If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
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). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
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... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Varyag aircraft carrier
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GA on Aircraft Carrier??? | Cockpit Colin | Piloting | 12 | January 21st 05 03:17 PM |
Newest Aircraft Carrier | Evan Williams | Naval Aviation | 2 | June 5th 04 01:00 PM |
British carrier aircraft | R4tm4ster | Naval Aviation | 2 | May 1st 04 08:17 AM |
launching V-1s from an aircraft carrier | Gordon | Military Aviation | 34 | July 29th 03 11:14 PM |