Varyag aircraft carrier

"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

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

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).