Varyag aircraft carrier

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

"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

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

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.

"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

"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

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.

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.

"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

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