China embarks on naval fighter training programme

[José M. Rico]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ramme.html

China embarks on naval fighter training programme
By Siva Govindasamy

China is gearing up to form its first naval fighter fleet, with local newspapers reporting that around 50 cadet pilots have started training with a naval academy.

"The first pilot programme of recruiting pilot cadets is an important decision of the PLA [People's Liberation Army] navy to realise a strategic transformation," says the PLA Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese military.

"The first batch of pilot cadets will receive a four-year education in the shipborne aircraft flight field of study. They will focus on the basic theories of surface ship and flight, apart from the basic theories and skills required in the automation field of study," it says.

While China does not have any carrier-based aircraft yet, it has been in talks with Russia over the purchase of the Sukhoi Su-33, a naval version of the Su-27 fighter. Industry sources have suggested that Beijing could initially buy three of the type and increase that to 50 eventually. China is also reportedly keen to develop carrier-based variants of indigenous types such as the Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11.

The pilot training academy is in Dalian, a coastal city that is already a major training facility for the country's naval aviation fleets. China has been planning to develop a blue-water navy for several years, and the new reports are probably the first acknowledgement by the country's highly secretive military of the existence of a structured programme for naval fighters.

Beijing bought the surplus Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier Varyag from Russia earlier this decade. The ship has reportedly been renamed Shi Lang and has been docked at Dalian since 2002, but little else has been heard about it. Analysts, however, say that refurbishment work appears to have intensified in recent months and that could be part of the preparations for the fixed-wing training programme.

Some reports suggest that the vessel could begin sea trials in 2009 and subsequently be used as a training platform for carrier take-offs and landings, while others speculate that it could eventually enter active service. China is also keen to study the technology and eventually begin work on an indigenous aircraft carrier programme.

[RF]

One aspect considering all this is the future political direction of China. As China integrates more into the global economy the increasing naval strength can be used for more political ends rather than pure military. To this end this emerging naval strength should not pose a substantive threat to the US itself, as the Soviet Navy did in the Cold War.

[Bgile]

One aspect considering all this is the future political direction of China. As China integrates more into the global economy the increasing naval strength can be used for more political ends rather than pure military. To this end this emerging naval strength should not pose a substantive threat to the US itself, as the Soviet Navy did in the Cold War.

It will pose a threat unless the US relinquishes it's obligation to defend Taiwan.

[Karl Heidenreich]

China wil be a real menace, sooner or later, as Hitler was. It´s natural and just a matter of time.

[RF]

The issue regarding Taiwan should be a simple one. Apart from the fact that Taiwan claims to be the true China, going back to the defeat of Chiang Kai-Shek in 1949 - now a claim based on an absurdity - Taiwan should be respected as an independent country. Unless the people of Taiwan want to join communist China that independence should be recognised by all. That right of self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter, to which the People's Republic of China has signed up to by joining the UN.

Taiwan itself ceased to be part of china in 1895 as a result of the Sino-Japanese War. For four years after WW2 it was part of China under the Koumintang but the reality is that from 1949 onwards ''Nationalist China'' was nothing more than a propaganda label.

I think the US obligation to defend Taiwan should remain. Maybe the Chinese will in future develop into a substantial threat, but the US will be able to respond to that threat. And China does not need Taiwan.

[Bgile]

I think we will see a fairly significant reduction in US Military capability in the next few years. We can't afford it at the current level, and I for one am tired of everyone else riding on our backs and criticizing us for everything we try to do. I think that feeling is growing here in the states.

[RF]

If thereis such a reduction over the first term of the next US President, then the situation facing the US becomes more critical especially if threats to US interests intensify, as they would. You could then have a ''swingback'' situation rather like that in 1980 when you have the election of a new President over an incumbant promising to ''beef up'' US forces to deal with that threat. I am inclined to think that Obama, if elected, could be a one term President for that reason.

[Bgile]

If thereis such a reduction over the first term of the next US President, then the situation facing the US becomes more critical especially if threats to US interests intensify, as they would. You could then have a ''swingback'' situation rather like that in 1980 when you have the election of a new President over an incumbant promising to ''beef up'' US forces to deal with that threat. I am inclined to think that Obama, if elected, could be a one term President for that reason.

Show me a threat to US interests that is not also a threat to the interests of other countries which are not willing to help because we will do it of they don't. They would rather spend the money on great medical care for their people or nice retirements.

We have spent about the same amount of money as the financial bailout just in Iraq. We can't afford to keep this up. We will eventually experience a financial meltdown with hyper inflation.

[Karl Heidenreich]

What Bgile says is plain true! Everybody criticises the US for everything they did but at the end the US is fighting everybody´s wars (well, at least all free western countries). During the Cold War the US had the burden of strategic deterrence, finance armies all around the world, send their young to die at Korea or Vietnam, spend millions to aid worthless goverments as Pinochet´s or El Salvador or Marco´s ones just to keep the damm commies checked.
Now the US must fight the islamic vermin because the good "allies" (as France) are so moraly superior (and military incompetent) to go and do the job themselves. When Iran develop their own nuclear weapons then Morroco would want their own, so I can predict that Irak blows Israel, Libia bombs Italy, Sudan blows France and Moroco do the same with Spain. So, why US must fight for them and take the atrittion? Europe don´t want to fight because... because lack of the will.
If I become US President I will try to have an alliance with GB and Russia and keep at base whilst letting all the islamic migration in Europe burn Versalles, Granada and Amsterdam and converting the Brussels in the new western peregrimation site for the faithfull.
As a matter of fact, if I become US President, I will withdraw the troops from Irak and send them to the Mexican frontier so to stop the coyotes from invading and contaminating the country.
The US maybe have commited some mistakes or did some wrongs, but at the end, since 1917 they have been carrying the burden of the West (using JRR Tolkien´s words) whilst her "allies" just appear at the surrendering ceremonies. To be fair I don´t know why the US let De Gaulle enter Paris first, the only thing the french did during WWII was surrendering, or letting them be as victors at the surrendering of Germany (which they didn´t contribute a thing to defeat. The Polish did more for defeating Germany). And for what? Just when the US forces in Europe during the Cold War needed a bit of defensive depth the French withdraw from NATO just because they didn´t want to have a US commander. Please!
I don´t believe that the US war in Irak was a good idea, but we are not the ones (not US citizens) to critize. It´s for the US population to decide what to do: they are paying it with their money and their blood.

Best regards

[RF]

What Bgile says is plain true! Everybody criticises the US for everything they did but at the end the US is fighting everybody´s wars (well, at least all free western countries). During the Cold War the US had the burden of strategic deterrence, finance armies all around the world, send their young to die at Korea or Vietnam, spend millions to aid worthless goverments as Pinochet´s or El Salvador or Marco´s ones just to keep the damm commies checked.
Now the US must fight the islamic vermin because the good "allies" (as France) are so moraly superior (and military incompetent) to go and do the job themselves. When Iran develop their own nuclear weapons then Morroco would want their own, so I can predict that Irak blows Israel, Libia bombs Italy, Sudan blows France and Moroco do the same with Spain. So, why US must fight for them and take the atrittion? Europe don´t want to fight because... because lack of the will.
If I become US President I will try to have an alliance with GB and Russia and keep at base whilst letting all the islamic migration in Europe burn Versalles, Granada and Amsterdam and converting the Brussels in the new western peregrimation site for the faithfull.
As a matter of fact, if I become US President, I will withdraw the troops from Irak and send them to the Mexican frontier so to stop the coyotes from invading and contaminating the country.
Best regards

Oh dear!

Back to 1846! Why not go in and March past Popocatepetl and then we can have Pax Americana and the Monroe Dctrine all rolled into one!

Seriously though I don't see that a ''Fortess America'' approach is going to help anyone, least of all the US. And Mexico is supposed to be an ally of the US.

My own view, as expressed before, is that we were right to go into Iraq. Where the US fell down was in not having an exit strategy for finishing involvement directly in that country, in not having a policy for properly coming to terms with Iran. That was down to Bush, Cheney and Rice, and also Blair in not insisting on such a policy being in place.

As I have said in another thread, US Presidential candidates take part in beauty contests of the boring. Now Karl if you could take the place of John McCain would you:

1) Advocate the policies above?
2) Have Sarah Palin as your vice-presidential running mate - or somebody more like George Wallace?
3) Advocate Invading Iran?
4) Worry that some Muslims might place a ''fatwah'' on you?
5) Expect to be elected?
6) If you were elected how would you deal with the resultant ''heart attack'' reaction on the US financial markets that would make the current slump look like a storm in a coffe cup?

Still we could be sure that a Karl Heidenreich candidacy would be anything other than boring and certainly liven things up.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I´ll have a lot of fireworks. Fireworks are never boring.

[Gerard Heimann]

And don't forget Gladitorial contests and other arena entertainment. It worked for the Romans for a thousand years or so!!

Gerard

[RF]

Yes, but two thousand years on I hope we are in something of a better society today.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Hitler invaded Poland some 1,450+ years after the Western Roman Empire falled; China seized Tibet later; the Soviet Union developed the greatest nuclear arsenal ever more or less fifteen years after Hitler`s attempt; then we had Khadaffi, Hussien and now, even worse, not a single hothead but a whole culture against the west: the islamic threat.
The western chrisitian and free society had (and is learning), which didn`t mean that other societies had done so.

[RF]

Maybe, but we can't go back to refighting the crusades. If we are not careful we have WW3.