Varyag aircraft carrier

[Timur]

http://x.bbs.sina.com.cn/forum/pic/4e286bac010472cv

[Mark Test[_3_]]

"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/varyagtransform.htm


Mark

[jkochko68]

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

[mkf]

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.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"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

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"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

[Jack Linthicum]

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.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

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.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"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

[jkochko68]

> 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

True but a ship can only move so far each day and once you start using
multiple
sats you can get the location of the carrier down well enough for a
maritime recon.
BUFF to get a fix. Then you always have the shadow ships, subs, planes
SOSUS (if in area) ...
Its not like we are talking about Brazil having a potent navy with
(pehaps) few major Air Force
and Navy bases in theatre. We have Taiwan to help out, Japan, S. Korea
etc. and major bases. With
the end of the Cold War we have a large lack of true demand for our
naval assets especially our submarines...the Navy
would gladly track that ship to ensure its budget.
>
> 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.

Easier solution. Two or three F/A-22s with LGB bunker busters into the
flight deck. It would probably be the fastest carrier to sink.

JK

>
> Keith

[frank]

On Jan 5, 4:52*pm, jkochko68 > wrote:
> > 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
>
> True but a ship can only move so far each day and once you start using
> multiple
> sats you can get the location of the carrier down well enough for a
> maritime recon.
> BUFF to get a fix. Then you always have the shadow ships, subs, planes
> SOSUS (if in area) ...
> Its not like we are talking about Brazil having a potent navy with
> (pehaps) few major Air Force
> and Navy bases in theatre. We have Taiwan to help out, Japan, S. Korea
> etc. and major bases. With
> the end of the Cold War we have a large lack of true demand for our
> naval assets especially our submarines...the Navy
> would gladly track that ship to ensure its budget.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Easier solution. Two or three F/A-22s with LGB bunker busters into the
> flight deck. It would probably be the fastest carrier to sink.
>
> JK
>
>
>
> > Keith

SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving away
the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.

Also you don't need bunker busters to take out a carrier.

Probably use a more modern platform than a B-52 on the anti ship
missiles. We really get mad we can sow the probably lanes of transit
with air dropped mines. From either a B-2 or a B-1.

Thinking about it, wouldn't take much to sew up the China coast with a
bunch of air dropped mines. Start losing shipping, insurance rates go
up, shippers won't go there.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

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).

[Chris]

On Jan 5, 6:15*pm, frank > wrote:

> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving away
> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.

Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are fewer
NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
provide.

And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS (the
acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the fall
of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start in
the mid 1990's).

Chris Manteuffel

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
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.

I am sure they hav BUT good photos of a shipyard are a far cry form real
time surveillance.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"jkochko68" > wrote in message
...
>
>> 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
>
> True but a ship can only move so far each day and once you start using
> multiple
> sats you can get the location of the carrier down well enough for a
> maritime recon.

At 25 knots you can move move a hell of a long way in 24 hours. Do the math
the area to search is pi*r*r where r is 24*25 in nautical miles, thats a
LARGE
search area


> BUFF to get a fix. Then you always have the shadow ships, subs, planes
> SOSUS (if in area) ...

B-52's dont have good maritime search radar

> Its not like we are talking about Brazil having a potent navy with
> (pehaps) few major Air Force
> and Navy bases in theatre. We have Taiwan to help out, Japan, S. Korea
> etc. and major bases. With
> the end of the Cold War we have a large lack of true demand for our
> naval assets especially our submarines...the Navy
> would gladly track that ship to ensure its budget.


None of which helps find a carrier using recon birds or defends a B-52 if it
strays within
Harpoon range of a carrier.

>>
>> 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.
>
> Easier solution. Two or three F/A-22s with LGB bunker busters into the
> flight deck. It would probably be the fastest carrier to sink.
>
> JK
>

First find your carrier - its harder than you think.
Second - defend the strikke assets from carrier fighters.

Keith

[Dan[_9_]]

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

So, when do you think America will ever elect a communist???

Don't even try to look even more foolish and claim we already have...

Dan

[Dan[_12_]]

Chris wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, frank > wrote:
>
>> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving away
>> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
>
> Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are fewer
> NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
> because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
> vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
> provide.
>
> And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS (the
> acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the fall
> of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
> needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start in
> the mid 1990's).
>
> Chris Manteuffel

Back during the depths of the Cold War I thought it would have been
fun to tweak the Soviet's version of SOSUS by deliberately sinking a
retired U.S. submarine in such a way the Soviets would detect it. It
would have been a gas to sit back and watch the Soviets going nuts
trying to figure out what happened.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[jkochko68]

> At 25 knots you can move move a hell of a long way in 24 hours. Do the math
> the area to search is pi*r*r where r is 24*25 in nautical miles, thats a
> LARGE
> search area

I'm not an expert but won't a sat in a polar orbit, orbit the Earth
once every 90 minutes? So like I said before if you
are using three, four or more sats its going to get darn near
impossible to evade detection assuming your carrier and rest
of the strike group are not stealthy and actually get to where you
need to go in order to conduct your mission. Of course
you can attack the sats but that shoots the hell out of the catching
your foe unprepared and perhaps will be viewed as a major
provocative act. If China and Taiwan get hot that may be viewed as one
thing but if China goes after strategic U.S. assets...

[jkochko68]

Yeah that was off-topic...thats best left for some other group. I'm
sure Taiwan will have to re-structure its air defense to deal
with this carrier. Most of their Patriot and early warning radar
systems are probably oriented to the west generally. I guess that
depends on how close the Chinese air bases are to Taiwan. I figure its
about 200 miles from the Chinese coast to Taiwan and back and if you
come in from the east you would probably stay at least 100 miles out
from Taiwan before attacking assuming the air defense is thinner
on the eastern side. That would eat up a decent amount of combat
radius in their strikers.

So a carrier strike group could create a somewhat credible threat to
Taiwan if its air wing could cripple Taiwan's air force before
evacuating to using the major
highway system. There have been rumors of a plan to do just that if
China can take out its runways. The logistics of that would be truly
nightmarish though...

>
> So, when do you think America will ever elect a communist???
>
> Don't even try to look even more foolish and claim we already have...
>
> Dan

[David E. Powell]

On Jan 5, 8:14*pm, Dan > wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, frank > wrote:
>
> >> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving away
> >> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
>
> > Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are fewer
> > NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
> > because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
> > vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
> > provide.
>
> > And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS (the
> > acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the fall
> > of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
> > needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start in
> > the mid 1990's).
>
> > Chris Manteuffel
>
> * *Back during the depths of the Cold War I thought it would have been
> fun to tweak the Soviet's version of SOSUS by deliberately sinking a
> retired U.S. submarine in such a way the Soviets would detect it. It
> would have been a gas to sit back and watch the Soviets going nuts
> trying to figure out what happened.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Like a retired GUPPY (Or pre Guppy) sunk in a deep spot right near
their cable?

[frank]

On Jan 5, 7:27*pm, jkochko68 > wrote:
> > At 25 knots you can move move a hell of a long way in 24 hours. Do the math
> > the area to search is pi*r*r where r is 24*25 in nautical miles, thats a
> > LARGE
> > search area
>
> I'm not an expert but won't a sat in a polar orbit, orbit the Earth
> once every 90 minutes? So like I said before if you
> are using three, four or more sats its going to get darn near
> impossible to evade detection assuming your carrier and rest
> of the strike group are not stealthy and actually get to where you
> need to go in order to conduct your mission. Of course
> you can attack the sats but that shoots the hell out of the catching
> your foe unprepared and perhaps will be viewed as a major
> provocative act. If China and Taiwan get hot that may be viewed as one
> thing but if China goes after strategic U.S. assets...


yeah but its the SU that had all the LEO sats that they spit out like
popcorn kernals. Ours were higher. Mostly. They were pretty good at
launching for specific targets of opportunity. we never did that.

[frank]

On Jan 5, 7:10*pm, Dan > wrote:
> 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
>
> So, when do you think America will ever elect a communist???
>
> Don't even try to look even more foolish and claim we already have...
>
> Dan

Didn't you get your Bircher newsletter? Ike was the first. Had Commies
in State, Treasury, the Army, The HEALTH DEPT by God, floridation.....

Birchers are co sponsoring the Conservative Causus this year. Stay
tuned could get really interesting.

[frank]

On Jan 5, 6:16*pm, Chris > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:15*pm, frank > wrote:
>
> > SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving away
> > the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
>
> Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are fewer
> NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
> because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
> vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
> provide.
>
> And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS (the
> acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the fall
> of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
> needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start in
> the mid 1990's).
>
> Chris Manteuffel

Not even close to what it was. In large part due to prop design on
their end. Some other engineering stuff.

Walker did a ton of damage. Pollard came close for a lot of other
reasons. Unfortunately both are well fed. I could see civic programs
to find old fallout shelter supplies and ship them to those two in the
prison system. Without a can opener. Give them some incentive in their
cells.

[Dan[_12_]]

frank wrote:
> On Jan 5, 7:10 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> 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
>> So, when do you think America will ever elect a communist???
>>
>> Don't even try to look even more foolish and claim we already have...
>>
>> Dan
>
> Didn't you get your Bircher newsletter? Ike was the first. Had Commies
> in State, Treasury, the Army, The HEALTH DEPT by God, floridation.....
>
> Birchers are co sponsoring the Conservative Causus this year. Stay
> tuned could get really interesting.

Henry Wallace, one of FDR's vice-presidents had definite communist
tendencies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"jkochko68" > wrote in message
...
>
>> At 25 knots you can move move a hell of a long way in 24 hours. Do the
>> math
>> the area to search is pi*r*r where r is 24*25 in nautical miles, thats a
>> LARGE
>> search area
>
> I'm not an expert but won't a sat in a polar orbit, orbit the Earth
> once every 90 minutes?

More like 100 and the earth rotates under it so it doesnt return to the
same spot. Any given location will be visited once a day or so.
The very detailed pictures that recon birds return paradoxically
makes searching the returned pictures for the carrier group
a painstaking job. Imagine using Google StreetView to scan a
medium sized town for a single vehicle.


Satellite orbits are predictable and minimising their overflight is
a tactic that any competent naval commander understands.

Reconnnaisance satellites are excellent tools for examining
a specified location but they are very limited when it comes
to real time maritime search. This is why the US uses the P3 Orion


> So like I said before if you
> are using three, four or more sats its going to get darn near
> impossible to evade detection assuming your carrier and rest
> of the strike group are not stealthy and actually get to where you
> need to go in order to conduct your mission.


Incorrect and the assumption that you know the mission is likely
to be wrong. In Dec 1941 the USN thought the mission of the
IJN carriers would be Malaya , the NEI or the Phillipines.

Oops

> Of course
> you can attack the sats but that shoots the hell out of the catching
> your foe unprepared and perhaps will be viewed as a major
> provocative act. If China and Taiwan get hot that may be viewed as one
> thing but if China goes after strategic U.S. assets...

China cannot realistically interdict strategic US assets with a carrier.
Its much more likely they want to project power tactically in disputed
areas such as the Spratly's where their rivals dont have that capability.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"jkochko68" > wrote in message
...
> Well I recall that when the Air Force was considering a shuttle
> program of their own and building a launch
> complex out at Vanderberg they had a abort base up in Alaska so if
> something went wrong the shuttle could land
> their after only one orbit or even abort to it if it could not make
> orbit for some reason. There was a requirement that
> it had to have about 200 miles of cross range min. so it could make
> use of different fields not directly along its glidepath.
> Those larger wings may even help it bank hard on reentry back and
> forth to high AOA to bleed to bleed off its speed.
>
> The 200 mile cross range was b/c thats roughly how far away one pt. on
> Earth would be after a 90 minute orbit.
>

Very interesting but entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand


>> More like 100 and the earth rotates under it so it doesnt return to the
>> same spot. Any given location will be visited once a day or so.
>> The very detailed pictures that recon birds return paradoxically
>> makes searching the returned pictures for the carrier group
>> a painstaking job. Imagine using Google StreetView to scan a
>> medium sized town for a single vehicle.
>>
>> Satellite orbits are predictable and minimising their overflight is
>> a tactic that any competent naval commander understands.
>
> Yeah but dodging multiple sats.,,, and I seriously doubt
> our intel would be studying photos of the ocean. More likely they
> would
> look at thermal and radar blimps the computer brought to their
> attention.

What radar blips ?

Radar satellites are an entirely different animal to recon birds. They
require
large power sources and typically have low orbits that decay rapidly.

The former USSR spent large amounts of cash on RORSAT's , they were nuclear
powered and rather expensive. Now there are a number of SAR satellites out
there
which are typically used for weather surveillance. In theory such birds can
be used to track ships wakes but you still need to confirm you are dealing
with
a carrier not a container ship.

U.S. Air Force and Space Command are developing a satellite constellation
known
as Space-Based Radar which will have martimime recon capability however the
first operational spacecraft will not be launched before 2015 and the plans
call for a
constellation of only nine satellites


Work is proceeding on using commercial SAR for semi-autonomous ship
detection systems.
Dedicated algorithms can yield information on ship size, shape and even
speed
based on Doppler effects extracted from displaced ship wakes in the SAR
signal.
but these systems are not yet fielded in quantity and still only give you an
indication
of ship size and speed. There are an awful lot of bulk carriers, Panamax
container ships
and tankers that will provide similar radar returns to a carrier.


> Its
> likely the task force would not be using the shipping lanes so they
> would further stand out.
>

Not a wise assumption if you consider such a force a serious threat.

Keith

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jan 5, 7:49*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> 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.
>
> I am sure they hav BUT good photos of a shipyard are a far cry form real
> time surveillance.
>
> Keith

You have to know that it is there, the state of its being complete
before you can target the place for further information. I would say
the knowledge that it was an aircraft carrier, hole for the elevator
gave it away I seem to remember, is enough to start on.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jan 5, 9:04*pm, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 8:14*pm, Dan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Chris wrote:
> > > On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, frank > wrote:
>
> > >> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving away
> > >> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
>
> > > Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are fewer
> > > NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
> > > because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
> > > vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
> > > provide.
>
> > > And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS (the
> > > acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the fall
> > > of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
> > > needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start in
> > > the mid 1990's).
>
> > > Chris Manteuffel
>
> > * *Back during the depths of the Cold War I thought it would have been
> > fun to tweak the Soviet's version of SOSUS by deliberately sinking a
> > retired U.S. submarine in such a way the Soviets would detect it. It
> > would have been a gas to sit back and watch the Soviets going nuts
> > trying to figure out what happened.
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Like a retired GUPPY (Or pre Guppy) sunk in a deep spot right near
> their cable?

And reveal that we knew where their cable was, what it was used for
and perhaps that we were running submarines they couldn't detect into
their defense zone?

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jan 6, 3:00*am, Dan > wrote:
> frank wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 7:10 pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> 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
> >> So, when do you think America will ever elect a communist???
>
> >> Don't even try to look even more foolish and claim we already have...
>
> >> Dan
>
> > Didn't you get your Bircher newsletter? Ike was the first. Had Commies
> > in State, Treasury, the Army, The HEALTH DEPT by God, floridation.....
>
> > Birchers are co sponsoring the Conservative Causus this year. Stay
> > tuned could get really interesting.
>
> * *Henry Wallace, one of FDR's vice-presidents had definite communist
> tendencies.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Which were?

[jkochko68]

Well I recall that when the Air Force was considering a shuttle
program of their own and building a launch
complex out at Vanderberg they had a abort base up in Alaska so if
something went wrong the shuttle could land
their after only one orbit or even abort to it if it could not make
orbit for some reason. There was a requirement that
it had to have about 200 miles of cross range min. so it could make
use of different fields not directly along its glidepath.
Those larger wings may even help it bank hard on reentry back and
forth to high AOA to bleed to bleed off its speed.

The 200 mile cross range was b/c thats roughly how far away one pt. on
Earth would be after a 90 minute orbit.

> More like 100 and the earth rotates under it so it doesnt return to the
> same spot. Any given location will be visited once a day or so.
> The very detailed pictures that recon birds return paradoxically
> makes searching the returned pictures for the carrier group
> a painstaking job. Imagine using Google StreetView to scan a
> medium sized town for a single vehicle.
>
> Satellite orbits are predictable and minimising their overflight is
> a tactic that any competent naval commander understands.

Yeah but dodging multiple sats.,,, and I seriously doubt
our intel would be studying photos of the ocean. More likely they
would
look at thermal and radar blimps the computer brought to their
attention. Its
likely the task force would not be using the shipping lanes so they
would further stand out.

JK

[Chris]

On Jan 6, 7:43*am, jkochko68 > wrote:

> There was a requirement that
> it had to have about 200 miles of cross range min. so it could make
> use of different fields not directly along its glidepath.

This might be true (I've never heard of a AOA abort site in Alaska,
but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one) but it was not the main
imposition on cross range that the USAF put in. The USAF demanded over
a thousand miles of cross range for Reference Mission 3A and 3B. Those
two missions were for a spacecraft to take off from VAFB, going south,
either release or recover a satellite, and land back at VAFB after a
single orbit.

> The 200 mile cross range was b/c thats roughly how far away one pt. on
> Earth would be after a 90 minute orbit.

You can see just from first principles that this must be wrong. The
earth takes 24 hours to rotate all the way around. So 90 minutes would
be 1/16th of the total rotation. The earth's mean circumference is
40,041 KM. 1/16th of that is 2,502 KM, or 1,555 miles. That is
roughly how far away one point on earth would be after a 90 minute
orbit. The farther away from the equator you go, the smaller the
number, until you get to the Pole (best case) where it's 0, but that's
the worst case; average case would be half that, or 777 miles.

Perhaps 200 miles of cross range would be enough for an abort to
Alaska- but Reference Mission 3A and 3B required landing at VAFB, from
whence the Shuttle had come. That was because there simply wasn't
enough time to release a sat (or recover one) if you were going to
make a landing in Alaska.[1] And at VAFB's latitude, one needs about
1200 miles of cross range to account for the rotation of the earth and
have a bit of a safety factor. So that was a major design constraint
on the space shuttle.

> Yeah but dodging multiple sats.,,, and I seriously doubt

Is not that hard.

For the infamous NORPAC '82 exercise, the USS Midway and USS
Enterprise operated for 4-5 days about 200 nm off Petropavlovsk,
launching alpha strikes each day (but on the reciprocal heading to the
Soviet naval base) without being detected by airplanes, sats, or subs
(as best we can tell by Soviet reaction). And that was against the
Soviet ship detection capabilities: they invested a heck of a lot more
in that than we did, because they were far more threatened by the USN
than we were by the fUSSR Navy. They had a great number of Bears,
launched quite a few satellites (both RADSATs and Ferrets), etc. So it
is surely not impossible.

> Its
> likely the task force would not be using the shipping lanes so they
> would further stand out.

Why do you think that? If the enemy knows that avoiding shipping lanes
makes you stand out, why wouldn't they use shipping lanes? It's not
that hard to be on a shipping lane but not seen by any green ships if
you have a 10+ knot speed advantage over them and can run your civ nav
radars. Also, bad weather and night are quite handy for hiding in.

[1]: RM-3 was built around the concern that multiple orbits by the
big huge shuttle would make it easy for the Soviets to figure out the
exact orbit of the spy sat, so we wouldn't give them much time to get
their tracking perfect by simply doing it so quickly: one pass over
the USSR and back down. Now, by 1977 the USAF/NRO seems to have
decided that RM-3 wasn't important any more, and focused more on RM-4
(a bit more payload, but not the tight single orbit requirements)
after they thought more about how to use spy sats, but the shuttle
design was already finalized at that point. Faget's original design
track, which would have provided much less cross range (on the order
of a few hundred miles) had been binned, in favor of the big heavy
delta wings necessary to provide enough lift in the hypersonic region
of the flight to get 1500 miles of cross range that the military
demanded for RM-3.

Chris Manteuffel

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jan 6, 11:43*am, Chris > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 7:43*am, jkochko68 > wrote:
>
> > There was a requirement that
> > it had to have about 200 miles of cross range min. so it could make
> > use of different fields not directly along its glidepath.
>
> This might be true (I've never heard of a AOA abort site in Alaska,
> but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one) but it was not the main
> imposition on cross range that the USAF put in. The USAF demanded over
> a thousand miles of cross range for Reference Mission 3A and 3B. Those
> two missions were for a spacecraft to take off from VAFB, going south,
> either release or recover a satellite, and land back at VAFB after a
> single orbit.
>
> > The 200 mile cross range was b/c thats roughly how far away one pt. on
> > Earth would be after a 90 minute orbit.
>
> You can see just from first principles that this must be wrong. The
> earth takes 24 hours to rotate all the way around. So 90 minutes would
> be 1/16th of the total rotation. The earth's mean circumference is
> 40,041 KM. *1/16th of that is 2,502 KM, or 1,555 miles. That is
> roughly how far away one point on earth would be after a 90 minute
> orbit. The farther away from the equator you go, the smaller the
> number, until you get to the Pole (best case) where it's 0, but that's
> the worst case; average case would be half that, or 777 miles.
>
> Perhaps 200 miles of cross range would be enough for an abort to
> Alaska- but Reference Mission 3A and 3B required landing at VAFB, from
> whence the Shuttle had come. That was because there simply wasn't
> enough time to release a sat (or recover one) if you were going to
> make a landing in Alaska.[1] And at VAFB's latitude, one needs about
> 1200 miles of cross range to account for the rotation of the earth and
> have a bit of a safety factor. So that was a major design constraint
> on the space shuttle.
>
> > Yeah but dodging multiple sats.,,, and I seriously doubt
>
> Is not that hard.
>
> For the infamous NORPAC '82 exercise, the USS Midway and USS
> Enterprise operated for 4-5 days about 200 nm off Petropavlovsk,
> launching alpha strikes each day (but on the reciprocal heading to the
> Soviet naval base) without being detected by airplanes, sats, or subs
> (as best we can tell by Soviet reaction). And that was against the
> Soviet ship detection capabilities: they invested a heck of a lot more
> in that than we did, because they were far more threatened by the USN
> than we were by the fUSSR Navy. They had a great number of Bears,
> launched quite a few satellites (both RADSATs and Ferrets), etc. So it
> is surely not impossible.
>
> > *Its
> > likely the task force would not be using the shipping lanes so they
> > would further stand out.
>
> Why do you think that? If the enemy knows that avoiding shipping lanes
> makes you stand out, why wouldn't they use shipping lanes? It's not
> that hard to be on a shipping lane but not seen by any green ships if
> you have a 10+ knot speed advantage over them and can run your civ nav
> radars. Also, bad weather and night are quite handy for hiding in.
>
> [1]: *RM-3 was built around the concern that multiple orbits by the
> big huge shuttle would make it easy for the Soviets to figure out the
> exact orbit of the spy sat, so we wouldn't give them much time to get
> their tracking perfect by simply doing it so quickly: one pass over
> the USSR and back down. Now, by 1977 the USAF/NRO seems to have
> decided that RM-3 wasn't important any more, and focused more on RM-4
> (a bit more payload, but not the tight single orbit requirements)
> after they thought more about how to use spy sats, but the shuttle
> design was already finalized at that point. Faget's original design
> track, which would have provided much less cross range (on the order
> of a few hundred miles) had been binned, in favor of the big heavy
> delta wings necessary to provide enough lift in the hypersonic region
> of the flight to get 1500 miles of cross range that the military
> demanded for RM-3.
>
> Chris Manteuffel

Smaller distance at higher latitudes. One source gives 9,905.2 miles,
ie your 1/16th would be 619 miles. If you are only going the distance
from Vandenberg to Alaska the distance is something like 1500 miles.
The speed of an orbital launch is about 26000 feet per second,
traveling that 1500 miles in about 5 minutes. Your precession is then
in the 165 mile region, fudging makes it 2000 miles.

[tankfixer]

In article <01fc4d1c-6a6e-4840-b78a-f85f58d971a7
@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> On Jan 5, 9:04*pm, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 8:14*pm, Dan > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Chris wrote:
> > > > On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, frank > wrote:
> >
> > > >> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving away
> > > >> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
> >
> > > > Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are fewer
> > > > NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
> > > > because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
> > > > vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
> > > > provide.
> >
> > > > And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS (the
> > > > acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the fall
> > > > of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
> > > > needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start in
> > > > the mid 1990's).
> >
> > > > Chris Manteuffel
> >
> > > * *Back during the depths of the Cold War I thought it would have been
> > > fun to tweak the Soviet's version of SOSUS by deliberately sinking a
> > > retired U.S. submarine in such a way the Soviets would detect it. It
> > > would have been a gas to sit back and watch the Soviets going nuts
> > > trying to figure out what happened.
> >
> > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > Like a retired GUPPY (Or pre Guppy) sunk in a deep spot right near
> > their cable?
>
> And reveal that we knew where their cable was, what it was used for
> and perhaps that we were running submarines they couldn't detect into
> their defense zone?

Not that we would EVER do such things.. ;')

[Mark Test[_3_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article <01fc4d1c-6a6e-4840-b78a-f85f58d971a7
> @j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, says...
>>
>> On Jan 5, 9:04 pm, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
>> > On Jan 5, 8:14 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Chris wrote:
>> > > > On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, frank > wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving
>> > > >> away
>> > > >> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
>> >
>> > > > Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are
>> > > > fewer
>> > > > NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
>> > > > because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
>> > > > vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
>> > > > provide.
>> >
Really? Then how come the SURTASS fleet has been retired? We once had
over 24 ships, now there are 4.

>> > > > And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS
>> > > > (the
>> > > > acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the
>> > > > fall
>> > > > of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
>> > > > needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start
>> > > > in
>> > > > the mid 1990's).
>> >
>> > > > Chris Manteuffel
>> >
>> > > Back during the depths of the Cold War I thought it would have
>> > > been
>> > > fun to tweak the Soviet's version of SOSUS by deliberately sinking a
>> > > retired U.S. submarine in such a way the Soviets would detect it. It
>> > > would have been a gas to sit back and watch the Soviets going nuts
>> > > trying to figure out what happened.
>> >
>> > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> >
>> > Like a retired GUPPY (Or pre Guppy) sunk in a deep spot right near
>> > their cable?
>>
>> And reveal that we knew where their cable was, what it was used for
>> and perhaps that we were running submarines they couldn't detect into
>> their defense zone?
>
> Not that we would EVER do such things.. ;')

SOSUS has been integrated into IUSS (Integrated Undersea Surveillance
System),
a small part of a larger network. So, SOSUS is still alive, but much
smaller due to
a much smaller ASW threat. Also, newer systems had to be developed to
counter
quieter submarines.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/iuss.htm

Mark

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <01fc4d1c-6a6e-4840-b78a-f85f58d971a7
> > @j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, says...
> >>
> >> On Jan 5, 9:04 pm, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
> >> > On Jan 5, 8:14 pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Chris wrote:
> >> > > > On Jan 5, 6:15 pm, frank > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >> SOSUS was retired and shut down. Little thing with Walker giving
> >> > > >> away
> >> > > >> the candy store to the SU on how we tracked subs.
> >> >
> >> > > > Completely wrong. SOSUS is still operational, though there are
> >> > > > fewer
> >> > > > NAVFAC's operating and now SURTASS is generally preferred: both
> >> > > > because of the operational flexibility that the T-AGOS have and the
> >> > > > vastly easier maintenance (and upgrade) opportunities that they
> >> > > > provide.
> >> >
> Really? Then how come the SURTASS fleet has been retired? We once had
> over 24 ships, now there are 4.

Mark, please check your attributions..
I didn't write the bit above.

>
> >> > > > And Walker doesn't really match the timelines for when the IUSS
> >> > > > (the
> >> > > > acronym for the combination of the two) started to decline: the
> >> > > > fall
> >> > > > of the USSR and the dramatic drop in the number of submarines we
> >> > > > needed to track in the open ocean does (the drawdown seems to start
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > the mid 1990's).
> >> >
> >> > > > Chris Manteuffel
> >> >
> >> > > Back during the depths of the Cold War I thought it would have
> >> > > been
> >> > > fun to tweak the Soviet's version of SOSUS by deliberately sinking a
> >> > > retired U.S. submarine in such a way the Soviets would detect it. It
> >> > > would have been a gas to sit back and watch the Soviets going nuts
> >> > > trying to figure out what happened.
> >> >
> >> > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >> >
> >> > Like a retired GUPPY (Or pre Guppy) sunk in a deep spot right near
> >> > their cable?
> >>
> >> And reveal that we knew where their cable was, what it was used for
> >> and perhaps that we were running submarines they couldn't detect into
> >> their defense zone?
> >
> > Not that we would EVER do such things.. ;')
>
> SOSUS has been integrated into IUSS (Integrated Undersea Surveillance
> System),
> a small part of a larger network. So, SOSUS is still alive, but much
> smaller due to
> a much smaller ASW threat. Also, newer systems had to be developed to
> counter
> quieter submarines.
>
> http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/iuss.htm
>
> Mark

I was reffering to Ivy Bells..

[Timur]

future 5th gen fighter concept images:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/8a69ac0547c99ccc/dc8ab06e7daf4fe7?lnk=raot#dc8ab06e7daf4fe7