OT: China's new carrier

[dragoon500ly]

Well if any one has missed this...

The PRC has moved their former Russian Kiev-class carrier from the status of floating casino to major naval combatant (like nobody saw that one coming).

The news site that I saw this report on talked about the balance of power shifting from the US to the PRC and how the PRC would be able to contest control of the Pacific.

I was left sitting going WTF?

Now I am a cav trooper and any intrest I have in the Navy is strictly from a war-gaming stand point (Harpoon Rules!!!). But the Chinese are not going to be able to dispute control of the Pacific anytime soon, at least not with their latest toy.

The Kiev's were not considered to be very effective aircraft carriers, their major claim was the very heavy SSM, SAM armament that they carried. This heavy missile armament meant that they couldn't carry a large air group, they could not carry the fuel for extensive operations by the air group and they did not have the magazine space to support the air group. Even if the Chinese scrap the missile armament, it is believed that the carrier could not support more than 30-40 aircraft at the most (a typical US carrier can field about 85 aircraft).

There is one other point that the media has missed. China didn't build the carrier. They have no sisters under construction in any shipyard. It appears that this will be the only carrier that they will have for quite some time.

The USN, at the peak of the Cold War fielded 15 carriers, of which at least 5 were in port for minor repairs or undergoing major maintenance. A naval officer in my office laughs about this, stating that the Chinese carrier would most likely spend as much as 6-7 months of each year, in port. And since it is already an older ship, they may get as much as a dozen years of service out of her.

The only nations that are really threatned by the new Chinese ship are the Phillipines, Vietnam and Indonesia, all of whom are disupting fishing rights and oil drilling with the PRC. This will most likely result in the USN deploying 1-2 SSNs into the area whenever the carrier sails, and may see a more frequent deployment of a US carrier task group into the region.

The greatest threat that the US is facing from the Chinese (at least in a naval sort of way) is the deployment of new anti-ship missiles.

Still, reporters are proclaiming that the launching of this carrier means the end of US control of the Pacific......

[ShadoWarrior]

Still, reporters are proclaiming that the launching of this carrier means the end of US control of the Pacific

Of course they are. Because if the corporate-lackey media doesn't raise enough of a fuss then when the calls start coming in (soon) for the US to spend several hundred billion more on a new arms race and naval build-up no one will take it seriously enough to get the bills passed through Congress, despite however much lobbying the US military-industrial-politico axis does.

[Tegyrius]

The country that needs to be taking China's ongoing naval buildup very seriously is India.

- C.

[Panther Al]

I've kept a close eye on the ChiCom CV: This one really doesn't worry people in itself: Everyone seems to agree that its purpose in life is as a training platform more than a combat ship. Which doesn't mean that they won't use it for showing the flag exercises. Now, as far as more of them being made: There is no doubt that they are going blue water in a big way: but that's 15 years in the future.

And yes. India sees this, and they are going ape as you might expect. I can't recall off hand details, but they are also looking at seriously beefing up the blue water aspects of the Indian Fleet.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

I've kept a close eye on the ChiCom CV: This one really doesn't worry people in itself: Everyone seems to agree that its purpose in life is as a training platform more than a combat ship. Which doesn't mean that they won't use it for showing the flag exercises. Now, as far as more of them being made: There is no doubt that they are going blue water in a big way: but that's 15 years in the future.

And yes. India sees this, and they are going ape as you might expect. I can't recall off hand details, but they are also looking at seriously beefing up the blue water aspects of the Indian Fleet.

India are going through their own modernisation with some pretty sexy toys. Thier Pars are using the new Israeli TAR-21 assault rifle and their airforce is in a joint program with Russia to build the SU-50 which will be a direct rival to the American YF-22 and JSF aircraft.

Personaly I'm more interested in keeping an eye on India. It won't be the forst time a country pulls a fast one while eyes are focused on an apparently greater threat elsewhere in the region.

[RN7]

China has been planning to put carriers into their fleet for a long time, probably since the mid-1980's, and have brought four carriers in various states of operationality and under various guises; The Australian Melbourne, two ex-Soviet Kiev's and the incomplete Soviet Varyag, a sister ship to the Russian Kuznetsov. The Varyag (Shi Lang) would represent the best that China could hope to put out into the Pacific, and it would be little more than a flag shower as it or the Chinese navy would be seriously outclassed by a US navy carrier battle group, and the US navy currently has 11 carriers in service, excluding new builds, carriers in the reserve and the amphibous assault carriers.

The reporters on the website you read probably don't have a clue about the capability of Chinese owned aircraft carriers in comparison to US carriers.

However China does have plans to build its own carriers. Two carriers of similar dimensions to the Varyag are supposedly being planned or even building at the moment, and there is even a report that China plans to build two Type 089 nuclear powered carriers. The reliability and believability of all this is questionable, although it is likely that China does plan to eventually build its own carriers in the future.

[dragoon500ly]

I've been talking with a couple of the naval officers in my office and I know that a lot of what is going on can't be talked about due to security, but this is the opinion of two naval aviators and a sub-driver....

China wants to build a blue water navy. The on-going disputes over the Spratley Islands (and yes my spell kecker ain't working this early!) as well as a desire to be in a position to apply more pressure on Taiwan seem to be their major objectives. The aviators believe that they want to build a fleet with 3-5 medium-sized carriers sometime within the next decade or two. The smaller carriers will give them a decent capability in their area of intrest while not costing as much as a US carrier. They were most intrested in the composition of the Chinese air groups since this will hint as to the carriers role; air-defense of the fleet, anti-submarine or strike.

The sub-driver wasn't too worried about it. His opinion is that PACFLT will simply keep 1-2 SSNs in the area to monitor the situation. After all, surface targets are surface targets. The melee in the lunchroom was on!

None of the people I've talked with were very concerned about a Chinese-Indian naval build-up. Both countries simply don't have the auxiliaries to support major fleet operations in each other's area. Perhaps escalations over Tibet, maybe an accident with fighters, but the chance of a naval confrontation was consider to be remote.

Like the old saying goes, amatuers study tactics, professionals study logistics. The general opinion is that when the Chinese start building auxiliaries then they will become more of a threat.

[ShadoWarrior]

Auxiliaries don't take nearly as long to build as warships, and could be created out of merchant hulls if necessary. And the Chinese have plenty of merchant hulls they could quickly convert.

[dragoon500ly]

And that is true. The area of special concern are oilers. Naval oilers are equipped to refuel warships alongside. This does require special equipment and those ships with this equipment are tracked.

Oilers can also refuel astern, this doesn't require any special equipment, after all, you simply pass a hose along a rope line. But it is slow and is often prone to breakage. Again, a naval oiler has the additional equipment needed to refuel in all three positions (abeam and astern).

Its the amount of time needed to convert that seems to be most up in the air. If the hull of the merchantman was strengthed to support derricks, then the equipment can be mounted in as little as four days. If it doesn't have the support structure in place, then it can take longer, as much as two weeks, to complete the conversion.

Undersea replinishment is a bit more complex than simply pulling alongside and opening up the cargo hatches. A lot of modern merchantmen simply don't have the derricks to unload themselves any more, being little more than carriers of bulk material or container ships.

[ShadoWarrior]

Since strengthening the hull of a ship is not visible to satellite surveillance, and adding derricks probably wouldn't require drydocking the ship, we probably wouldn't know about it until the ship sailed, unless we got lucky and spotted the mod work during those few days. Which is doubtful, as the Chinese have a lot of docks for our satellites to observe (and the humans who have to study the pics). Basically, the Chinese can easily create the required logistics train whenever they get the warships needed to project a blue water threat.

I'd be more concerned about tracking Chinese ASW capabilities than tracking their logistics capabilities. I doubt that the Chicoms have ignored the lessons from WW2 and what the US did to Japan.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The PRC has moved their former Russian Kiev-class carrier from the status of floating casino to major naval combatant (like nobody saw that one coming).

The Varyag is not a Kiev class carrier. It is Admiral Kuznetsov class. There's a big difference. The Kiev had a much smaller flight deck and could fly only YAK-38 VTOL aircraft- a very limited airframe even at the time it was first introduced. The YAK-38's replacement, the YAK-131, never really saw the light of day. The Admiral Kutzenov, on the other hand, has a full-length flight deck, not that much shorter than that of a Nimitz class CVN, and can fly the SU-27 naval variant(s), a much more capable multi-mission aircraft.

[RN7]

Chinese Aircraft Carriers

HMAS Melbourne
British built light aircraft carrier, demilitarised and sold by Australia to China in 1985. Studied by Chinese naval architects and engineers, flight deck reportedly removed or reproduced for the secret training of Chinese Navy pilots in carrier flight operations. Carrier was rumored to have not been broken up until 2002.

Kiev & Minsk
Soviet built hybrid aircraft carrier/missile cruiser. Kiev demilitarised in 1993 and sold to China in 1996 as a theme parked ship. Minsk demilitarised in 1993 and sold to South Korea in 1995, and later sold on to China as a theme parked ship. Status of both ships are unknown other than being used as museum attractions, but both ships are likely to have been intensively studied by Chinese naval engineers but are not likely to be ever be operational again.

Varyag
Soviet built sister of Russian Kuznetsov. Construction of ship stopped in Ukraine 1992 when 70% complete, and ship sold in 1998 to China. Considered highly likely that China is preparing the Varyag (Renamed Shi Lang) for commission as China’s first aircraft carrier. Extensive modification of ship has been observed since 2006, and is reportedly currently been fitted out with sensors, radars and defensive weapons at Dalian, and the ship has been observed beginning to run power. Undetermined Russian assistance is likely. Su-33 carrier based fighters and Ka-31 early warning helicopters have been sought or bought from Russia, while the J-15 carrier based fighter which is considered a Chinese knock off of the Su-33 is being developed by China. A concrete land based flight deck has been built for training carrier pilots while China has approached the Brazilian navy for the use of its aircraft carrier for training.

Future Chinese Carriers
Reportedly China plans to start building two Type 089 (Shi Lang Class) carriers by 2015, probably based upon the Varyag design, and another two nuclear powered carrier in 2020.

Good site about the Varyag.

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon...gtransform.htm

Chinese Nuclear Submarines

Type 091 Class (1974-Present)
Numbers: 5 built, 3 still in service
Tonnage: 4,500-5,500
Speed: 25kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, C-802 A/S missile, mines

Type 092 Class (1981-Present)
Numbers: 2 built, 1 still in service
Tonnage: 6,500-7,000
Speed: 22kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, 12x JL-1A SLBMs

Type 093 Class (2002-Present)
Numbers: 2 built, 6-8 planned
Tonnage: 6,000-7,000
Speed: 35kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, C-803 A/S missile, mines

Type 094 Class (2010-Present) (Believed to have incorporated Russian technology)
Numbers: 2 building, 5 planned
Tonnage: 8,000-9,000
Speed: 22kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, 12x JL-2SLBMs (16-24 on Type 2/3)

Type 095 Class (2015)
Numbers: 5 planned
Tonnage: Unknown
Speed: Unknown
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, HY-5 A/S missile, mines

Chinese Submarine Launched Missiles

C-802 Anti-ship missile (Range: 180km)
C-803 Anti-ship missile (Range: 200km)
HY-5 Anti-ship missile (Range: 300-500km)
JL-1A SLBM (Range: 2,500km, 200-300kt)
JL-2 SLBM (Range: 8,600km, 250kt single or MIRV (up to 10 MIRV on Mod II variant))

[95th Rifleman]

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

All this talk of China being behind in tech is a bit pointless. If China decided to build up properly they could put out huge numbers of, admittedly inferior, shps and aircraft and swamp American defenses. For the moment they are cntent to just exchange sabre rattles.

[adimar]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

Don't confuse land & blue water warfare. The major difference between the two is that you can't really hide is open ocean warfare. At least you can't hide without a major technological edge. If you want to compare land and sea than change the land terrain to a flat rocky plain where a guerrilla force can't strike & vanish.
Since the last couple of wars were anti insurgent actions people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.

These are my 1.99 cents
Adi

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by adimar

people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.

This kind of thinking is daft, arrogant and the reason America lost Vietnam and why Russia lost in Afghanistan.

"We didn't lose because our tactics where out-dated, our technology was developed for an entirely different battlefield and our logistics are strecthed to breaking point. No we lost because we are the good guys and play by the rules and the other guy hides behind civvies, we couldn't possibly lose if they played fair."

Bit of a reality check, the Russians didn't care how many civilians the taliban hid behind, they blew them all up and let God do the counting and the Russians STILL lost.

people refuse to actualy learn the lessons of history, they just make up excuses and keep fighting the last war till they get blown to hell and are forced (like the Germans post-WW1) to re-write the rulebook.

Technology doesn't mean crap against numbers, even in blue water navies. WW1 era bi-planes where responsible for sinking one of the most advanced and modern warships built in WW2 (the Bismark). America won WW2 because they could put 6 carriers to sea for every one the Japanese had. It's to be remembered that Japan had one of the most modern fleets at sea during the first half of WW2.

Technology can only get you so far, eventualy the nmbers game decides the outcome. The bigger the scale, the more powerful numbers become. Ony in very small actions does quality overcome quantity, it's the reason spec ops forces operate in small teams.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

Technology is a combat multiplier, like troop quality. A bankrupt strategy is a bankrupt strategy. Assuming a halfway decent strategy, the key is that the leaders and troops using the technology know what to do with it. I suspect the tankers of VII US Corps would argue that technology gave them a decisive edge in western Kuwait in early 1991. The Japanese Navy trained hard for night actions and really took it to the US Navy around Guadalcanal in 1942. As the USN learned what to do with their radar, night actions at sea became less successful for the Japanese.

Unfortunately, I agree that Americans are inclined to learn the wrong lessons from Vietnam, etc. There are some good reasons for this. Hardware looks handsome and brings revenues into Congressman Jones' district. Well-trained troops cost money but don't employ factory workers; and on the parade ground it's nearly impossible to tell the proficient killers from the professional boot polishers. Also, we cling fervently to the idea that all around the world people are, deep down, Americans: democratic, enterprising, and all the other nice ideas. Therefore, we believe in the "tipping point" thesis, in which just a little more effort (money, technology, firepower) will set off a chain of events in which the people will come together, the war will be won, representative government will spontaneously erupt, and the rats we had to get into bed with will be swept away in the new dawn of Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghani democracy. Then we'll all have pie (make mine apple, please). Machines, therefore, are more comfortable to believe in than cold-eyed killers and pragmatists who say things we'd rather not hear about what it will take to achieve victory--whatever that means.

Webstral

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Technology is a combat multiplier, like troop quality. A bankrupt strategy is a bankrupt strategy. Assuming a halfway decent strategy, the key is that the leaders and troops using the technology know what to do with it. I suspect the tankers of VII US Corps would argue that technology gave them a decisive edge in western Kuwait in early 1991. The Japanese Navy trained hard for night actions and really took it to the US Navy around Guadalcanal in 1942. As the USN learned what to do with their radar, night actions at sea became less successful for the Japanese.

Unfortunately, I agree that Americans are inclined to learn the wrong lessons from Vietnam, etc. There are some good reasons for this. Hardware looks handsome and brings revenues into Congressman Jones' district. Well-trained troops cost money but don't employ factory workers; and on the parade ground it's nearly impossible to tell the proficient killers from the professional boot polishers. Also, we cling fervently to the idea that all around the world people are, deep down, Americans: democratic, enterprising, and all the other nice ideas. Therefore, we believe in the "tipping point" thesis, in which just a little more effort (money, technology, firepower) will set off a chain of events in which the people will come together, the war will be won, representative government will spontaneously erupt, and the rats we had to get into bed with will be swept away in the new dawn of Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghani democracy. Then we'll all have pie (make mine apple, please). Machines, therefore, are more comfortable to believe in than cold-eyed killers and pragmatists who say things we'd rather not hear about what it will take to achieve victory--whatever that means.

Webstral

The problem, the very scary problem, is it will take a massive and bloody defeat on American soil to change this attitude. While America fights conflicts in the gardens of other nations, there will never be enough incentive to change doctrine.

Look at internatonal terrorism, for decades the Americans never took it seriously enough, in fact they supported many terrorist groups operating in Soviet-controlled nations. It's also a big bone of contention over here that Americans in New York and Boston where fund raising for the IRA.

It took 9/11 to really shake America and make the American people and government realise how dangerous terrorism really is and why supporting it, even in hostile nations, is a recipe for disaster. Afterall, it was the American-supported individuals who fought the Russians that masterminded 9/11.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The Varyag is not a Kiev class carrier. It is Admiral Kuznetsov class. There's a big difference. The Kiev had a much smaller flight deck and could fly only YAK-38 VTOL aircraft- a very limited airframe even at the time it was first introduced. The YAK-38's replacement, the YAK-131, never really saw the light of day. The Admiral Kutzenov, on the other hand, has a full-length flight deck, not that much shorter than that of a Nimitz class CVN, and can fly the SU-27 naval variant(s), a much more capable multi-mission aircraft.

Sorry, I should have made listed all of the news report, which claimed that the PRC was activating the floating Kiev-class casino as well as the Varyag. What can I say, cold beer and BBQ.....