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.

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).

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

"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

"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

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

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

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 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

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?