Is China building a Carrier

[korppi76]

I just noticed this:
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/a...0812_1_n.shtml

[akash]

I think China is afraid of the IN because it is accquiring two carriers by 2015 and possibly building more. China needs a carrier of its own now.

[DalerMehndi]

Last time i checked, that one carrier that China bought (The Varyag i think) was being converted into a flaoting casino. I also heard that hte Kuznetsov-class carriers are extremly ineffective for combat operations and that that was why India did not purchase the carrier when it was initially offered to it.

As for the IN, i think its strategy is to have a large number of smaller aircraft carriers instead of building a small number of large carriers. I still kind of wish India would purchase a Nimitiz class carrier(or something similar in size or capability). They look awesome and they are virtually indestructable.


By the way, do any of you known how many modern ships the Chinese navy has?

[Francois]

I wonder what plane they would park on it.
Plus need engines, this boat. AFAIK, those were removed in Ukraina before sending it to China.

[generation_x]

I wonder what plane they would park on it.
Plus need engines, this boat. AFAIK, those were removed in Ukraina before sending it to China.

What about the Mig 29's they have

[Officer of Engineers]

What about the Mig 29's they have

The Chinese don't have MiG-29s.

[Unipidity]

a -27 variant no doubt.

When you say a Nimitz is indestructable, do you mean unsinkable? Cause it sure as hell can be mission-killed.

[JBodnar39]

By the way, do any of you known how many modern ships the Chinese navy has?[/QUOTE]

They have a pair of Sovremennys they bougth from Russia and a pair of T52B's (with SAN-12) and T52C's (with a version of the SAN6) that may or may not be fullyoperational. Beyond that their surface force sports a lot of SSMs but very very little in the way of air/missle defense.

[TopHatter]

When you say a Nimitz is indestructable, do you mean unsinkable? Cause it sure as hell can be mission-killed.

Obviously no ship is unsinkable and certainly not un-mission-killable.
Anything created by man can be destroyed by man.

On other side of the coin...

When you consider the expert and battle damage-experienced design*, stout construction, skilled D/C crews, massive size, large and technologically advanced airwing, half a dozen powerful surface and subsurface escorts, then you can be sure that if you are successful in damaging a Nimitz-class, then you yourself will probably not be around to brag about it afterwards.

IMHO, one of the biggest dangers facing a supercarrier nowadays is if a small boat is allowed to inside her screen and collide with the carrier, like this incident
USS John F Kennedy could have been seriously damaged in just such an incident if that dhow had been packed to the gunwhales with explosives or worse, a Improvised Nuclear Device or even just a radiological bomb.



*Gleaned from Forrestal, Enterprise, Oriskany etc

[sparten]

TH,
A carrier is very vulnerable especially if it is caught with a strike force on its deck. Just ask the Japanese from Midway.

[Francois]

TH,
A carrier is very vulnerable especially if it is caught with a strike force on its deck. Just ask the Japanese from Midway.

That's why it needs an escort, just ask the US Navy.

[sparten]

That's why it needs an escort, just ask the US Navy.

I mean lots of people seem to thinks the Nimitzs as being unsinkable.

[Francois]

I mean lots of people seem to thinks the Nimitzs as being unsinkable.

Well, it is sinkable, if you manage to get the correct asset close enough to hit it.
Now, since WWII, the US have been working on ways to secure the 200nm around the CV, in the 4 dimensions.
So, the work is rather complicate.

[rickusn]

Unfortunately this is no longer true:

" half a dozen powerful surface and subsurface escorts"

Twenty years ago the nominal CVBG was:

2 CG
2 DDG
2 DD
4-6 FF/FFG
2 SSN

In the early 1990's this was reduced to:

2 CG
4 DDG/FFG/DD
2 SSN

With enough Burkes coming into service in the late 1990's it was:

2 CG
2 DDG
2 DD
2 FFG
2 SSN

In this decade with the demise of the Spruance class DD's, continuing construction of Burke class DDG's and the reassignment of a dozen Perry class FFG's to lesser duties along with restructuring of the USN into (12) Carrier Strike Groups, (12) Expeditionary Strike Groups and (9) Surface Strike Groups the nominal makeup of each formation is:

CSG
1 CG
2 DDG
1 SSN

ESG
1 CG
1 DDG
1 FFG(This unit will begin being replaced by a DDG in some ESG's beginning next year and eventually by a DD(X) if any ever get built.)
1 SSN

SSG
3 DDG

As you can see this drives a requirement for 99 Surface Combatants but only:

22 CG
46 DDG
12 FFG

80 Total escorts are available.

This is why the USN wants to reduce the # of ESG's and CSG's.

SSG's are seldom formed now. The USN would like to assign an SSN to those formations also but there are not eough units to go around.

The Sea swap program is also partially mitigating the effects of the escort shortage.

With another 18 FFG used mostly in the Western Hemisphere for counter-narcotics duties.

With one Atlantic Fleet FFG always in the NATO Atlantic Squadron.

Worse still another ship often part of a deployed CSG is chopped to the NATO MED Squadron.

The last Spruance class DD has returned from Japan and will decommission in September.

The last non-VLS Ticonderoga class CG will return from deployment in November and be decommissioned shortly thereafter.

Two more Burke DDG's will be commissioned before the end of the year. One in November and one in December.

[Francois]

I agree with you rick, but again, these are peace time formations.
In case of war, it would be another thing. I know, they can't take boats from their sleeves, but at least, the lower duties will become history, and assets rearrange.

Now, to talk about chinese cv ops, they do not have that much protection assets, no aircraft to put on it (as of today), no AEW, no underwater asset to follow.
Beside this, carrier ops are nothing like an easy thing to do.
USN has been on the job for almost 80 years, as the Europeans.
Look at India, they still have troubles to keep their boat at sea.

One good cv has a 60% availability. If it is 5%, it is just loosing tax-payers money. (I have nothing against India, plz don't misunderstand me).