If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
"Timur" wrote in message
... http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv Here's a site with good photos (some as recent as Arpil '09). http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon...gtransform.htm Mark |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
On Jan 2, 1:56*pm, Timur wrote:
http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv I would not be overly worried about that carrier. Our recon. sats will have eyes on it 24/7 and with B-52s with tomahawks its a sitting duck. It does not change the balance of power much as China lacks the other effective arms to go with the carrier. Their submarine capabilities are a joke as is their surface navy as a whole. China should have been smart and built a real navy 1st and eventually grew into a carrier. One carrier will prove much easier to sink than an entire navy. I don't see why China bought that carrier unless they really want to use it to confront the U.S. which they are nowhere near in a position to effectively do unless they are crazy or very smart and certain our weak and inept president will back down. That can't be do much the case though b/c they bought the carrier and started to re-fit it long before *we* elected a communist. JK |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
On Jan 5, 8:41*am, jkochko68 wrote:
On Jan 2, 1:56*pm, Timur wrote: http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv I would not be overly worried about that carrier. Our recon. sats will have eyes on it 24/7 and with B-52s with tomahawks its a sitting duck. It does not change the balance of power much as China lacks the other effective arms to go with the carrier. Their submarine capabilities are a joke as is their surface navy as a whole. China should have been smart and built a real navy 1st and eventually grew into a carrier. One carrier will prove much easier to sink than an entire navy. I don't see why China bought that carrier unless they really want to use it to confront the U.S. which they are nowhere near in a position to effectively do unless they are crazy or very smart and certain our weak and inept president will back down. That can't be do much the case though b/c they bought the carrier and started to re-fit it long before *we* elected a communist. JK There has been some speculation that they will use it as a blueprint for later carriers, since they don't have any experience building them on their own. That is their real goal here. Anyway, I don't see any real indicators in China's foreign policy that would lead them to start a war with the U.S. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
"jkochko68" wrote in message ... I don't see why China bought that carrier unless they really want to use it to confront the U.S. which they are nowhere near in a position to effectively do unless they are crazy or very smart and ... (Political screed & trollish crossposting snippped) My guess is that they bought it simply to gain valuable and (perhaps) cheap experience in carrier design and carrier air ops. Vaughn |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:09:02 -0500, "vaughn"
wrote: "jkochko68" wrote in message ... I don't see why China bought that carrier unless they really want to use it to confront the U.S. which they are nowhere near in a position to effectively do unless they are crazy or very smart and ... (Political screed & trollish crossposting snippped) My guess is that they bought it simply to gain valuable and (perhaps) cheap experience in carrier design and carrier air ops. I don't think it's possible to have "cheap" experiences with any carrier. :-) The last folks who tried to create a "carrier capability" from scratch were the Soviets. It really didn't work out all that well for them in spite of massive amounts of money thrown at the problems. Having a ship is only a part, and maybe a small part, of the whole system. You need aircraft, crews (flight and deck), unrep capability, etc. There's an old saying that "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." The logistics of carrier ops in local waters would be significant. To try "blue water ops" would make them massive. It took the USN, IJN, and RN a couple of generations to figure out effective support and use of a carrier force. It will take the Chinese that long (no matter how much expertise they can buy). It will be interesting to see if they really want to spend that kind of money. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
"Bill Kambic" wrote in message ... I don't think it's possible to have "cheap" experiences with any carrier. :-) "Cheap" is a relative concept. Further, the currency involved can be money, time, lives, etc, etc. Compared to designing and building their own carrier, China could easily save 10 years by using the Varyeg as a learning experience to figure out what works (and does not work) for them.. Anyhow, Brazil's Sao Paulo comes quickly to mind as an example of "cheap". It was bought from France in 2000 for a mere $12. Its air wing of used A-4's was picked up from Kuwait for $70 million. I don't recall anybody ever worrying that Brazil might use its single carrier to attack the USA. I doubt that China will do so either. Vaughn |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:41:11 -0500, "vaughn"
wrote: "Bill Kambic" wrote in message .. . I don't think it's possible to have "cheap" experiences with any carrier. :-) "Cheap" is a relative concept. Further, the currency involved can be money, time, lives, etc, etc. Compared to designing and building their own carrier, China could easily save 10 years by using the Varyeg as a learning experience to figure out what works (and does not work) for them.. True enough. Anyhow, Brazil's Sao Paulo comes quickly to mind as an example of "cheap". It was bought from France in 2000 for a mere $12. Its air wing of used A-4's was picked up from Kuwait for $70 million. Well, maybe not so relevant an example. Sao Paulo replaced Misas Gerais. That ship entered service in 1956. So the Brazilian Navy and Air Force have some extended experience. How much does this ship operate? How many traps per year do the pilots get? Does the squadron stay aboard overnight? Do they do night ops? Put another way, is this an operational carrier or a symbol of national importance? By the way, I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But they are legitimate ones. I don't recall anybody ever worrying that Brazil might use its single carrier to attack the USA. I doubt that China will do so either. Last time I looked the U.S. had not extended security guarantees to any of the territory surrounding Brazil. Whether or not the Chinese have any long term confrontational plans is an open question. That they might have a series of contigency plans would be no surprise (we have them). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
"jkochko68" wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 1:56 pm, Timur wrote: http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv I would not be overly worried about that carrier. Our recon. sats will have eyes on it 24/7 and with B-52s with tomahawks its a sitting duck. There are a couple of problems with this theory 1) Recon satellites are not able to monitor a given ship 24/7 They are typically in polar orbits and a given satellite will only overfly a specified target for a matter of minutes per day 2) The typical antiship missile used by the B-52 is the AGM-84 Harpoon Since this has a relatively short range you wouldnt want to risk an unescorted B-52 that close to a carrier. Keith |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
On Jan 5, 12:20*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "jkochko68" wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 1:56 pm, Timur wrote: http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv I would not be overly worried about that carrier. Our recon. sats will have eyes on it 24/7 and with B-52s with tomahawks its a sitting duck. There are a couple of problems with this theory 1) Recon satellites are not able to monitor a given ship 24/7 They are typically in polar orbits and a given satellite will only overfly a specified target for a matter of minutes per day 2) The typical antiship missile used by the B-52 is the AGM-84 Harpoon Since this has a relatively short range you wouldnt want to risk an unescorted B-52 that close to a carrier. Keith I think some of the shots of the carrier building in the Ukraine, way back when, surprised the Soviets when they were published. Perhaps some improvement in oblique shots. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GA on Aircraft Carrier??? | Cockpit Colin | Piloting | 12 | January 21st 05 03:17 PM |
Newest Aircraft Carrier | Evan Williams | Naval Aviation | 2 | June 5th 04 01:00 PM |
British carrier aircraft | R4tm4ster | Naval Aviation | 2 | May 1st 04 08:17 AM |
launching V-1s from an aircraft carrier | Gordon | Military Aviation | 34 | July 29th 03 11:14 PM |