Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gorshkov Fails Sea Trials - 10 Month Delay  
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11223 times:

http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/09/...gorshkov-fails-trials-delayed.html

This is getting a bit tedious. A speculated 10 month delay due to boilers not being able to withstand full power. And then the whole other matter of the price escalation and its associated drama a few years back. Pity, I was looking forward to seeing her with the Indian Navy in December.  


Also, mods, is it okay to post aircraft carrier related news here? Please delete if inappropriate.


'What's it doing now?'
71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1689 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11118 times:

I've read the news; apparently, the Russians wanted to use asbestos in the insulation of the boilers and the Indians directed the Russians to use an asbestos free substitute, so they used firebrick. Well, that substitute failed miserably... apparently 7 boilers are damaged, with 3 needing total replacement. Big undertaking to replace boilers as the ship will have to be cut open (again) from the flight deck to gain access.

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 11039 times:

So, just keep throwing good money after bad. They're going to wind up spending more than a new carrier would have cost and still have an old, worn out piece of junk. The first thing launched off the deck should be every idiot whose been keeping this monstrosity of a project alive.


Andy Goetsch
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12414 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10461 times:

I imagine that India doesn't want to depend too much on any one nation or group of nations for its military equipment, but there's a point where it's just not productive to pour money into a program like this one.

Recently India has been buying more US made goods (P8I for instance). I hope it works out well for both nations!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10416 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
ecently India has been buying more US made goods (P8I for instance). I hope it works out well for both nations!

US: Billions of outsourcing dollars come home to Momma.
India: Learns how to produce hi-tech weaponry that will never see battle.

Win-win?


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7244 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10398 times:

The delay doesn't appear to piss them off too much, they also have three frigates being built for them in Russia at the moment.

User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10190 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 5):
The delay doesn't appear to piss them off too much

Indeed, and that is strange. There has been far less coverage of this news, compared to the media circus when the price escalation became public.



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10061 times:

I'm not sure how the idea to modify an abandoned jump-jet cruiser which runs with boilers into a full-fledged carrier in shipyard that never did any kind of aircraft carrier work(the yards that built the ship ended up in Ukraine) seemed a perfectly reasonable idea to anybody.

Even the russians think the idea of keeping the boilers is silly and they are thinking of removing them from the Kuznetsov during its refit and replace them with either diesel powerplants or nuclear reactors.


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3604 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10021 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 5):
The delay doesn't appear to piss them off too much,

Of course not, what could they say, it was built to their specs. Better to keep the noise level low or more people will take a longer look.


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5385 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9911 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 7):


I'm not sure how the idea to modify an abandoned jump-jet cruiser which runs with boilers into a full-fledged carrier in shipyard that never did any kind of aircraft carrier work(the yards that built the ship ended up in Ukraine) seemed a perfectly reasonable idea to anybody.

As I was discussing this with a friend of mine the other day, what else could the Indian Navy have done as a stopgap between the retirement of the old Vikrant and the introduction of the new Vikrant-class? Vikramaditya is an imperfect solution but was pretty much the only solution on hand if the IN wanted to have a two-carrier force. Around the time they were negotiating the sale, the second-hand carrier market was particularly thin. I'll agree that it's been a disastrous acquisition for them, but it's really about the only acquisition they could have made. The conversion from a VTOL-equipped TAKR to a STOBAR is just head-scratching though. Would the Sea Harriers have been able to operate from Vikramaditya had she retained Gorshkov's VTOL capabilities?



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9809 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 9):
As I was discussing this with a friend of mine the other day, what else could the Indian Navy have done as a stopgap between the retirement of the old Vikrant and the introduction of the new Vikrant-class?

Beating the chinese to the Varyag?

Seems that in its unfinished state, they were able to refit it and put it back in service faster thank the whole Gorshkov saga. They even managed to copy the Su-33 within that time frame, even if it shows that the chinese are copying for the sake of copying.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 8):
The conversion from a VTOL-equipped TAKR to a STOBAR is just head-scratching though.

They did it so they could operate MiG-29K's from it.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 9):
Would the Sea Harriers have been able to operate from Vikramaditya had she retained Gorshkov's VTOL capabilities?

Probably, but since the soviet doctrine behind these ships was quite different from what the Indians intend to do with the ship made me question the choice in the first place.

They should still be able to use Sea Harriers from ex-Gorshkov now that it has a ski-jump and a bigger flight deck, though but seems they are going to base the air wing around the MiG-29K


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5385 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9610 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 10):

Beating the chinese to the Varyag?

Seems that in its unfinished state, they were able to refit it and put it back in service faster thank the whole Gorshkov saga. They even managed to copy the Su-33 within that time frame, even if it shows that the chinese are copying for the sake of copying.

Good call - I'd rather forgotten that Varyag was up for auction approximately contemporaneous to the retirement of Vikrant. On paper though, I think the Indians thought Gorshkov the smarter acquisition given how unfinished Varyag was. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm sure they now would have much rather gone the other route!



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9308 times:

Wouldn't it have been easier just to order a Queen Elizabeth class CVF from the UK? At least the IN would be getting a reliable warship.

User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9294 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 10):
They should still be able to use Sea Harriers from ex-Gorshkov

There's very little of that fleet left.. and the harrier in general is on its way out. Woudn't make much sense getting a newer and bigger carrier for about 10 airplanes, perhaps even less. The aircraft choices were tied to the carrier itself (ie. buy Russian), and I'm fairly certain we picked the better plane on that count.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Wouldn't it have been easier just to order a Queen Elizabeth class CVF from the UK? At least the IN would be getting a reliable warship.

When the IN started looking for a carrier, was that option available?



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9237 times:

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 13):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):Wouldn't it have been easier just to order a Queen Elizabeth class CVF from the UK? At least the IN would be getting a reliable warship.
When the IN started looking for a carrier, was that option available?

The QE class CVFs began developement in the mid to late 1990s. I believe the RN began contract talks in 2002 and the QE and POW were authorized in 2004. The contracts were sign, IIRC sometime in 2006 or 2007.

QE was always designed as a STOVL aircraft carrier, for the F-35B and POW was originally going to be a CATOBAR aircraft carrier for the F-35C. When the RN decided to go all F-35B with their order, POW was redesigned into a STOVL CVF (also due to the increased cost of CATOBAR).

So, yes, when the In was looking for a 'new' CV, the QE class option was there. Also available having been decommissioned in 1997 by the French Navy was the Clemenceau. Clem's sister ship, the Foch, was sold to Brazil in 2000.


User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9231 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
So, yes, when the In was looking for a 'new' CV, the QE class option was there. Also available having been decommissioned in 1997 by the French Navy was the Clemenceau. Clem's sister ship, the Foch, was sold to Brazil in 2000.

Ah okay, thanks, wasn't aware of that.



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7244 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9171 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Wouldn't it have been easier just to order a Queen Elizabeth class CVF from the UK? At least the IN would be getting a reliable warship.

It was never an option because the Indians don't have a drydock big enough to fit CVF, not being able to maintain your own ship kinda makes it a pointless purchase.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Also available having been decommissioned in 1997 by the French Navy was the Clemenceau. Clem's sister ship, the Foch, was sold to Brazil in 2000.

Clemenceau was so knackered there wasn't much hope for her and she had been cannibalised to keep Foch operational.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9006 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 16):
KiwiRob

You can always build a new dry dock. But I didn't know that about the Clem, thanks.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 8872 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Wouldn't it have been easier just to order a Queen Elizabeth class CVF from the UK? At least the IN would be getting a reliable warship.

Going back to STOVL for the QE Class, apart from the costs and technical issues with the 2010 plan to only have HMS Prince of Wales as the sole (CTOL) carrier, also means the RN get to have two ships. Again.
Many suspected that the idea to complete but not ever commission Queen Elizabeth, was dangling a morsel - all 60,000 tons of it - for foreign sale. India being an obvious example.
(What is it with UK Conservative Governments and selling off new or nearly new carriers? They, under Thatcher, had sold HMS Invincible to Australia in early 1982, but then a war intervened to make that politically unacceptable).

As to dry docks, surely building one in India - not short of a cheap and large labour force - is cheaper in the long run?

If India did go down the QE Class route, they'd want a CTOL version?
To avoid the technical risks of the as yet unproven EM Catapult system, modifying one with a steam plant would likely be cheaper and easier than the nightmare of Gorshkov.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3393 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 8670 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 18):
As to dry docks, surely building one in India - not short of a cheap and large labour force - is cheaper in the long run?

I would have thought they would needed major drydocks just for civilian ships, as I would assume there would be a market for repairing ships where there is cheap labor and... well... not having to tow it back to Korea or other current shipbuilding nation.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7244 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months ago) and read 8576 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
QE was always designed as a STOVL aircraft carrier, for the F-35B and POW was originally going to be a CATOBAR aircraft carrier for the F-35C. When the RN decided to go all F-35B with their order, POW was redesigned into a STOVL CVF (also due to the increased cost of CATOBAR).

But that's not true either, both vessels were originally designed as STOVL ships, it was the French version PA2 which was designed as CATOBAR, then the govt had an about tern and decided to convert both to CATOBAR, the QE after delivery, the POW during construction. If you remember the decision to convert to CATOBAR lasted less than two year's before the desicion to build them both as originally planned was decided on.This I'm sure will come back and bite the UK govt in the butt, I have my doubts as to the usefullness of the B model and won't be surprised at all if it's canned, leaving the UK with two massive but effectively useless carriers.

Quoting GDB (Reply 18):
As to dry docks, surely building one in India - not short of a cheap and large labour force - is cheaper in the long run?

It's still going to cost billions of rupee even if they get thousands of labourss digging it by hand, and knowing how long it takes to build a ship in India it bet it would take the better part of a decade to build a drydock big enough for CVF.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8542 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 16):

It was never an option because the Indians don't have a drydock big enough to fit CVF,
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):

I would have thought they would needed major drydocks just for civilian ships,
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20):

It's still going to cost billions of rupee even if they get thousands of labourss digging it by hand,

Isn't India one of the places where they break ships? I'm sure that the dock would not have been a show stopper.

My question would be when did the RFP came out for the carrier? Remember that it was only recently that India was allowed to buy sensitive Military equipment from the US. I'm sure that India would have better relationship with GB but would have it been that easy to get the carrier approved for sale? The Pentagon may have had a lot to say about that possibility.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8435 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20):
B model and won't be surprised at all if it's canned

B looks a lot more secure than the C model.
One reason the UK switched back to B, aside from the major delays, big cost increases, serious technical risks (with EM cats), the notion that RN F-35C's could cross deck on the French carrier undermined by that vessel's cats being unable to launch a F-35C.

No, the F-35B has had successful sea trials with the USMC, training is underway.
B is for better, better than nothing, which is where the RN F-35C, only one carrier, not before 2023 at least, was headed.
It was also less politically toxic to admit (after numerous warnings since 2010) they were wrong, the government that is, than have to can the whole carrier program.

Not that this has a bearing on India, had the French proceeded with a CTOL CVF, with conventional cats and a steam plant, as was mooted, this might have been attractive to India too.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8230 times:

Meanwhile, China today (9.25) commissioned the Liaoning nee Varyag following succesful sea trials.

from Xinhua:



story at :

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/25/c_131871538.htm


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8195 times:

And at the same time China has issued a stern warning towards Japan concerning the disputed islands:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19709355

Quote:
The statement posted on the Chinese Foreign Ministry did not quote any comments from Mr Kawai. But it quoted Mr Zhang as telling him that Japan needed to mend its ways.

"China will never tolerate any unilateral actions by Japan that harm Chinese territorial sovereignty," it said.

"Japan must banish illusions, undertake searching reflection and use concrete actions to amend its errors, returning to the consensus and understandings reached between our two countries' leaders."

I´m sure similar warings will soon go out to Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan and Brunei, with whom China has territorial disputes. Basically "relent or we will punish you".

Jan


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3906 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8401 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):
Isn't India one of the places where they break ships? I'm sure that the dock would not have been a show stopper.

Uhm, perhaps you should look into *how* they break ships in India  

They don't use docks to break ships - they are driven into the shore at high tide, leaving them on a long shallow foreshore when the tide goes out, and then the ships are cut apart there.



User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8364 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 25):

Hey Moo, nice post-apocalyptic picture! I saw a documentary on the lives of shipbreakers and it is a dangerous occupation with frequent fatalities. But then, even crossing the road in India is no joke.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
And at the same time China has issued a stern warning towards Japan concerning the disputed islands

It looks like China is getting very territorial about the seas in the SE Asian region, and making it very clear as to what it perceives its backyard to be. Its like having a neighbor with a pit bull. China is also mad at India trying to assist Vietnam with its offshore oil exploration.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8472 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 26):
But then, even crossing the road in India is no joke.


I know of a photographer who was at a kerbside snapping away. The next moment, a reversing 10-ton truck ran over him, severing both his legs at the pelvis region thereby leaving him maimed for life. Horrible!



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8477 times:

Interesting follow -up but skeptical assessment in the New York Times, which states that the vessel is mostly for training, and that China does not have suitable naval aircraft or skills for carrier landing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/wo...-but-experts-are-skeptical.html?hp


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8462 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
I´m sure similar warings will soon go out to Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan and Brunei, with whom China has territorial disputes. Basically "relent or we will punish you".

Someone recently said the US government should send a thank you note to the Chinese government. US Navy ships pulling into port in Vietnam, makes you wonder.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8449 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 29):
Someone recently said the US government should send a thank you note to the Chinese government. US Navy ships pulling into port in Vietnam, makes you wonder.

The French will also send a thank you note when Vietnam gets to buy Exocets to counter the Chinese threat 

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8393 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 29):
Someone recently said the US government should send a thank you note to the Chinese government. US Navy ships pulling into port in Vietnam, makes you wonder.

Back in imperial days Vietnam (and Korea) had to pay tribute to the Chinese emperor and to act as vassals.
They haven´t forgotten about it, in fact postcolonial (and American) Vietnam had a border war with China and several shoot outs in the disputed waters in the South China Sea.
Also Vietnam was supported by the Soviet Union, which broke up with China under Mao during the late 1950s. China and the Soviet Union also has border skirmishes in the 1960s-70s. China on the other hand supported Cambodia´s Khmer Rouge, which slaughtered millions of their own population while creating a stone age communism. The Khmer rouge were driven out by the Soviet supported Vietnamese (though i have to say that there exists a century old rivalty between the Vietnamese emperors and the Khmer kings with many wars, a bit like England and France). Cambodia was used now by the Chinese to prevent a consentual decision by the ASEAN conference about China´s plans in the South China Sea. China threatened to cut off Cambodia´s financial support, should Cambodia support the other ASEAN countries.
As for the Koreans, some welcomed the Japanese invaders of the first Sino-Japanese war in the late 1900s as liberators of an enlightened and modern nation (Meiji-Japan), which was driving out an occupier, which kept their country in the middle ages. The only problem was that the Japanese got too full of themselves and took Korea as a colony and treated the population bad themselves. With a different attitude they would have got themselves a permanent friend in East Asia.

Jan


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2590 posts, RR: 17
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting comorin (Reply 26):
It looks like China is getting very territorial about the seas in the SE Asian region

They have every right to. I don't see what the big deal is with China having a carrier when the USA has 11 supercarriers and parades them around the world patrolling the seas and projecting their power like a world police.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8258 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 25):
They don't use docks to break ships - they are driven into the shore at high tide, leaving them on a long shallow foreshore when the tide goes out, and then the ships are cut apart there.

I seen photos of 2 super ferries that I had traveled on many times, dragged up on the beach together, being cut to pieces. Quite sad.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 32):
They have every right to. I don't see what the big deal is with China having a carrier when the USA has 11 supercarriers and parades them around the world patrolling the seas and projecting their power like a world police.

It is not the fact that they have one carrier, it is the fact that they are increasing their arsenal. China does not do anything on a small scale... even if this carrier is for practice, it definatly wont be the last, probably the first of many.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8199 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 28):
Interesting follow -up but skeptical assessment in the New York Times, which states that the vessel is mostly for training, and that China does not have suitable naval aircraft or skills for carrier landing:

Even simply used as an attack helicopters carrier, it will be pretty scary for most neighbors.

Russia may not want to sell a few MIG29s for China to copy, but will be happy to sell a boat load, plus the spares and training. Politics are very unpredictable.


User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8178 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 32):
They have every right to.

Yes they do.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 32):
USA has 11 supercarriers and parades them around the world patrolling the seas and projecting their power like a world police.

There is a reason why the USA is the only country that has so many carriers, something that China and India is starting to realize. He who controls the sea lanes controls the world, not that the USA's leadership has the balls that enforce that mentality.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 33):
probably the first of many.

But they are 50 years behind the curve. That being said, tomorrow 50 years is 20 years. But there is nothing like experience.

A lot of people on this form questioned the need for 8 carriers vs 12. Does that seem like a good idea now?(Coming from a die hard Democrat, but one who served six years in the US armed forces, sometimes you have to buy the gun to defend the well being of the population.) How does 8 or less carriers sound when China now has one? And when they see how much a carrier increases their influence around the world, they will build more. And most likely they will have "stolen" all the knowledge needed to build one. The thing they can't steal is the how to run one. And that ladies and gents is the whole ball of wax. We have learned some lessons the hard way, and the one thing about the US, we do learn from our lessons.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8170 times:

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 35):
How does 8 or less carriers sound when China now has one?

China's carrier is pretty much harmless. They removed anything that could make it a threat, such as the P-700 launchers and the Flankers will have to operate in the same limited capacity that they do on her sister ship.

The main thing it will good for is as a school to learn the intricacies of carrier operation and to do PR stunts.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7244 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 7997 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 28):
Interesting follow -up but skeptical assessment in the New York Times, which states that the vessel is mostly for training, and that China does not have suitable naval aircraft or skills for carrier landing:

That would be correct it is mostly for training, but the Chinese have now the capacity to build aircraft carriers and they did purchase a design from the Nevskoye Design Bureau. What is not correct, the Chinese copied the naval Flanker (Shenyang J-15) and have a bunch of these that they are using to learn carrier tactics.

What people tend to forget or even ignore is that the Chinese are second only to the Koreans in shipbuilding technology, that puts them lightyears ahead of the US, now if the US can build a Nimitz using it's oudated infrastructure the Chinese using cutting edge modern technology won't have any problems at all, the only real issue for them is the design.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7977 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 37):
Chinese using cutting edge modern technology won't have any problems at all,

Cutting edge technology yes . . . First world QA, maybe, but they will have to be very diligent from the top down or else the ship will be in dry docks more than it will be on the ocean. As with most thing with the Chinese Government, if you can keep out the corruption, the money can actually go to the product and you won't get shoddy products.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 32):
They have every right to.

And all the neighbor will have the rights to get their hands on cheaper submarines.

It have not been shown that any Chinese carriers can withstand a determined submarine or stealth attack. And by the time the Chinese field their carriers, maybe the US will have their hypersonic missles. 

However, China's neighbor will be concerned and the cheapest way to counter the threat would be submarines.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7954 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 33):
even if this carrier is for practice, it definatly wont be the last, probably the first of many.

Correct, the PLAN is planning on building 5 new CVs, or even CVNs.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 36):
China's carrier is pretty much harmless.

It doesn't take much money or design work to refit any warship if you compare the costs to a new build warship.

This CV is already equipped with AESA and Sea Eagle radar, FL-3000N, YJ-91, KJ-88, and YJ-83K missiles for AAW and ASuW, as well as the Type-1030 CIWS. The CV will carry the J-15 fighter and the Ka-31 AEW helio.

[Edited 2012-09-26 08:18:59]

User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7917 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 37):
That would be correct it is mostly for training, but the Chinese have now the capacity to build aircraft carriers and they did purchase a design from the Nevskoye Design Bureau. What is not correct, the Chinese copied the naval Flanker (Shenyang J-15) and have a bunch of these that they are using to learn carrier tactics.

What people tend to forget or even ignore is that the Chinese are second only to the Koreans in shipbuilding technology, that puts them lightyears ahead of the US, now if the US can build a Nimitz using it's oudated infrastructure the Chinese using cutting edge modern technology won't have any problems at all, the only real issue for them is the design.

Thanks for sobering us up! - easy to dismiss the Chinese as unsophisticated and then pay dearly for the misconception later.

My concern is that with the simmering problems in China, nothing like starting a war to unite people - nationalism is the opiate of the masses!


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7877 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 38):
However, China's neighbor will be concerned and the cheapest way to counter the threat would be submarines.

bt

The problem is that several neighbours are quite broke, e.g. the Philippines, who are in desperate need of some modern warships and aircraft (all they have at the moment are some Vietnam war era Broncos, a bunchs of equally old Hueys and C-130s plus some assorted smaller stuff for training).

For them such an aircraft carriers is a formidable adversary impossible to defeat.

Face it, in the seas around China you have overlapping 200 mile zones, same as in the North Sea. The North sea was divided by treaty like a cake, which each country having a coastline having a slice. Now some got luckier, like the UK and Norway, because in their slices is where most of the oil and gas fields are located, while others (Netherlands, Denmark, Germany) were not that well off. A similar solution has been proposed by the UN for the South China Sea, but China has rejected it claiming "ancient rights" and just being the biggest bully on the block.
Using similar logic Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, the UK and France could each claim most of Europe, Africa, the Middle East or the Americas, because at some time or another large parts of these regions were under the control and government by the named countries (Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, Spanish empire, Napoleonic France or the British empire).

As per the UN, inhabited islands go to the country the population declares it´s loyality to (No, and a quickly established garrison and a few subsidised settlers, who have been there for less than 20 years do not count), or, if uninhabited, they go to the geographically nearest located country (within reason).

Jan


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7855 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 41):
For them such an aircraft carriers is a formidable adversary impossible to defeat.

They could opt for some Club-K systems
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_BY-YyH8IqE/UEt6JGrn1wI/AAAAAAAAhoU/i2EbZ2zM_-Y/s1600/club-k(2).jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skj6A4KfLLA

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
It doesn't take much money or design work to refit any warship if you compare the costs to a new build warship.

This CV is already equipped with AESA and Sea Eagle radar, FL-3000N, YJ-91, KJ-88, and YJ-83K missiles for AAW and ASuW, as well as the Type-1030 CIWS. The CV will carry the J-15 fighter and the Ka-31 AEW helio.

The carrier itself only has CIWS weaponry and the J-15 won't be able to carry any kind of AShM because, just like its sister ship, they weren't meant to operate Flankers in such a fashion. Flankers are limited to A-A and unguided A-G weaponry when operating from these type of carriers.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7803 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 41):

The problem is that several neighbours are quite broke, e.g. the Philippines,

The Philippines has a special historical relationship with the US which can be re-started if needed.

Vietnam may have some money, but it would be difficult for them to acquire advanced weaponry from anyone other than Russia.

Other than the submarines (and calling on the Yankee cousin), what else would the Australian have that may counter the Carrier threat.

As for the Japanese, what would they have to counter the carriers?

bt

[Edited 2012-09-26 11:39:23]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7818 times:

At the moment the Philippines (after buying one former US Coast Guard cutter to replace their WW2 era destroyer flagship Rajah Humabon:

Gregorio de Pilar
Another similar ship will join the Philippine Navy in December 2012.

The destroyer Rajah Humabon, built in 1943 as USS Atherton, she is one of the oldest active warships:

According to news sources in the Philippines, the government plans to buy two 1980s frigates from Italy.

Jan


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7244 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7783 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 38):
It have not been shown that any Chinese carriers can withstand a determined submarine or stealth attack

Ditto for a Nimitz, nobody has ever attempted to sink one but I bet if someone was determined enough they could.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
It doesn't take much money or design work to refit any warship if you compare the costs to a new build warship.

I don't believe that for one second, I bet if you added up all the costs after completion of any Nimitz especially the older ones far more money has been spent on refitting them than they cost new. The ship was just a bare hull, the Russians hadn't started fitting her out before the collapse, Ukraine did nothing to her apart from keeping her afloat.

Tis a pity the Ukrainians broke up the Ulyanovsk CVN on the stocks she was ready to launch, I would have liked to have seen this ship afloat, the Russians should have tried to fund her completion.

Varyag and Kuznetsov

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/varyag-kuznetsov.jpg


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7679 times:

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 35):
But they are 50 years behind the curve.

People often say that, but China's nature to copy or imitate things is putting them on a fast track to catch up. Their second stealth fighter design just broke cover... even Russia only had one design.


China is playing the long game. They are going to get filthy rich, then the fun starts. China is like the Soviet Union... but they took the best part of capitalism and made it their own. The west is going to be so in debt to China, China could just foreclose on Texas to retire debt (j/k).


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 877 posts, RR: 12
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7622 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 46):

China is playing the long game. They are going to get filthy rich, then the fun starts. China is like the Soviet Union... but they took the best part of capitalism and made it their own. The west is going to be so in debt to China, China could just foreclose on Texas to retire debt (j/k).

You do realize that this is as much a two edged swords as anything and also is a pretty damning indictment of the Chinese economy. It generates more cash than it can efficiently employ because it is not innovating fast enough. When the Chinese government sticks money in Treasury bills earning less than 1% it is doing so because it can't earn a 1% return spending the money in China.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 46):

People often say that, but China's nature to copy or imitate things is putting them on a fast track to catch up. Their second stealth fighter design just broke cover... even Russia only had one design.

We will see how quick they start building production models. Lots of people have built lots of cool tech demonstrators over the years. While it seems clear they intend to build it it takes a long time to go from theory to in service.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 45):

Ditto for a Nimitz, nobody has ever attempted to sink one but I bet if someone was determined enough they could.

Anything that floats can sink. The US does have a lot more experience in planning and thinking about how to defend a carrier. It is something they have been doing for over 50 years at this point.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7603 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 47):
When the Chinese government sticks money in Treasury bills earning less than 1% it is doing so because it can't earn a 1% return spending the money in China.

They also want to keep US economy afloat by lending us more money so that we can buy more from them.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 47):
Anything that floats can sink. The US does have a lot more experience in planning and thinking about how to defend a carrier. It is something they have been doing for over 50 years at this point.

The mere discussions of comparing US and China carriers is indicative of how fast the Chinese are catching up.


The biggest mistake is to underestimate your enemy.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7608 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 48):
The biggest mistake is to underestimate your enemy.

Or overestimate your friends! China's history is of being the 'other' - no country worth trusting as an ally.

Back to Mil-Av - what exactly is the benefit of a ski-jump versus conventional decks? - thanks in advance.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7477 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 49):
what exactly is the benefit of a ski-jump versus conventional decks?

Basically, they allow take-off at higher weights for a given deck length...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck#Ski-jump_ramp


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7460 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 50):
Basically, they allow take-off at higher weights for a given deck length...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_..._ramp

Thanks for answering, David.

I am still grappling with the physics of it. I now get the benefit for VSTOL, Forconventional jets, however, they are trading off kinetic energy for an upwards trajectory and that is where my brain stops. I'm guessing that the upwards trajectory gives the aircraft a little more time to develop lift, and the upward thrust vector contributes to lift.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7465 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 51):
I'm guessing that the upwards trajectory gives the aircraft a little more time to develop lift, and the upward thrust vector contributes to lift.

That's about all I've got, too.  


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7244 posts, RR: 5
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7460 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 42):
The carrier itself only has CIWS weaponry and the J-15 won't be able to carry any kind of AShM because, just like its sister ship, they weren't meant to operate Flankers in such a fashion. Flankers are limited to A-A and unguided A-G weaponry when operating from these type of carriers.

That was then this is now, does anyone really know what nthe Chinese are arming there aircraft with for use with this carrier, I don't and I'm pretty sure you don't either.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7445 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 44):
replace their WW2 era destroyer

Yeah, I think that destroyer was one of 4 or 6 destroyers that the Philippines requisitioned from the Vietnamese navy after 1975 when the South Vietnamese Navy took a bunch of refugees there after the fall of Saigon. I was a young lad on one of those destroyers. I definitely recall the twin 40mm AA gun aft of the forward deck gun.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 45):
Ditto for a Nimitz, nobody has ever attempted to sink one

So after getting the carrier, the Chinese will have to develop a robust ASW network, including escort ships, helo and fixed wing aircrafts. All of which require advances in their existing technology. In this aspect I think India will have a hand up with their P-8I purchase. Now, we will expect new anti-submarine helo soon?

Quoting comorin (Reply 51):
I'm guessing that the upwards trajectory gives the aircraft a little more time to develop lift, and the upward thrust vector contributes to lift.

Remember Top Gun when the F-14 dropped below deck after it leaves the carrier?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 877 posts, RR: 12
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7436 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 48):
The mere discussions of comparing US and China carriers is indicative of how fast the Chinese are catching up.


The biggest mistake is to underestimate your enemy.

While true it also can be expensive to vastly overestimate one. There are practical realities that everyone must deal with when trying to learn a very specialized and unique capability like operating carriers and naval task groups at any appreciable efficiency and distance from home. You can't really speed the process along too much and you really can't, in my view, learn to efficiently operate carriers without having several in operation so that you can continually use them. Short of that they are a showpiece as much as anything. There are just too many skills needed to do it well that don't translate at all to the rest of civilization to learn it any other way than doing.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 53):

That was then this is now, does anyone really know what nthe Chinese are arming there aircraft with for use with this carrier, I don't and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

I think the main issue will be bring back weight and take off weight for the fighters using bigger anti-ship missiles. You can probably get a Kh-31 or Kh-35 airborne off the deck. I am not sure how many you could realistically bring back. The F-18E is about 8,000 pounds lighter than the SU-33 clone China is looking to use on their carrier.

The physical laws of arresting an aircraft are pretty constant. You can only stop so much weight so quickly without killing the pilot or more importantly tearing the bird apart. You generally want sufficient fuel when you land to take a few attempts if you need to. You start to eat into your bring back margin pretty quick when you put aircraft up in the air with expensive Anti-Shipping missiles. On the launch end there are plenty of reports that the SU-33 can't even launch with full internal fuel due to weight restrictions. Even if that is overstating it you are still launching a heavy aircraft without a catapult or vertical lift components. Most likely China will struggle to find an aircraft that can get off their carrier carrying more than a useful self defense load unless they get an aircraft with vertical thrust or the put catapults on the thing.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7419 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 54):
Yeah, I think that destroyer was one of 4 or 6 destroyers that the Philippines requisitioned from the Vietnamese navy after 1975 when the South Vietnamese Navy took a bunch of refugees there after the fall of Saigon. I was a young lad on one of those destroyers. I definitely recall the twin 40mm AA gun aft of the forward deck gun.

Interesting. Care to share a little more of that chapter of your past?   



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7411 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 54):
Yeah, I think that destroyer was one of 4 or 6 destroyers that the Philippines requisitioned from the Vietnamese navy after 1975 when the South Vietnamese Navy took a bunch of refugees there after the fall of Saigon. I was a young lad on one of those destroyers. I definitely recall the twin 40mm AA gun aft of the forward deck gun.

As per Wikipedia, this ship went first from the US Navy to the Japanese one and from there to the Philippines.

Jan


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7405 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 56):

Interesting. Care to share a little more of that chapter of your past?

The operation is called "Frequent Wind". I was too young to remember much.

http://www.npr.org/2010/09/01/129578...-ship-rescued-south-vietnam-s-navy

There are a few articles on the Web considering there was a recent anniversary.

The ship in the photo in the article looked much like the ship noted earlier.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 57):
As per Wikipedia, this ship went first from the US Navy to the Japanese one and from there to the Philippines.


Looking at the two photos, I can see that they are different. The one that I was on looked a little smaller.
In the article the ship number was 3. I believe I was on ship number 2.

bt

[Edited 2012-09-27 08:41:01]

[Edited 2012-09-27 08:41:25]

[Edited 2012-09-27 08:42:16]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7359 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 54):
Remember Top Gun when the F-14 dropped below deck after it leaves the carrier?

Yes! it was a long time ago...but I see your point.  


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7356 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 53):
That was then this is now, does anyone really know what nthe Chinese are arming there aircraft with for use with this carrier, I don't and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

The ship itself maybe, but their Su-33 copy will be subjected to the same limitations that the originals had to face.

And if the rumors about the performance of the J-11B and derivatives are anything to go by, I wont hold my breath.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7244 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7329 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 55):
I am not sure how many you could realistically bring back. The F-18E is about 8,000 pounds lighter than the SU-33 clone China is looking to use on their carrier.

What about the Vigilante that used to fly from US carriers that was much bigger again.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 62, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7327 times:

Even if the ship is only good for a couple dozen helicopters, it would be of great value parked near the Spratley in the South China Sea.

Does China have any amphibious assault ship?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2590 posts, RR: 17
Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7364 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The F/A-18C/E is not some some sort of benchmark that every fighter should follow. You can launch and trap heavier aircraft.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 55):
The physical laws of arresting an aircraft are pretty constant. You can only stop so much weight so quickly without killing the pilot or more importantly tearing the bird apart.

Killing the pilot is no issue no matter how heavy the aircraft is assuming you want to stop the aircraft in the same length of space. The deceleration is related to landing speed and stopping distance alone and has nothing to do with weight.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 61):
What about the Vigilante that used to fly from US carriers that was much bigger again.

The Vigilante, although bigger, was actually lighter than a Su-33. Now the A-3 Skywarrior is a different story, with an empty weight the same as a Su-33. And if that thing flew with those old jets, the Su-33 will have no problems. Don't forget how much thrust the Su-33 has, as shown by these videos:

Landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XpK3-azG3Q

At 0:29, takeoff with wheel brakes engaged! Notice the skid marks on the deck and smoke from the tires:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFavtMOXrOE


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7323 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 63):
The deceleration is related to landing speed and stopping distance alone and has nothing to do with weight.

I think you two do agree. It's the speed differential over a short time that is more critical than weight.

So what is the landing speed of the SU-33? If it has better lift and thrust vectoring, it may have a lower approach and landing speed which makes it more viable for carrier landing than the other heavy weights being discussed.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1689 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7209 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 62):

Does China have any amphibious assault ship?

Yes, they have the Type 71 Yuzhao LPD's (the Chinese apparently have 3 of them), and it is widely believed that the Chinese are working on a LHA / LHD, which has been given the designation of Type 81.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 66, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6766 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 53):
Quoting Acheron (Reply 42):The carrier itself only has CIWS weaponry and the J-15 won't be able to carry any kind of AShM because, just like its sister ship, they weren't meant to operate Flankers in such a fashion. Flankers are limited to A-A and unguided A-G weaponry when operating from these type of carriers.
That was then this is now, does anyone really know what nthe Chinese are arming there aircraft with for use with this carrier, I don't and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

Your right, we don't know. But we can be assured, I think, the PLAN isn't doing all of this to provide tour flights looking at USN CVNBGs.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 54):
So after getting the carrier, the Chinese will have to develop a robust ASW network, including escort ships, helo and fixed wing aircrafts.

Yes. The threat to them are the USN's LA(i) class and Virgina class SSNs.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 55):
There are practical realities that everyone must deal with when trying to learn a very specialized and unique capability like operating carriers and naval task groups at any appreciable efficiency and distance from home.

Correct, but they can learn a lot simply by observing how the Americans, British, and French do it. Then it is a matter of developing their own unique tactics. Training will be their biggest obstacal. The PLAN can expect lots of training accidents. It will still be years before they will have a creditable operational capability in carrier operations.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 67, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6495 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 43):
Other than the submarines (and calling on the Yankee cousin), what else would the Australian have that may counter the Carrier threat.

Land-based aircraft and anti-ship cruise missiles?



Quoting bikerthai (Reply 43):
As for the Japanese, what would they have to counter the carriers?

Their submarines and land-based aircraft. Anti-ship cruise missiles. They also have Aegis, which gives them excellent anti-aircraft and anti-missile capabilities.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 68, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5982 times:

Jesus H Christ, those clips from Sovietjet look like Death was just hanging around the Tower just giggling and biding his time. Tell you what, if any one of those guys landed on the Nimitz they'd think it was JFK Int'l.

Gotta hand it to the Ruskies man, they live on the edge every single day. Just gimme 60 yards, a gentle breeze, some glue and rubber bands, and f*ck it.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5532 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 33):
It is not the fact that they have one carrier, it is the fact that they are increasing their arsenal. China does not do anything on a small scale... even if this carrier is for practice, it definatly wont be the last, probably the first of many.

From the time the keel is laid to it's first deployment around six years have will have passed for a USN carrier. That's taking into account the US has been building and operating carriers continuously since the 1930's.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7244 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5504 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 68):
Gotta hand it to the Ruskies man, they live on the edge every single day. Just gimme 60 yards, a gentle breeze, some glue and rubber bands, and f*ck it.

You outta see how Russians drive.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 71, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5295 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 69):
From the time the keel is laid to it's first deployment around six years have will have passed for a USN carrier. That's taking into account the US has been building and operating carriers continuously since the 1930's.

That's only since the Nimitz class. The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was laid down in Fed. 1958 and commissioned on Nov. 1961, about 46 months. The Kitty Hawk class, (CV-63, -64, -66, -67) all took between 42 and 48 months from laid down to commissioning. USS Nimitz, CVN-68, the lead ship of her class of 10 CVNs took just one month shy of 7 years to build, from the keel laid down to commissioning.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Gorshkov Fails Sea Trials - 10 Month Delay
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Second Crash Of A V-22 In 3 Month posted Fri Jun 15 2012 05:04:50 by oldeuropean
What Plane Is Likely To Replace The KC-10? posted Sun Jun 10 2012 08:02:02 by 747400sp
China To Launch Manned Spacecraft This Month posted Sat Jun 9 2012 07:22:18 by neutrino
A-10 To Be Used For Atmospheric Research posted Wed Jun 6 2012 10:14:28 by j.mo
Dutch KDC-10 Idle At Portland Oregon posted Wed May 23 2012 09:32:05 by ramprat74
Sea King Question posted Mon Apr 2 2012 16:40:18 by spudh
Interesting J-10 Film... posted Tue Feb 7 2012 09:17:49 by alberchico
Air Force One At LAX Today, 10/24 posted Mon Oct 24 2011 14:03:14 by bonusonus
Air Force One And Orlando 10/11/11? posted Sun Oct 9 2011 20:59:24 by Plainplane
U S Military Charter DC-10 Flights posted Thu Sep 15 2011 13:14:18 by bigbird

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format