Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Varyag
jfd    4/5/2002 9:45:22 AM
The Varyag arrived a northeast China shipyard on March 3rd, after being towed the long way around Africa. That took about four months. We'll be running a piece on this once we find out more about conversion plans.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
reserva120@hotmail.com    RE:Varyag   4/5/2002 2:46:23 PM
thanks, is this the one where it's either a WARSHIP OR maybe a casino, maybe both you know during re-fits..are you going to run anything on the india deal(i know it takes years for them to end-up doing nothing) but until the british start laying a real keel, at least on paper they are giving carriers the most talk/with a slight chance of somthing happening.SCS,sea control ships/LCA combo ,how fun maybe the south america's will get back into the act with a cheap set-up such as that......I hope china has some great sea-going tugs!.........looking forward to your piece.Allan
 
Quote    Reply

JoeMendla@uog.edu/rfk    RE:Varyag:Seems PRC Still Plans to Fight-Win Limited Wars vs. USA   4/8/2002 11:29:37 PM
Whom truly believes the purpose of the PRC's purchase of VARYAG is for peace, fun and raising economic revenues. Commies and fellow libs-socialists can't wait that long for their tragic dreams of exigent state-centered tax-heavy UTOPIA to take place! Shades of Hitler's "Flying Clubs" for Lufthansa pre-WW2, or Britain's "Mobile Water Tanks" that can strangely bust Wilhelm's trenches, etc.! No one doubts the PRC cannot seriously challenge the USN for local or area superiority or dominance in open potracted battle, so the purpose of Varyag, or any follow-on carriers, can only be for use in support of land infantry, ASW, local anti-air, or in conventional- or limited- nuclear battles of stealth and ambush where Chinese infantry have the bigger burdens of warfighting. Where their naval forces are concerned, the Chicoms are better off using the monies from their alleged free-market enclaves/zones and FDI's to build modern cruisers and destroyers, FBM and attack subs, amphib. assault ships, and missle-armed SCS's. If they still desire to have platforms for light-medium tacair support, ala GB Royal Navy, they should focus on deploying 'hybrid" ships employing a mix of high-grade firepower. Like the Japanese with their "Ise" and "Hayuga" battleship-carriers, etc., the Nazis with "Graf Spee" and their sub "milch cows" and experimental designs, et. al., the Brits RN post WW2 to current, and the former USSR with their "Kiev-class" cruiser-carriers and "Whale-type" submarine attack transports, hybrids are in reality the only true path for the centralized commie PRC Navy to challenge the USA in limited or protracted battle!
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Varyag:Seems PRC Still Plans to Fight-Win Limited Wars vs. USA   4/9/2002 7:08:11 PM
Nope. The point in buying a rusted out, never more than 80% completed ex-Soviet carrier is NOT to start a war. It's to gain experience in conventional carrier ops. You don't go from nothing to the Enterprise in one step. Check the history of carriers in various navies and you'll find that the people who did it well usually had an introductory period where they played around, experimenting and allowing their personel - operations as much or more than naval architects - to become used to the practical issues in operating a carrier force. What makes sense - assuming there IS a grand design behind this, and not just some political jockeying that someone won without any real long range policy behind it - is that the Chinese are seriously contemplating building a major, blue water navy as their economy continues to grow, and that this purchase is an early step along that road. In that light, it can be viewed along with actions such as the purchase of a few Soveremeny class destroyers. For certain, no one expects one old rust bucket to allow China to challenge the USN to the east of Taiwan and no one expects that the Chinese believe it would. Ski-jump baby carriers are NOT good ideas for supporting army operations. Not against any vaguely modern military when all they carry is Harriers or equivalent grade aircraft. They can be used against low grade opponents, or for sea control against nonnaval powers. You don't try to match a Harrier against any current generation fighter and you don't send it into a well developed air defense environment. The JSF should be much better, but I don't expect many sales to the PRC for the foreseeable future. Do you? You may note that the British navy NEVER liked their little carriers, didn't want them, only accepted them when it was clear that it was them or nothing, and, notably, have planned their new class of carriers to be MUCH bigger, and able to operate conventional take off and landing aircraft, like the new French carrier. The only country which uses your design philosophy of mixing aircraft with surface strike capability is the USSR. WAS the USSR, that is. The Japanese examples you cite, from WW2, were only desperate improvisations by people who knew how to build real carriers and did, when they could.
 
Quote    Reply

reserva120@hotmail.com    RE:Varyag:Seems PRC Still Plans to Fight-Win Limited Wars vs. USA   4/12/2002 6:13:31 PM
man ,and i mean this that was really well said,you know your history(modern as well ) of procument and how it evoles around what's at hand ,the british's saying all we need is stol,when in their hearts they want cat&catch(i think they'll get it this next go around). As for the chinese navy, they have a very LONG MARCH (hey i made a funny,get it) ahead of them. I see their navel air arm in the SHORT term as not so much a USN problem as a sprately island problem,air cover to be used angist local nations who may challage them. As well as laying a foundation for a possible home built, so far something that's not been going well,in both sub's and surface ships. there is a funny kind of CHEAPNESS to the chinese that's not the same as say the British cheapness,which often have huge ripple effects on their defence forces. the whole SU-30 program bares watching as in most of them don't fly for both lack of spares AND know-how,as well as simply not paying for fuel to fly then to compound the problem the type of flying they do . A leftist trate ,when you've killed millions of your own why bother with such follow thought.See not the same as British cheapness(yes that's a real term even the DIA uses it) again well said..........Allan
 
Quote    Reply

devin    RE:Small hybrid carriers(following from Varyag thread)   1/29/2003 10:56:13 AM
What's the point of having an 'aircraft carrier' if you fill it up with weapons to replace aircraft that escorts can carry. Space is of a premium.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Small hybrid carriers(following from Varyag thread)   1/29/2003 5:40:03 PM
American doctrine was not to have surface to surface weapons on carriers. Soviet doctrine was the opposite. I suppose, to a degree, antiship missiles are not especially great drains on space. They're not that large, and don't require a lot of ancillary personnel and equipment to service them. Certainly, the American, French, and various other NATO versions of ship to ship missiles are pretty small and began as pure add-ons to existing hulls. I suppose I could make an argument that if you're begining with a relatively limited hull and only a few, limited capacity aircraft, you might buy added anti-ship capability at a relatively low cost by designing in a large missile battery. OTOH, I think most naval architects will tend to feel that the same space is better used for SAM batteries. The compromise answer which doesn't really cost more and gives a lot more flexibility is a whole suite of weapons designed to use with a specific, general purpose launch system. That's how the verticle launch systems now in use in the USN work. You can load a variety of weapons, and can choose between, antiair and ship or ground attack weapons for the same ship.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Small hybrid carriers(following from Varyag thread)   1/29/2003 5:40:04 PM
American doctrine was not to have surface to surface weapons on carriers. Soviet doctrine was the opposite. I suppose, to a degree, antiship missiles are not especially great drains on space. They're not that large, and don't require a lot of ancillary personnel and equipment to service them. Certainly, the American, French, and various other NATO versions of ship to ship missiles are pretty small and began as pure add-ons to existing hulls. I suppose I could make an argument that if you're begining with a relatively limited hull and only a few, limited capacity aircraft, you might buy added anti-ship capability at a relatively low cost by designing in a large missile battery. OTOH, I think most naval architects will tend to feel that the same space is better used for SAM batteries. The compromise answer which doesn't really cost more and gives a lot more flexibility is a whole suite of weapons designed to use with a specific, general purpose launch system. That's how the verticle launch systems now in use in the USN work. You can load a variety of weapons, and can choose between, antiair and ship or ground attack weapons for the same ship.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy