|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 18, 2016 19:27:57 GMT -6
The manmade islands in the Spratlys are a factor, but as several of these have already been built with airfields suitable for military operations it would be a question of why bother with limited carriers like their current example or the derivative under construction. From what we've seen, the ski-jump launch is only good for a limited antiair loadout, whereas the islands can potentially support fully armed fighter and strike aircraft, in at least one case up to and including H-6 Xian bombers and tankers. The only real use I can see for those bird farms in that scenario would be helping to keep the sea lanes to the Spratlys open and maybe providing some air cover that is not vulnerable to a long-range cruise missile strike.
Their general strategic value aside, the bases in the Spratlys also still leave the PLAN inside the First Island Chain; unless they want to use the Spratlys as a base for neutralizing the Philippines (which would risk retaliation from the US and its allies) they're still shut out of wartime power projection outside of their immediate neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 19, 2016 7:40:54 GMT -6
The manmade islands in the Spratlys are a factor, but as several of these have already been built with airfields suitable for military operations it would be a question of why bother with limited carriers like their current example or the derivative under construction. From what we've seen, the ski-jump launch is only good for a limited antiair loadout, whereas the islands can potentially support fully armed fighter and strike aircraft, in at least one case up to and including H-6 Xian bombers and tankers. The only real use I can see for those bird farms in that scenario would be helping to keep the sea lanes to the Spratlys open and maybe providing some air cover that is not vulnerable to a long-range cruise missile strike. Their general strategic value aside, the bases in the Spratlys also still leave the PLAN inside the First Island Chain; unless they want to use the Spratlys as a base for neutralizing the Philippines (which would risk retaliation from the US and its allies) they're still shut out of wartime power projection outside of their immediate neighborhood. These carriers are a learning tool, as I've indicated in earlier posts. Their job is to provide a platform for the development of air wings, carrier aviation procedures and doctrine in usage. It will also help to guide the design of later carrier aircraft and specialty aircraft like ASW platforms, air refueling tankers and AEW platforms like our E2D's. These initial carriers will provide BARCAP and ASW patrols over the rest of the surface fleet with minimal strike capability. Eventually, they will work toward full airwings and increased strike capability. The islands will provide an outer ring of unsinkable platforms for patrolling the South China Sea.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 29, 2016 18:42:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 29, 2016 19:16:46 GMT -6
I think this testing of interoperability of fleets especially NATO fleets, makes good sense. This allows everyone to understand how the other operates to meld together. This will allow the British fleet air to get up to speed much faster and be a player in the Med and in Northern Europe. However, it will be funny to have US Marines on board British ships. Man, will the British get a lesson from them.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 30, 2016 18:30:35 GMT -6
I think this testing of interoperability of fleets especially NATO fleets, makes good sense. This allows everyone to understand how the other operates to meld together. This will allow the British fleet air to get up to speed much faster and be a player in the Med and in Northern Europe. However, it will be funny to have US Marines on board British ships. Man, will the British get a lesson from them. Maybe we can have the Marines turn up in Viking longboats to make the experience more familiar for them? The other concern is given the UK's rather infamous habit of "fitting for but not with," they might have an eye towards making sure those bird farms have birds in the roost even if the MoD totally fumbles the ball with F-35B procurement (not too long ago the plans being mooted were for the carriers to only have 12 RN or RAF F-35Bs aboard on a normal deployment). Alternatively, in the event that the full buy of 138 airframes does go through, they may want an alternative to depending on the RAF's F-35B squadrons to flesh out the air wing. I can see the USMC liking the idea as well - the F-35B reportedly isn't welcome on the USN's CATOBAR ships, and the remaining LHDs are probably limited to carrying 4 F-35Bs at a time when also carrying the ESG's helos. "Borrowing" one of the RN's flight decks and packing a couple USMC fixed-wing squadrons on it would give them more options for getting into a combat zone when shore bases are unavailable. They might even consider teaming up an ESG with a British carrier group, moving their F-35Bs to the carrier, and inviting the British to shift their transport helos to the LHD/LHA.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 1, 2016 13:06:08 GMT -6
I think this testing of interoperability of fleets especially NATO fleets, makes good sense. This allows everyone to understand how the other operates to meld together. This will allow the British fleet air to get up to speed much faster and be a player in the Med and in Northern Europe. However, it will be funny to have US Marines on board British ships. Man, will the British get a lesson from them. Maybe we can have the Marines turn up in Viking longboats to make the experience more familiar for them? The other concern is given the UK's rather infamous habit of "fitting for but not with," they might have an eye towards making sure those bird farms have birds in the roost even if the MoD totally fumbles the ball with F-35B procurement (not too long ago the plans being mooted were for the carriers to only have 12 RN or RAF F-35Bs aboard on a normal deployment). Alternatively, in the event that the full buy of 138 airframes does go through, they may want an alternative to depending on the RAF's F-35B squadrons to flesh out the air wing. I can see the USMC liking the idea as well - the F-35B reportedly isn't welcome on the USN's CATOBAR ships, and the remaining LHDs are probably limited to carrying 4 F-35Bs at a time when also carrying the ESG's helos. "Borrowing" one of the RN's flight decks and packing a couple USMC fixed-wing squadrons on it would give them more options for getting into a combat zone when shore bases are unavailable. They might even consider teaming up an ESG with a British carrier group, moving their F-35Bs to the carrier, and inviting the British to shift their transport helos to the LHD/LHA. O Lord, deliver us from the fury of the Norsemen, or as the Brits will say, from the wrath of the Marines. Yes. Hey, the Jarheads can crash on British ships just as easily as they can on US ships, maybe better.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 4, 2016 20:32:35 GMT -6
The other point to possibly note is that the QEs have enough room for the F-35Bs to perform "rolling" landings rather than a straight vertical landing, which theoretically might increase the bring-back weight to more than 3,000 lbs. Otherwise, if you take off with more than an internal weapons load you're dropping it before coming home one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 4, 2016 21:13:22 GMT -6
The other point to possibly note is that the QEs have enough room for the F-35Bs to perform "rolling" landings rather than a straight vertical landing, which theoretically might increase the bring-back weight to more than 3,000 lbs. Otherwise, if you take off with more than an internal weapons load you're dropping it before coming home one way or the other. That is very true but knowing the Marines, they will expend that ordnance on something, they don't like bringing back ordnance. But yes, if they can bring back ordnance it will be to everyone's advantage.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 10, 2016 21:59:24 GMT -6
Yup, time to break out the popcorn. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5510/russia-builds-up-its-naval-forces-off-syria-as-carrier-deployment-loomsBy the way, what genius decided to load attack helos on Russia's only fixed-wing carrier? Given recent lessons on what happens when ships in the Middle East get too close to shore-based missile batteries, I'm not sure I'd want to be close enough to the beach to launch and recover helos on CAS missions. Then again, given the reports that the Su-33 and MiG-29K have issues getting off the ramp with full fuel loads, let alone weapons, those Ka-52Ks might be the most effective strike platforms available.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 11, 2016 8:45:49 GMT -6
Well, as I've said a few times, its one thing to build a carrier but its another to operate fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft from it. I believe that the Levant operations by the Russian's are a proving grounds for land, air and sea combined weapons training. They will quickly about fatigue, non-operational losses and damaged aircraft. They will learn about keeping the air wing intact after these losses and damage essentially without a support system. This support system is what they will have to develop. The mixed air wing is probably a good idea to begin to develop the integration of the two different aircraft. I will say that the air wing is very small and with non-operational and operational losses, it will diminish in effectiveness very quickly, especially without experience in maintaining aircraft at the "O" level, which in our parlance is the carrier level. The other two levels are "I" level which is the aircraft intermediate maintenance departments on naval airbases and of course the depot level. I still see Russian as essentially a land based power, So I don't see here really developing much in more than one or two aircraft carriers.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 11, 2016 19:31:43 GMT -6
Well, as I've said a few times, its one thing to build a carrier but its another to operate fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft from it. I believe that the Levant operations by the Russian's are a proving grounds for land, air and sea combined weapons training. They will quickly about fatigue, non-operational losses and damaged aircraft. They will learn about keeping the air wing intact after these losses and damage essentially without a support system. This support system is what they will have to develop. The mixed air wing is probably a good idea to begin to develop the integration of the two different aircraft. I will say that the air wing is very small and with non-operational and operational losses, it will diminish in effectiveness very quickly, especially without experience in maintaining aircraft at the "O" level, which in our parlance is the carrier level. The other two levels are "I" level which is the aircraft intermediate maintenance departments on naval airbases and of course the depot level. I still see Russian as essentially a land based power, So I don't see here really developing much in more than one or two aircraft carriers. It's a good question of how many strike sorties they will be able to generate with 15 load-limited fixed-wing aircraft even if they have no operational losses or breakdowns, especially as the Su-33s reportedly can only carry dumb munitions. Dumb bombs are meant to be dropped in bulk, not tossed in ones and twos. As stated those Ka-52Ks might be able to carry a more useful payload since they don't have to fling themselves off a ski-jump at max AB. Overall, this strikes me as 100% dog-and-pony show - Putin trying to convince the world that since he too has an aircraft carrier executing combat missions in Syria that Russia's just as powerful as the US, with a side order of sales demonstration. Militarily speaking it's not worth a tenth of the gas money to get that barge to the Med.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 11, 2016 21:12:29 GMT -6
Well, as I've said a few times, its one thing to build a carrier but its another to operate fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft from it. I believe that the Levant operations by the Russian's are a proving grounds for land, air and sea combined weapons training. They will quickly about fatigue, non-operational losses and damaged aircraft. They will learn about keeping the air wing intact after these losses and damage essentially without a support system. This support system is what they will have to develop. The mixed air wing is probably a good idea to begin to develop the integration of the two different aircraft. I will say that the air wing is very small and with non-operational and operational losses, it will diminish in effectiveness very quickly, especially without experience in maintaining aircraft at the "O" level, which in our parlance is the carrier level. The other two levels are "I" level which is the aircraft intermediate maintenance departments on naval airbases and of course the depot level. I still see Russian as essentially a land based power, So I don't see here really developing much in more than one or two aircraft carriers. It's a good question of how many strike sorties they will be able to generate with 15 load-limited fixed-wing aircraft even if they have no operational losses or breakdowns, especially as the Su-33s reportedly can only carry dumb munitions. Dumb bombs are meant to be dropped in bulk, not tossed in ones and twos. As stated those Ka-52Ks might be able to carry a more useful payload since they don't have to fling themselves off a ski-jump at max AB. Overall, this strikes me as 100% dog-and-pony show - Putin trying to convince the world that since he too has an aircraft carrier executing combat missions in Syria that Russia's just as powerful as the US, with a side order of sales demonstration. Militarily speaking it's not worth a tenth of the gas money to get that barge to the Med. I believe that this is a dog and pony show to A. To show their allies that they will stand by them. B. To sell hardware. Without knowing how they will operate at sea, its difficult to assess their combat strength for a mission. Will they have a BARCAP deployed? This will take away from their combat strength. What is their estimated up time for aircraft? How many will be available over time for each mission, it will probably decrease after a couple of days. Will they have spare aircraft available on board or will they have to send more? Lots of unanswered questions. I wonder if their allies have the same questions and some doubts, including Assad. Some issues to consider are the age of her fossil fuel power plants. Her aircraft cannot launch with full loads of fuel or full ordnance due to the ramp so the range for combat missions is reduced without air to air refueling. Apparently her crew is not well trained and dumped fuel during an at-sea refueling into the Irish Sea. That does not bode well for her deployments. Couple this with the Sukhoi's poor stealth characteristics which means she will stick out like a sore thumb, and I find this deployment more of negative for her allies and her future business partners than a positive. As the saying goes, everyone may think that you are stupid, but don't open up your mouth and remove all doubt.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 3, 2016 18:07:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2016 22:12:17 GMT -6
Interesting video, at least they can get them off the deck but still did not see any ordnance. I wonder when the Soviets... excuse me, the Russians will finally figure out that what makes a nation strong and powerful, is not how many Mach 2 aircraft they can fly off a carrier or how powerful their tanks are but their economic and social strength. It's a shame, that a people with such creativity in literature, art, music and architecture, cannot figure out what makes a nation strong and great. Terrible shame, I think.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 5, 2016 20:06:09 GMT -6
What China needs is something akin to the Viking ASW plane as well as the catapults. Having been out of the USN for a long while now I'm not able to keep track very well, but from what I can tell the USN surface forces still can't regularly counter USN submarines. In other words if my take is correct, a carrier group (without a defensive sub) is hard pressed to deal with an American (or presumably UK) SSN. If that is the case, a Chinese carrier is still a LONG way from the ability to survive outside land based air support range. Even near shore, I'm betting a western SSN would penetrate any ASW screen and deal with the carrier. I think what they need is a lighter helo like the SH-63 with dipping sonar and good escorts that are dedicated to ASW. They will also need land based Maritime patrol bombers with MAD booms. Submarines can also help in ASW. Digging up an old post a few pages back, but as you were saying? www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5884/heres-our-best-look-yet-at-chinas-black-hawk-clone-the-z-20
|
|