei took official "rebel" version, they made real target, real missile, place it like in official version and blew it up. Picture of destruction did not matched with reality. Then they took real fucking plane and put missile like it was fired from different angle (from government controlled territory). Blew it up. They've got same destruction pattern as real plane had.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r63cskl08o

>>31780355
My fuck up, real plane for official version and target for their version.

File: 9M38M-Buk-Launch-1S.jpg (242KB, 768x512px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 768x512px

>>31780124
>Almaz-Antei experiment

>Yuri, Malasian Airliner detected at 10,000 meters, bearing 272 degrees
>Da, comerade capitan!
>Yuri, we'll get Lenin Prize for this research!

>>31780355
Spare us with that obvious bullshit, the damage patern aint the same, also it intentionally ignores the damage on the wings.
Spare us with the constant try to derail threads on /k/.
Spare us with your constant tries of revionism every russian fuck up on /k/.
Spare us with the constant reheating of debunked crap, you think is just old enough no one remembers or has the debunks in hands reach.

I seriously dont know what the fuck is wrong with guys like you, you propaly think you are helping Russia by doing so or your superior thinks so, but i already know so many people who are fed up with such a behaviour, i can garantuee you it will bite you in the ass one day and there will be no mercy or compassion, because we had to deal with that shit for years over and over again, only seeing you try it again a month later again.

File: J-15 5x - landing on Liaoning - August 16.jpg (348KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 2000x1333px

>>31777567
Use an actual photo and not a CG..

The Liaoning's operational history is actually pretty good. It is out in the sea for quite a long time and its maintenance periods do not last longer than a month.

File: 345624562456435.jpg (318KB, 2200x1517px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 2200x1517px

>>31781929
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac18wj5GbNw

>>31780124
AA straight up lied about the missile type. And that test firing was a fucking joke.

>>31780355
This is a joke right? How does it account for a plane flying at 550mph and a missile going mach 4? Typical retard slavs.

File: 1422973499222.jpg (68KB, 531x640px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 531x640px

>>31779717
>Russia could very easily take on the entirety of the EU with few losses
>Only a delusional burgertard who knows nothing would think otherwise
t. delusional vatnik pretending it's still 1979

>>31775852
>What went right?
Nothing.
https://warisboring.com/chinas-aircraft-carrier-trouble-spewing-steam-and-losing-power-29dae6cd9fdf#.q4i01z8rx

>>31779733
>And they don't have replacements.
>Wtf is Liana?

File: bloodbath in crimea russians attacked ukraine.jpg (87KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x450px

>>31780023
Crimea declared independence from Ukraine the same way Kosovo did. The Ukrainians didn't even attempted to contest this and the Russian mission in the region didn't even have to slap their pee-pee.

>>31779575
>The PAKFA order keeps getting reduced.
Its because they saw the F-35 and the cost over runs. It's initial production, not overall production.

>The PAKDA was cancelled.
It's not.

>The T14 turned out to be a mock up on a older chassis.
Topkek

>>31783182
>initial not overall

200 to 12 isn't recoverable Anon, and the Indians pulled out from their order.

The PAKDA is cancelled, then entire project lost its funding.

>thinking the T14 is good, ever

>>31775852
They gutted and completely rebuilt it. The Kuznetsov could be just as good or better if the Russians did the same thing. It's 100% of maintenance effort. It's that simple.

>>31783209
>200 to 12
Well memed.
>The PAKDA is cancelled
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201604201038309843-russia-stealth-bomber/
>Thinking T-14 is bad, ever

>>31783096
you don't know what the US-A and US-P really did, do you? They are not just tasted with surveillance. They provide midcourse guidance correct for anti ship missiles.

Lotos doesn't have that capability, and Pion just launched what? this year? You think that's a mature capability?

>>31783295
I know what they did. Liana does the same and the very fact that the constellation exists and expands proves that you are wrong.
>You think that's a mature capability?
Legenda was immature, but provided vital experience. Liana is infinitely better than Legenda could have ever been.

No matter how great Chinese economy is, key is it's just a fucking old ship inferior to most of other aircraft carriers. A

>>31783363
I think you underestimate how shit most other carriers are. It's worse than Nimitz and Kuztentsov, but that's about it.

>>31783275
>Sputniknews

Get out.

>>31783335
>Legenda
lol, I wrote the initial wiki page for Legenda while I was in college.

Brings back memories.

>>31783415
Nigger, please.
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160123/1363879333.html
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2609807

>>31783455
>ria
>tass

>....ru

It's like you think that's valid.

>>31783478
>ria
>tass
>not valid
Get the fuck out.

>>31783478
More valid than your words.

>>31783586
>>31783558

Nyet, now go get your money for your state sponsored shitposts.

>using anything with .ru as a source.

>e v e r

>>31783586
Tass is literally owned by the Russian Government

Go to bed, Putin.

File: iWKad22.jpg (90KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1440x1080px

>>31783679
And PAK DA is literally funded by Russian government, idiot.

>>31783705
That guy isn't me, but no the PAKDA project isn't funded anymore.

If I were to bet they're going to try again in a few years, assuming they have the money for it next time.

>>31783723
It is funded and according to the current Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force it is going ahead of schedule. This denial is pathetic. Deal with it.

>>31783755
Ah yes, claim denial when you've been posting Russian gov propaganda.

5 rubles tovarish.

>>31775852
The real question is why the fuck are they making a second one?

Its one thing to buy a subpar 40 year old design as babbys first training carrier, its quite another to build one new.

The PLAN will be stuck with that shit bucket (the 2nd one) for half a century.

>>31783897
Why wouldn't they build a second one? India, which is 1/10 the economy of China, has 4x more aircraft carrier while only have to deal with fucking pakistan.

China only has 1 and they're surrounded by the american lackeys (not counting the 7th fleet itself)

>>31784023
>Why wouldn't they build a second one?

You misunderstand, kind sir.

The issue is not that they are building a second one, the issue is they are building another Kuznetsov class design, in CURRENT YEAR.

For the tonnage they could have twice the carrier. Instead they are shitting out a subpar, doctrinally obsolete design.

>>31783897
Because gooks are incapable of designing anything by themselves and so they need some time to steal something better.

>>31784500
With all the Chinks in American universities and Navy, it's only a matter of time before they steal the Nimitz blueprints.

>>31778208
What the fuck are you even trying to say? How does that mean the Liaoning was a ripoff when making one from scratch would cost way more?
>you seem to imagine
Yeah because you somehow know what the poster thinks about China's military budget, huh?

>>31784563
They'd literally have to steal Newport News in order to do anything with the plans for a Nimitz.

The USN, Goose Creek and Annapolis can teach someone how to operate a fleet carrier. They've got no idea how to fucking build one.

Can this ramp meme stop anytime soon?

>>31782639
Vector math is in high school program, looks like not in US schools. Murican education.

>>31777380
Armata is hanging on threads right now. With current restructuring of Uralvagonszavod project may die.

>>31778956
>>31778989
Still vatniks spent more on teh Navy then on the Army.

>>31776444
Checked

File: mao and zhou.jpg (270KB, 1207x1253px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1207x1253px

>>31776257
>The Chinese flashlight i bought last year has already stopped working.
You spelled fleshlight wrong, anon.

>>31775873
>>31775901

Also it sat in a Ukrainian shipyard unused for years, unlike the old Admiral.

>>31785658
Then you should know that missile test is fucking worthless. They didn't even use the same type of airliner, didn't account for wind speed or vectors. They just blew a missile next to some russian garbage jet.

File: 232125bhg6thnhtxfb6fhi.jpg (231KB, 1280x734px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1280x734px

>>31783897
Because the Liaoning and the 2nd one, Shanggdong, arent the only ones.

The third carroier, the Type 002's steel cutting began this year.

It will feature 3 catapults and is 70k.

File: ZPMC America.jpg (52KB, 550x402px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 550x402px

>American superiority

File: ZPMC UK.jpg (155KB, 950x632px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 950x632px

>>31788554
>British superiority

>>31788514
Ok, that still does not explain why they made a 2nd lioning.

Its litterally a waste of steel.

>>31788514
Ships that will never happen for 200 alex.

I mean really, the last two are just the models of a Nimitz and Ford.

>>31788554
>>31788561
>chinese poster is proud of nigger tier work.

File: PLN CV-002 mock-up at Wuhan - 5.9.16 - 1.jpg (242KB, 1440x1936px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1440x1936px

>>31788563
Conservativism.

A 2nd Liaoning-class carrier calms the mind of those commie high brass who initially didnt even want to adopt a small-caliber rifle because all they knew was the 7.62x39. Yeah, there are lot of those people.

>>31788569

Hmm... Guess why the carrier mockup in Wuhan suppenly lost its ramp...

File: 053719wm7n9e0b7977mxma.png (1MB, 1070x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1070x768px

>>31788585
http://www.janes.com/article/62780/china-s-third-aircraft-carrier-likely-to-be-fitted-with-catapults

>China's third aircraft carrier likely to be fitted with catapults

And a new island as well.

>>31788585
Because they removed the ramp, its a mock up...

File: 211234nvffdamvvsd8kumt.jpg (141KB, 1280x734px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1280x734px

>>31788600
They also modified the island on the mockup when the 001A 2nd liaoning was planned.

The AESA fairing represent the layout of the new island on the 2nd liaoning.

File: PLN CV-001A - 4.10.16 radar part.jpg (179KB, 694x797px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 694x797px

>>31788616
As it turned out recently.

>>31788585
>Conservativism

As they are cutting steel for a normal carrier. Yeah, dont buy it at all.

>>31787719
And you can see full report to learn that you're talking shit.

>>31788616
Still a mock up anon, they have to actually build it.

>>31788638
Do you want to bet? Maybe eat your hat?

>>31788627
And that was built for the mock up, not for the actual carrier.

File: LFDQ0Ym.jpg (1MB, 2000x719px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x719px

>>31788649
Guess what part of the 2nd carrier is still lacking...

File: bfb71f65gw1f7hdjvo3opj20b109xglp.jpg (14KB, 397x357px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 397x357px

>>31788660

>>31788660
The second carrier is irreverent, it's the third that matters anon, and those mounts are meant for the mock up, not for the actual ship.

they...need...to...build...it

>>31777522
So fucking weird that China has the resources and capability to do this but not actually make a real working one until now

>>31788660
When they said it will be launched next year, I was a bit skeptical, but looking at it now, yeah, barring major fuckup, 2017 (or prolly early 2018) is pretty much a realistic target

>>31776571
It just sailed south of Indonesia though

>>31779642
>Ukraine is bleeding in a freezing conflict

Last time I checked, Russia was haemorrhaging vast amounts of money just keeping Crimea afloat.

>>31781970
Wow it's not as gassy as the russian ones

>>31777358
>China thought it was getting a deal, got ripped off,

Lol some random chink in Hong Kong bought it as a museum ship on the cheap cheap.

The Chinese government noticed it halfway to China, and decided to nationalize it.

>>31788875
Because it uses diesel engines instead of steam turbines.

On one hand, the diesel engine is bulkier and less powerful than the original steam turbine, limiting the speed of the vessel to about 20 knots. This is practically the reason why PLAN designated it as "training ship"

On the other hand, maintaining diesel engine is cheaper and it seems like they also encountered less problem with using diesel engines compared to what the russian have to deal with

>>31778563

>Rule of law means lack of corruption

t. Clinton Campaign

>>31775852
Little known fact, there was a near catastrophic steam explosion in the Liaoning that only became known much later. It's a miracle they got the ship repaired really.

>>31783723
>>31783767
what is the source for pak da being cancelled? The pentagon?

>thinking u.s. media isnt doing soviet pravda levels manipulation

ok buddy

>>31788998
>that only became known much later.

What happens in China, stays in China. So it's surprising we even know about it.

>>31778208
They spend $200 billion plus each year. In 2000 they spent $40 billion, which was more than Russia.

>>31778563
>In short Xi's metric is whether or not you agree with him

Or maybe it's what they literally said they would do and have done
>wrist slap for minor offenses
30% of the Communist party has recieved a financial penalty.
>suspended jail time for major offenses (bribes, being part of corruption rings)
5% have been suspended from the party.
>jail time or suspended death penalty for major corruption figures and well-known political leaders
About .2% of the party has been given lengthy jail times for huge bribes/collusion/and political exploitation. About 400 have recieved suspended death penalties.

Statistically, most of those punished by the campaign have been low and mid-level members of the government. As expected, indicting your entire political class is not going to work. So the higher-ups are safe until they retire.
Conclusion: the campaign is sincere, but political enemies are punished more often.

>>31779452
Them engines senpai

Chinese acknowledge being behind in engine testing/experience. They can produce great engines, but jet engines are still too complex for the Chinese to switch over.

>>31779495
They never wanted a land route to Crimea. That is a meme

>>31781970
Nice

>>31783028
>2012

>>31783209
>Indians pulled out

They actually just confirmed it after lowering their purchase price.

>>31783897
Because going from a 1980 training carrier to a 2016 nuclear supercarrier is just a little bit difficult.

>>31784023
>4x
2-3x

>>31784037
>another Kutzenov design

But it's not. A ship looking similar != same design

>>31788563
Because they need carriers NOW. And they need trained crews NOW.

>>31788569
>never happen
Ahh yes just like the first carrier. You faggots claimed China would never have functioning carrier back in 2010.

>>31788692
No. It's literally for the 2nd carrier

>>31788742
They'll be ready to launch this December at this pace

>>31788998
[Citation needed]

Does catostrophic = fuck up the ship for a year?

Or = blow up the ship and sink it?

>>31779452
Because they failed in stealing a pair of F-22 engines to copy.

>>31789083
>But it's not. A ship looking similar != same design

Its the same limitations. Nobody is saying they should build a nuclear supercarrier, but for the tonnage they could have got so much more.

Its a waste of steel.

>>31789083
> 2016 nuclear supercarrier

There are ships from the 60s, conventional, with twice the aircraft; with compareable tonnage.

The. Ship. Is. A. Waste.

>>31789226
Compared to what exactly? It's basically the biggest non-american aircraft carrier.

Even QE-class aircraft carrier is still not launched yet

>>31789278
Much older carrier designs.

>>31788947
The Soviet design wouldn't smoke so horribly if the boiler design wasn't shit.

The Chinese could have built some new design boilers using fluid dynamics enhanced CAD, and their training carrier would both outpace it's Russian sister & burn clean.

But they went with the cheap and fast option of Diesels.

Which makes me wonder.. what did they do with all that newly opened space?

No VLS tubes, no boilers, the turbines replaced with diesels..

More fuel and food storage??

File: 1477083215774.jpg (60KB, 700x406px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 700x406px

>>31789443

>>31789288
Which they didn't have

When they bought the ship, they also bought fucktons of blueprints,schematic diagrams and shit, which is why their 2nd aircraft carrier is built at a considerable pace.

They practically skip much of the RnD process. Afaik they only redesign the engine compartments so it could accommodate bigger, more powerful diesel engines

>>31789453
Kek, but seriously, they need to add some larger volume blowers and better oil atomizer nozzles to clean that shit up.
It'll make the boilers more efficient, increase output heat, and make them less maintenance intensive (less cleaning for one).

>>31789443
The diesel engine that they use have bigger dimension than the original turbine engine afaik.

It's not their fault entirely. Even ukraine (where most of the big ships in soviet era were built) have lost both the capacity and capability of building steam turbine for such a large ship

>>31789250
>There are ships from the 60s, conventional, with twice the aircraft; with compareable tonnage.

Building an outdated money pit
Would. Be. A. Waste.

>training crews
>learning to operate carriers
>forming a blue water navy and power projection over ASEAN
>waste

>>31789443
>But they went with the cheap and fast option of Diesels.

The option that works and has trained 48 naval pilot crews so far?

>>31789491
Yes, a fucking waste. I can pile 60 tons of steel and fly a heli off it, doesnt mean its a good use of that steel.

The lioning is for training

File: USS_Midway_(CV-41)_leaving_Yokosuka,_Crew_spelling_Sayonara.jpg (2MB, 2840x1880px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2840x1880px

>>31789491
The USS Midway (1945-1991) burns cleaner and carries more planes than the Russian and Chinese carriers.

>>31789526
So the Liaoning isn't a waste but the far more powerful 001A is a waste?

You are both
1. Wrong
And
2. Delusional

>>31789578
1143.5 standard displacement: 46 540 t
USS Midway as decomissioned: 64 000 t
No shit, sherlock.

>>31789578
And it's also completely outdated and incapable of launching modern aircraft.

You seem to think 2 capabilities determine an aircraft carrier's usefulness.

>>31789599
You lack logic. The liaoning was bought cheap as fuck, spent a few years getting upgrades and then got sent out as a training carrier. that's well and great I understand the logic behind it. it's a subpar carrier but that doesn't matter. logically it wasn't meant to last really long it was just a kick-start.

then the plan went full retard and decided to build a NEW one. they are going to be stuck with this shit heap for 75 years.

the waste of time it's a waste of money it's a waste of material is even really a waste of training.

>>31789624
1143 can go up to 67 tons. Midway started just as light. Not a fucking excuse.

>>31789628
It can and has launched f-18s are you going to make me get a picture?

>>31789510
Not knocking their decision, it's just a training boat so whatever works.
I'm just saying "they could have", I don't know all the details about the decision so *shrug*.

>>31789484
Magellan Aerospace (Canada) partnered with the Ukraine company that built big turbines.. I wonder if that all fell apart during the crap flinging over there.

>>31789648
>1143 can go up to 67 tons. Midway started just as light. Not a fucking excuse.
And was never capable to launch aircraft as big as Su-33.

>>31789633
>then the plan went full retard and decided to build a NEW one.
There is nothing wrong with it, though. It is not as capable as catobar, but it is cheaper and can fit specific doctrines. You do realize that militaries do not pick designs that a loved by /k, but those that fit their doctrine, right?

File: enterprise_cvn_65.jpg (230KB, 744x842px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 744x842px

>>31789628
>>31789624
Old doesn't it cant be used. It has and can launch F-14 Tomcats and F-18 Hornets

>>31789633
Two training carriers with smaller decks?

>You see Lee, if you can stick the landing on this tub, the real carriers are a rice cake walk!

>>31789690
>Old doesn't it cant be used. It has and can launch F-14
Without stores.
>and F-18 Hornets
Empty, again, and they are almost twice lighter and 5 meter shorter. Also, tell me how many of those did fit in the hangar?

>>31789668
>And was never capable to launch aircraft as big as Su-33.

Midway started life launching prop planes in World War fucking 2.

>There is nothing wrong with it, though.

Except its half the capability it could be.

>muh doctrine

Whats that? Shit tier carriers? This is not even about the fucking cat or ramp btw.

>>31789768
>Except its half the capability it could be.
Smaller ship has smaller amount of aircraft, thats it.
>Whats that?
Like not needing AWACS is foreseeable future, because your interests are all within reach from homeland.

>>31789720
>how much

65 aircraft friend.

>muh su-33

Being that the mid chucked anemic as fuck hawkeyes off its deck, im sure it could handle a su-33

>>31789789
>Smaller ship has smaller amount of aircraft, thats it.

Except the ship, at max tonnage, displaces more than the midway.

Its not smaller, its completely obsolete and inefficient.

>>31789804
>36 compared to 65

001 was a mistake.

>>31780023
The difference between yugoslavia and ukraine is that in jugoslavia they were still countrys with their own constitution and yugoslavian law enabled the seperation off all nations from each other.


But the serbs didnt want that and chimped out,l.

In ukraine its different because it is ukrainian territory and there was no option for seperation. But dont think i am pro ukraine, ukraine did some stupid shit with crimea and deserved what it got.

>>31789768
>Midway started life launching prop planes in World War fucking 2.
Sure, m8, but you claimed it fits more airplanes. It does not. Actually i am not sure if F-14 will fit on its elevator.

>>31789804
>65 aircraft friend.
F-14 and F-18 please. How many?

>>31789818
>Except the ship, at max tonnage, displaces more than the midway.
Thats wrong, though.

File: USS_Iowa_(BB-61)_alongside_USS_Midway_(CV-41)_in_1987.jpg (3MB, 2853x2141px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2853x2141px

>>31789854
>Sure, m8, but you claimed it fits more airplanes. It does not. Actually i am not sure if F-14 will fit on its elevator.

Except the last 20 or so years of its life it did. Its a fucking museum ship now, I've been on it, its huge, you could fit 20 or 30 F-14s and have room for something else.

>>31789854
65 aircraft from veitnam to retirement. 100 pre midlife upgrade.

>>31789894
Its not at all. Liaoning is 67 tons max. Midway, after fuckhuge midlife upgrades was 64.

>>31789904
>Except the last 20 or so years of its life it did.
No it did not, m8. F-14s landed there for training purposes.
>i've been on it, its huge, you could fit 20 or 30 F-14s and have room for something else.
>20 or 30
Is it very close to 36 or not?

>>31789940
Holy shit, guys, are you that dumb? I want to know how many Su-33 can fit into Midway, so we can compare it to 1143.5.

>>31790004
I somehow doubt that because Kuznetsov is 61 390 which it absolutely never reaches.

>>31790024
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1143_5-specs.htm

>>31790008
>I want to know how many Su-33 can fit into Midway, so we can compare it to 1143.5.

Who knows. We can only do total aircraft to total aircraft. The liaoning only does 24 anyways.

>>31790085
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1143_5-specs.htm
I have a better source, Бaлaкин C. A., Зaблoцкий B. П. Coвeтcкиe aвиaнocцы. Aвиaнecyщиe кpeйcepa aдмиpaлa Гopшкoвa. — M.: Кoллeкция, Яyзa, ЭКCMO, 2007. — C. 153-215. — 240 c. — 3000 экз. — ISBN 978-5-699-20954-5.
61 390 t maximum
59 100 t full
53 050 t normal
46 540 t standard

File: 0_1299ff_3dd211d0_orig.jpg (150KB, 1240x300px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1240x300px

>>31790095
24 Shenyang J-15 + 6 Changhe Z-18 is totally not 24. Even Kuznetsov fits 28 in the hangar alone.

>>31789628
lolololol it's still more capable than then Kuz or the Chink ships and it was laid down in '43.

It can launch super hornets and awacs and is reliable as all get out.

>>31790178
>It can launch super hornets
Empty super hornets. Very useful.

>>31775852
China can do quality stuff when they want to. I'm assuming that ship is doing good.

>>31790190
Kinda like a SU-33 off the Kuz.

>>31790219
They can launch with full load from all positions, though. Russians never tried that because they did not have any training to speak of, but numbers tell it is correct. http://www.paralay.com/su33.html

>>31790233
plz post video of that happening

(gonna be hard to find because they have to go full burn and destroy their engines)

>>31790190
Not true, super hornets were full load just fine.

>>31790245
They go full burn from position one anyway. One guy tried full thrust with no afterburner from position one with some load, speed at the end of the ramp was 108 kph, took off with no problems. Also no, usually when aircraft use afterburners they dont destroy their engines.

>>31790270
Ive actually did not see a citation about Hornets, had to find F-14 myself. Can you guys even into serious discussion?

>>31790288
So they destroy the life of their engines, which are already limited because they are slav shit. So retarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGYUNMqSGnI

>>31790288
F-14 is due to weaker cats. Its irrelevent to the discussion because a ramp would be used. We are talking capacity.

>>31790306
>So they destroy the life of their engines
They dont, m8. There is nothing special in the afterburner.

>>31790318
It is very relevant to the discussion of Midway, though. Citation please.

>>31790329
Citation for what? I cant prove a negitive.

>>31790357
>negative
So F-18 did not take off from Midway loaded or did not take off from Midway at all?

>>31790369
https://youtu.be/ASR6F6xltvg?t=214

File: 20120330104415.jpg (229KB, 1389x914px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1389x914px

>>31790369
>What is bottom carrier?
>What is on deck?

>>31790369
I cant prove limitations unless specifically meantioned.

>>31779402
The soviet military was vastly more powerful than the modern Russian military. Russia has taken a huge hit in manpower in recent years. Russia itself is suffering from bad population decline. Couple that with the hits it's taken to its economy and the sanctions they are facing and their military might is nothing but a shadow of its former self.

>>31790369
This one is taking off with full drop tanks
https://youtu.be/ZgA437zIGoU?t=172

>>31790400
Cool, so it did take off Midway.

>>31790420
Are you sure they are full? And thats quite far from full combat load.

>>31790369
Here's F/A-18s operating during desert storm off the midway.

https://youtu.be/0Afo88kQMTA?t=137

>>31790447
Its not logically consistent to assume limitations, and again, due to the liaoning not having cats, the point is moot.

>>31790489
>ts not logically consistent to assume limitations
Why? If you say that Midway is better than 1143, meanwhile it cant launch modern aircraft with cobmat load that is not really better, correct?
>and again, due to the liaoning not having cats, the point is moot.
Its not, since Su-33 can be launched with combat load from a ramp.

>>31790515
>Its not, since Su-33 can be launched with combat load from a ramp.

Ok? Thanks for proving the point is moot.

>if the midway is better

Its a more efficient design, which is the entire point you are desperately trying to ignore.

>if it cant launch modern aircraft

There is nothing that states it cant do ab f-18 at full load, just the much larger and heavyer f-14, and only due to weak cats, which if you have ramps, is irrelevant.

>>31790574
>Ok? Thanks for proving the point is moot.
I am not sure i understand your logic here.
>Its a more efficient design, which is the entire point you are desperately trying to ignore.
A carrier that can launch modern aircraft with weapons is better than a carrier that cant.
>There is nothing that states it cant do ab f-18 at full load
Which pretty much means it cant. Or you can do the math and prove it can.
>which if you have ramps, is irrelevant.
Oh, so you mean IF you fit Midway with a ramp it will be a better carrier? Sure, right after you prove it can fit more F-14/18 than 1143 can fit Su-33/MiG-29.

>>31790629
>Which pretty much means it cant.

So because nothing states it CANT do something, it cant?

Jesus anon.

>>31790650
Well, yes, i do not see reasons to believe it can if nothing states it can. Thats how logic works, m8.

>>31790663
No, we know it can launch f-18s. Nothing states anything about f-18 limitations. Limitation would be a negitive, and it not logical to assume a negitive due to lack of evidence.

>>31789633
You dumb motherfucking retard.

Do you really think the Chinese should go from a refurbished training carrier to a supercarrier?

>>31789648
>>31789690
>>31790178
>F-18A's circa 1985
>modern aircraft

>>31790714
>Nothing states anything about f-18 limitations. Limitation would be a negitive, and it not logical to assume a negitive due to lack of evidence.
Sure a lot of things state that there are limitations. Like, even on videos in the gulf it flies empty. And sure, it is pretty logical to assume that an F-18 with slightly better TWR and wing loading will have same problems with taking off from weak catapult as F-14.

>>31790745
>1990
>1985
Pick one

>>31790714
So an F-18A with 15,000 more pounds is not going to be more likely to fail to achieve sustained flight than an empty F-18?

>>31790759
>Like, even on videos in the gulf it flies empty.

Except their are videos were it does not.

>And sure, it is pretty logical to assume that an F-18 with slightly better TWR and wing loading will have same problems with taking off from weak catapult as F-14.

You leave out the part about ground weight (the main issue with cats) completely.

>>31790817
>Except their are videos were it does not.

Are there videos where it flies full?

>>31790629
https://acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/welcome-aboard-the-uss-midway-cv-41/

36 hornets plus a shitload more support craft.

>Sure

So i guess we are done here then?

File: Enterprise(1).jpg (411KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1600x1067px

>>31790855
Yes we're done here, this argument has become aids.

>>31790886
Consider yourself woke.

001 is a mistake.

>>31790817
>Except their are videos were it does not.
You did not bring them.
>you leave out the part about ground weight (the main issue with cats) completely.
I am not that good at calculating things on the go, ground weight is significant thing but not easy to bring into consideration accurately. Since i did not see calculations or evidence of F-18 flying from Midway with additional 6 tons of stuff on them i can pretty much safely assume it cant.

>>31790855
So it is 36 Hornets+26 others vs 38 MiG-29+Su-33+8 helis. Close call, considering 1143 has missiles and less displacement.

>>31790921
> 38 MiG-29

LOVIN
EVERY
LAUGH

>>31790968
38 MiG-29 AND Su-33, dumbass. 28 in the hangar, 10 on the deck.

>>31790921
>In the original project specifications, the ship should be able to carry up to 33 fixed-wing aircraft and 12 helicopters

>>38 mig 29 PLUS others

Useing that meme magic, huh?

>>31790989
Thats how many fits from position of pure geometry, m8.

>>31790981
I would LOVE to see a source for this, being how its only 33 fixed wing.

You would not be compareing a theoretical max to an actual operational load, Would you?

>>31790996
According to?

Keep in mind the number meantioned was an actual complement actually used.

Your number appears to be some kind of asspul.

>>31791016
>I would LOVE to see a source for this, being how its only 33 fixed wing.
See >>31790131
>You would not be compareing a theoretical max to an actual operational load, Would you?
Well, we already assumed a lot of things about Midway that are still assumptions, so i guess we will remain in the field of pure theory.

>>31791052
Where did you get 38 from?

>>31791052
>Well, we already assumed a lot of things about Midway

No, the number quoted was an actual operational number that actually happened.

>>31790855
Aren't F-18A hornets smaller and capable than SU-33's?

>>31791112
Less capable*

I mean, it makes sense that the similarly sized Midway can house more, smaller planes.
But the F-18A's are quite limited compared to the SU-33.

File: dsybenj1rkcfdhjoqyrc.jpg (979KB, 1280x980px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 1280x980px

>>31789628
>And it's also completely outdated and incapable of launching modern aircraft

Read up on Battle Force Zulu / task force 154.

A mix of a Nimitz, Forrestal, Midway and Kittyhawk Class carrier battle groups all operating together to rain down fire on Saddam back in the Gulf War.

They operated the same types of aircraft.

After the conflict there was a performance report and it was basically found that the thing that made the Nimitz the most effective was simply it's size, as it could remain on station just a little bit longer because it could carry more jet fuel and munitions.

But other than that the older ships were just as deadly to the opponent because of their diverse air wings.

It didnt matter that the girl was 46 year old, as it could launch Hornets and such with their teeth out just as well as the fancy Nimitz.

>>31791087
28+10=38. Its easy.

>>31791105
>No, the number quoted was an actual operational number that actually happened.
I am still not really convinced it was.
Heres its composition in the Gulf:

VFA-113 Stingers F/A-18A
VFA-151 Vigilantes F/A-18A
VFA-25 Fist of the Fleet F/A-18A
Thats 30 Hornets.
VA-196 Main Battery A-6E TRAM/KA-6D - 4
VAW-113 Black Eagles E-2C - 4
VAQ-139 Cougars EA-6B - i am not sure how many.
HS-8 Eightballers SH-3H - 6

Thats a little bit smaller than in the ling you provided.

>>31791226
>helicopters take up the same space as fighters.

Fucked up bigtime famalam.

File: tmp_10891-US_Navy_Battle_Force_Zulu_carriers_overhead_view_in_19911985466980.jpg (315KB, 904x544px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 904x544px

>>31791226
>I dont trust the numbers

Battle force zulu, persian gulf. Midway upper left, almost 40 aircraft on the deck alone.

A loaded F-4 is 61k lbs
A loaded super hornet is 66k lbs.

A super hornet has a shit ton more thrust than the old flying brick.

Are you really telling me that the midway had no problem launching F-4s for 30 years but can't handle a fully loaded F-18?

>>31791406
According to his logic, if there is nothing that says there are limitations, there are definitely limitations.

File: RA-5C_RVAH-5_taking_off_from_USS_Constellation_(CVA-64)_1974.jpg (203KB, 687x453px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 687x453px

>>31791406

Not just weight but physical size as well.

The old conventional CATOBAR USN carriers operated the RA-5C Vigilante, which was a massive jet.

Similar in weight to the fighters , but very large.