Varyag aircraft carrier

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.

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.

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.

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

"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

"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

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.

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?

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?

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