PDA

View Full Version : Is China building a Carrier



korppi76
25 Aug 05,, 09:56
I just noticed this:
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/jdw/jdw050812_1_n.shtml

akash
25 Aug 05,, 15:04
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
26 Aug 05,, 04:39
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
26 Aug 05,, 05:08
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
26 Aug 05,, 05:25
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
26 Aug 05,, 05:27
What about the Mig 29's they have
The Chinese don't have MiG-29s.

Unipidity
26 Aug 05,, 08:30
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
27 Aug 05,, 17:41
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
27 Aug 05,, 21:32
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 (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-08052004-343606.html)
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
28 Aug 05,, 11:18
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
28 Aug 05,, 16:42
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
28 Aug 05,, 18:06
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
29 Aug 05,, 00:25
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
29 Aug 05,, 01:51
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
29 Aug 05,, 03:55
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).

DalerMehndi
29 Aug 05,, 03:56
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.
yeah, i can't imagine how you would sink one of those(without nukes). It can easily be mission killed if something manages to damage its runway and/or its superstructure.

rickusn
29 Aug 05,, 15:49
"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."

Actually they are wartime formations. But in case of escalation of conflict the below is theoretically proposed to happen:

"In larger scale conflict or higher threat scenarios, combining multiple CVSGs with SAGs and ESGs would provide the level of combat capability, power projection and force protection required. This consolidated group is known as the expeditionary strike force (ESF)."

How easily this could be accomplished if each individual formation is engaged in disaparate actions simoltaneously possibly widely separated by geographical distance becomes problematic.

This scenario is being mitigated by FRP inititiatives to be able to "surge" forces rapidly.

Still in all a relative lack of escorts accross the board undermines the ability of Carrier Strike Groups to have adequate resources to deal effectively and efficiently with any and all threats to the group.

sparten
29 Aug 05,, 19:02
Rick, how likely is it that a warship will get close enough to a carrier group to be able to sink the carrier. And, remebering the fact that no kamakazis actually sank a US CV, how would SSMs do against a carrier.

rickusn
29 Aug 05,, 19:27
Not tp put you off but any "real" info on carrier vulnerabilities is highly classified.

But it would take alot to sink a carrier. But you dont need to sink it. Just mission kill it and SSM's could certainly do that if they can be targeted properly.

A carrier in the "littoral" environment is a huge target with many vulnerabiliies as are most warships.

In "blue water" much less so.

Submarines are the #1 threat. SSK more so in the littorals. SSN in Blue water.

Its exceedling difficult to target missles at ships at sea .

The former USSR was fully prepared to use tactical nukes to defeat all USN threats in the air, on the surface and under. For which pinpoint accuracy isnt neccessary.

TopHatter
29 Aug 05,, 23:54
I mean lots of people seem to thinks the Nimitzs as being unsinkable.

Then they are living in a fantasyland.
However....please re-read my post #9 and you'll understand why they have such confidence.
It is not entirely misplaced.
The Nimitz-class supercarrier is the most survivable warship in history.

Observe please, earlier supercarriers being damaged and surviving to fight another day.

DalerMehndi
30 Aug 05,, 00:20
They aren't unsinkable, but they are extremly difficult to sink. It seems like it would be a waste of time trying to sink a Nimitz class carrier. It would be much easier to fully disable it by destroying hte super structure, the runway and any stovl/vtol and helicopters on the carrier.

Francois
30 Aug 05,, 00:50
BTW, Rick, I noticed they removed the Phallanx from the DDGs lately.
You have an idea for the reason?

rickusn
30 Aug 05,, 01:16
They havent been removed from those that had them originally.

But the newer units were built w/o them in anticipation of the VLS quad-packed Evolved Sea Sparrow Missle coming into service.

But with delays to this missle program Phalanx has or is to be backfitted into DDG's 85-102. In addition DDG's 103-113 are to be built with Phalanx installed.

Apparently it will take some time for ESSM to proliferate through the entire fleet.

Francois
30 Aug 05,, 01:25
They havent been removed from those that had them originally.

But the newer units were built w/o them in anticipation of the VLS quad-packed Evolved Sea Sparrow Missle coming into service.

But with delays to this missle program Phalanx has or is to be backfitted into DDG's 85-102. In addition DDG's 103-113 are to be built with Phalanx installed.

Apparently it will take some time for ESSM to proliferate through the entire fleet.
Ok, thank you Rick.

Francois
30 Aug 05,, 08:45
Rick, I don't think it is in USN or any navy that has a CV to send a BG in coastal waters. They have a long arm to reach far away.
Look at Falklands war.
And in blue waters, the SSns are belongings either to friend nations, the other are not that good to talk about.

TopHatter
09 Oct 05,, 16:38
But with delays to this missle program Phalanx has or is to be backfitted into DDG's 85-102. In addition DDG's 103-113 are to be built with Phalanx installed.


That's one of the greatest assets of Phalanx. You can darn near bolt the thing anywhere, hook up a few connections and let 'er rip.

Visigoth
01 Dec 05,, 04:33
The varyag a floating casino??Don't trust those commies.http://www.varyagworld.com/How about this pretty model.