|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 5, 2016 20:14:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jul 5, 2016 21:50:35 GMT -6
They did contribute the term "Potemkin village" to language. This is a Potemkin aircraft carrier. I eagerly await the next announcement that they are going to return any of the three laid-up Kirovs to service, possibly including the one that had a reactor accident in 1990 and hasn't been defueled since (or even had the "Kirov" lettering removed from the hull, despite being officially renamed after the fall of the USSR).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 6, 2016 9:12:16 GMT -6
They did contribute the term "Potemkin village" to language. This is a Potemkin aircraft carrier. I eagerly await the next announcement that they are going to return any of the three laid-up Kirovs to service, possibly including the one that had a reactor accident in 1990 and hasn't been defueled since (or even had the "Kirov" lettering removed from the hull, despite being officially renamed after the fall of the USSR). While the whole story is funny, it isn't for the men and women who have to sail on those rust buckets, especially the Kirov's which are nuclear powered and would be dangerous knowing the way the Russian's handle nuclear energy. They are all disaster's waiting to happen just to make Putin feel like Stalin.... which he isn't. Sorry for throwing cold water on this funny issue, but the kids are important.... even Russian kids, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 10, 2016 11:53:44 GMT -6
Did some looking around in Google Earth and came across this at the Dalian Shipyard in the Yellow Sea. The satellite image is dated June 27 2016; looks like the PLAN is well on the way with its first homegrown carrier. Attachment DeletedDalian was where the ex-Soviet Varyag was refitted as the PLAN's Liaoning; below is a screen capture with the "3D Buildings" box checked that shows the Liaoning fitting out next to the drydock a few years ago for comparison. Looks like the new bird farm will be a copy or derivative of the Kuznetsov-class, which makes sense. It will be interesting to see if as rumored another carrier is taking shape at the Jiangnan yard near Shanghai.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 10, 2016 16:09:10 GMT -6
Did some looking around in Google Earth and came across this at the Dalian Shipyard in the Yellow Sea. The satellite image is dated June 27 2016; looks like the PLAN is well on the way with its first homegrown carrier. Dalian was where the ex-Soviet Varyag was refitted as the PLAN's Liaoning; below is a screen capture with the "3D Buildings" box checked that shows the Liaoning fitting out next to the drydock a few years ago for comparison. Looks like the new bird farm will be a copy or derivative of the Kuznetsov-class, which makes sense. It will be interesting to see if as rumored another carrier is taking shape at the Jiangnan yard near Shanghai. It's ok to build those ships, but they have no tradition or experience to back them up. I am just curious how the Naval War College would view all this. I might research that issue.
|
|
jms
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by jms on Sept 11, 2016 1:44:43 GMT -6
You don't need a tradition to create a successful Navy, otherwise the Japanese wouldn't have been able to beat the Russians in 1905. What is needed is ships, men and TRAINING. Then they can experiment and develop their own doctrine.
Copying a Kuznetsov is not a particularly brilliant move, but I guess they are moving one short step at a time.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 11, 2016 7:18:35 GMT -6
You don't need a tradition to create a successful Navy, otherwise the Japanese wouldn't have been able to beat the Russians in 1905. What is needed is ships, men and TRAINING. Then they can experiment and develop their own doctrine. Copying a Kuznetsov is not a particularly brilliant move, but I guess they are moving one short step at a time. Carrier operations are far more complex than sailing armored cruisers around in the Sea of Japan so I don't think that analogy fits. Plus, the IJN had the British to teach their sailors and build their first ships, so that was a big advantage. The Chinese do not have that advantage, it will take them more time to get a doctrine that they can live with.
|
|
jms
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by jms on Sept 11, 2016 7:26:30 GMT -6
Nobody is saying otherwise, but the Japanese were able to graduate from sailing junks to fighting battleships in 40 years by leveraging the RN experience. The Chinese are doing the same, with the Russian carriers and developing their own capability one short step at a time.
First they have learned to land and take-off, then they will start hanging stuff on the planes, and then figuring what to do with them. They can train aircrew to fly and fight and deck crew to work out procedures in land while their carriers are built, and can learn from watching others do it, they don't need to experiment.
To believe that it is beyond them is unwarranted, and they have all the time of the world.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 11, 2016 7:34:57 GMT -6
Nobody is saying otherwise, but the Japanese were able to graduate from sailing junks to fighting battleships in 40 years by leveraging the RN experience. The Chinese are doing the same, with the Russian carriers and developing their own capability one short step at a time. First they have learned to land and take-off, then they will start hanging stuff on the planes, and then figuring what to do with them. They can train aircrew to fly and fight and deck crew to work out procedures in land while their carriers are built, and can learn from watching others do it, they don't need to experiment. To believe that it is beyond them is unwarranted, and they have all the time of the world. It will take the Chinese about two decades to really develop a fully operational air wing and replacements for their carriers. These carriers that they are building are not fleet but medium carriers with modest air wings. They are still useful but their whole carrier program must be integrated into their strategic operations and current fleet structure. It will take time, like I said, maybe two or three decades.
|
|
jms
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by jms on Sept 12, 2016 13:34:56 GMT -6
Depends on what they build after these 2. Certainly they are rather poor carriers in their current incarnation and have always been due to their intended purpose (fleet air defence with secondary AS capability) but it gives them experience on flying planes and trains the first gen pilots. I don't think they are intended for face to face battle with the USN or the regional powers in their home turfs, but as prestige projects and "colonial gunboats".
20 years is a long time. 20 years ago they were a coastal navy armed with 50s left-overs. Now they aren't.
Much more difficult is going to be developing an SSN capability that is survivable.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 12, 2016 14:15:06 GMT -6
Depends on what they build after these 2. Certainly they are rather poor carriers in their current incarnation and have always been due to their intended purpose (fleet air defence with secondary AS capability) but it gives them experience on flying planes and trains the first gen pilots. I don't think they are intended for face to face battle with the USN or the regional powers in their home turfs, but as prestige projects and "colonial gunboats". 20 years is a long time. 20 years ago they were a coastal navy armed with 50s left-overs. Now they aren't. Much more difficult is going to be developing an SSN capability that is survivable. It took us from around the 1924 Fleet Problem to the beginning of WWII to really get the aircraft, carriers and doctrine that were capable of conducting combat operations. Ranger and Langley were not much in the way of carriers. The Lexington's were fast in a straight line but could not turn, were narrow and difficult to land on or do maintenance on the birds. At least that is what my dad told me. The Yorktown's were the best initially and that's about sixteen years from the time of the conversion of Langley. It takes time, and they don't have naval experience in any real combat since the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895 and it wasn't much then. So there is not much naval tradition to build on. It's one thing to steal ideas and designs, it's another to field the weapon, integrated and use it. There is also the issue of their economic and political stability, which can be called into question. Especially if the Far East experiences a depression or the whole world enters one, and there is nothing to say that it won't. The 2007-2009 financial crises averted one just barely, and we are still paying the price as are the Chinese, Japanese and the whole Far East. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 15, 2016 14:30:17 GMT -6
I'm curious if the Chinese are in danger of training and building a navy to fight the last war. Are they building big carriers just because the USN has them? It would seem to me that any Chinese carrier fleet would be highly vulnerable to the submarine forces from nearby neighbors. Diesel-electrics with AIP are almost impossible to detect and at the least Japan, Australia and India all operate advanced boats that are in range of anywhere you would expect to see these Chinese carriers operating am I right? What are these carriers going to accomplish in the areas that they are likely to operate that land based air wouldn't be able to do? While I'm sure they are capable of developing effective carrier aviation capabilities I can't help but think they might be looking backwards rather than forwards.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 15, 2016 15:13:42 GMT -6
I'm curious if the Chinese are in danger of training and building a navy to fight the last war. Are they building big carriers just because the USN has them? It would seem to me that any Chinese carrier fleet would be highly vulnerable to the submarine forces from nearby neighbors. Diesel-electrics with AIP are almost impossible to detect and at the least Japan, Australia and India all operate advanced boats that are in range of anywhere you would expect to see these Chinese carriers operating am I right? What are these carriers going to accomplish in the areas that they are likely to operate that land based air wouldn't be able to do? While I'm sure they are capable of developing effective carrier aviation capabilities I can't help but think they might be looking backwards rather than forwards. All militaries fight the last war, trust me. Carriers are power projection weapons. The Chinese want to project power farther out into the Pacific, SE Asia and into the Indian Ocean. Carriers provide air cover for your fleet and strike capability for your land forces. Diesel electrics with air independent propulsion are more silent but are limited to coastal regions where they are highly effective. Generally, if you are smart, you do not risk carriers in littoral zones, enclosed seas or narrow seas. It just doesn't make sense. Our mission statement and methods of operation preclude short ranged submarines that are limited to the littoral zones. We use our submarines for long range and high speed capability which the new DE and AIP submarines cannot match. There are many instances where land based air is not possible and that might be an action in SE Asia, possibly Africa or the Indian sub-continent. In such cases, carrier air is a must for any land based combat operation. The Chinese are not looking backward, just moving slowly into the power projection arena, where initially, small to medium conventionally powered carriers are adequate. You might see a nuke power in the near future but first they have to acquire the technology, training and doctrine necessary to field carriers. They must crawl, before they can walk. chinapower.csis.org/aircraft-carrier/
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 18, 2016 13:35:16 GMT -6
I'm curious if the Chinese are in danger of training and building a navy to fight the last war. Are they building big carriers just because the USN has them? It would seem to me that any Chinese carrier fleet would be highly vulnerable to the submarine forces from nearby neighbors. Diesel-electrics with AIP are almost impossible to detect and at the least Japan, Australia and India all operate advanced boats that are in range of anywhere you would expect to see these Chinese carriers operating am I right? What are these carriers going to accomplish in the areas that they are likely to operate that land based air wouldn't be able to do? While I'm sure they are capable of developing effective carrier aviation capabilities I can't help but think they might be looking backwards rather than forwards. All militaries fight the last war, trust me. Carriers are power projection weapons. The Chinese want to project power farther out into the Pacific, SE Asia and into the Indian Ocean. Carriers provide air cover for your fleet and strike capability for your land forces. Diesel electrics with air independent propulsion are more silent but are limited to coastal regions where they are highly effective. Generally, if you are smart, you do not risk carriers in littoral zones, enclosed seas or narrow seas. It just doesn't make sense. Our mission statement and methods of operation preclude short ranged submarines that are limited to the littoral zones. We use our submarines for long range and high speed capability which the new DE and AIP submarines cannot match. There are many instances where land based air is not possible and that might be an action in SE Asia, possibly Africa or the Indian sub-continent. In such cases, carrier air is a must for any land based combat operation. The Chinese are not looking backward, just moving slowly into the power projection arena, where initially, small to medium conventionally powered carriers are adequate. You might see a nuke power in the near future but first they have to acquire the technology, training and doctrine necessary to field carriers. They must crawl, before they can walk. chinapower.csis.org/aircraft-carrier/The problem the PLAN faces is that the littorals are exactly what they have to cross through in order to perform power projection missions. The USN has the benefit of putting ships to sea from San Diego, Puget Sound, or Oahu and having open water all the way to the Western Pacific. A PLAN naval force on the other hand has the First Island Chain - the Japanese islands (including Okinawa), Taiwan, the Philippines, and the Indonesian archipelago. Even if not all of those nations are consistently opposed to the PRC, they have no outright allies in there who would guarantee safe passage and the geography in and of itself presents many choke points that could be used against them. Like the Russians, in peacetime they can send out deployments which will be shadowed from the moment they leave home waters; in wartime the PRC would be forced to fight its way out of the box and any ships on the outside when the curtain goes up probably won't be coming home unless those choke points are secured by the PRC.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 18, 2016 18:20:17 GMT -6
All militaries fight the last war, trust me. Carriers are power projection weapons. The Chinese want to project power farther out into the Pacific, SE Asia and into the Indian Ocean. Carriers provide air cover for your fleet and strike capability for your land forces. Diesel electrics with air independent propulsion are more silent but are limited to coastal regions where they are highly effective. Generally, if you are smart, you do not risk carriers in littoral zones, enclosed seas or narrow seas. It just doesn't make sense. Our mission statement and methods of operation preclude short ranged submarines that are limited to the littoral zones. We use our submarines for long range and high speed capability which the new DE and AIP submarines cannot match. There are many instances where land based air is not possible and that might be an action in SE Asia, possibly Africa or the Indian sub-continent. In such cases, carrier air is a must for any land based combat operation. The Chinese are not looking backward, just moving slowly into the power projection arena, where initially, small to medium conventionally powered carriers are adequate. You might see a nuke power in the near future but first they have to acquire the technology, training and doctrine necessary to field carriers. They must crawl, before they can walk. chinapower.csis.org/aircraft-carrier/The problem the PLAN faces is that the littorals are exactly what they have to cross through in order to perform power projection missions. The USN has the benefit of putting ships to sea from San Diego, Puget Sound, or Oahu and having open water all the way to the Western Pacific. A PLAN naval force on the other hand has the First Island Chain - the Japanese islands (including Okinawa), Taiwan, the Philippines, and the Indonesian archipelago. Even if not all of those nations are consistently opposed to the PRC, they have no outright allies in there who would guarantee safe passage and the geography in and of itself presents many choke points that could be used against them. Like the Russians, in peacetime they can send out deployments which will be shadowed from the moment they leave home waters; in wartime the PRC would be forced to fight its way out of the box and any ships on the outside when the curtain goes up probably won't be coming home unless those choke points are secured by the PRC. I believe that the littoral zone issue is the reason for the island-building spree that I have read about in the articles I have. They have constructed port facilities, buildings and airstrips. This is the Spratley's which as you know are abot 500 miles from the Chinese mainland. Now is this the solution to the problem? The islands are not large enough to house large forces, but could be a base for patrol boats and patrol aircraft to give the Chinese an edge. These islands are very vulnerable but I suspect they are aware of them, this is the reason for the carriers. The Chinese are going to have to generate some good will in the area, if they want to have the ability to project power. Islands are going to do that, just good economics and a competent carrier force backed up by surface ships for protection. Submarines are also a method.
|
|