Top 5 Reasons Not to Ballyhoo China’s Carrier , page 1

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 2-10-2012 @ 09:45 AM by travis911

China's carrier certainly has been making the rounds in the news media. From interviews from its captain, a Chinese admiral, to hundreds of pictures spewewn all over the internet, it has captivated world attention. However, the carrier is not even operational yet. It has no air craft on its flight deck to use, no ships to even defend it. There is no ships to even supply it. Is the carrier just a joke? A professor for the US Naval War College seems to think so

thediplomat.com...

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 09:51 AM by Zaphod58

reply to post by travis911

It's a training carrier. They have to use something to learn how to operate a carrier, when they build their own indigenous carriers. This is the perfect platform, because it's what most countries choose to go with, as far as size. The US is the only country that uses a 100,000 ton displacement full deck carrier.

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 09:52 AM by NullVoid

Do you know the "what is this blank city in China ?" thread?
If they made few blank cities, do you think aircraft carrier is big deal to them ?

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 09:53 AM by inverslyproportional

reply to post by travis911

I could have told you the chinese carrief wasn't anything to be excited about, it is a Korean or vietnam era hull, that wasn't ever even good enough for Russia to compete with Americas carriers, why do you think the Russians scrapped it?

It is nothing but a talking point for the chinese, which means it is nothing, as they are all about propoganda. They have no idea how carrier warfare even works, not to mention the logistics of arming, and supplying such a vessel.

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 10:08 AM by Pervius

What countries on Earth use the word "Ballyhoo"?

Is this another Australian English word, British, or where? Whatever country you are in apparently the news media is giving the Chinese Carrier time on the news....not in America.

It's an underpowered boat. If you're afraid of it get a cargo ship and weld flat metal to the deck and make your own similiar boat. The Chinese boat is nothing to be scared of. I guess unless your speaking English and live in Australia where nobody can own guns and you'll easily be overrun by such low tech masses.

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 10:42 AM by SrWingCommander

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by travis911

I could have told you the chinese carrief wasn't anything to be excited about, it is a Korean or vietnam era hull, that wasn't ever even good enough for Russia to compete with Americas carriers, why do you think the Russians scrapped it?

It is nothing but a talking point for the chinese, which means it is nothing, as they are all about propoganda. They have no idea how carrier warfare even works, not to mention the logistics of arming, and supplying such a vessel.

Sorry, but wrong. It is not "Korean or Vietnam" era. It is an ex-Soviet carrier from the late 80's, with little use of the hull. It wasn't that Russia didn't want it. It's that after the Soviet Union came apart, they could not afford it. nor did the now smaller, "Russia" really need it. The Russians have always depended more on their Army than Navy. They developed a large navy during the Cold War, primarily to counter the large US Navy from ever resupplying Europe in a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict, and for force projection in other disputed areas (learned this from the Cuban missile crisis).

Russia depends more on it's sub fleet for Naval Power, although they do have a respectable surface fleet they could put to sea, which still includes 1 carrier, 2 battlecrusiers, several modern destroyers, and decent troop landing forces.

en.wikipedia.org...

Liaoning (16), is the first aircraft carrier commissioned into the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). Originally laid down as the Admiral Kuznetsov class multirole aircraft carrier Riga for the Soviet Navy, she was launched on 4 December 1988 and renamed Varyag in 1990. The ship was purchased in 1998 by the People's Republic of China and towed to Dalian Shipyard in north eastern China. After extensive refit and sea trials, the ship was commissioned into the PLAN as Liaoning on 25 September 2012.

As an individual ship or even put into a strike force, it's not a major threat to the US Navy.

But it does represent 2 things.

1) As you did mention the chinese, "don't know how to do this", This ship is for those things. It's for training and experience building. Pilots need to be trained, deck crews need to be trained. Procedures have to be developed. Tactics and operational models developed within the mold of what China sees their needs are for a carrier fleet. Alll this takes time, but more importantly a carrier to learn these skills, particularly for the pilots. The US started out with the Langley and other earlier carriers. That's what this is....which means that THEY ARE DEDICATED TO BUILDING A CARRIER FORCE. They already have plans for at least 2 carriers of their own design. Which are planned to be bigger than this ex Soviet job. Which means China wants........................

2) To get into force projection. One of the first things you need for Force Porjection away from home is Air Power, and now they can take it with them. Naval Air Power via Carrier is one of the most important steps to becoming a major regional or world power these days. that's why even countries like Brazil, Itally, and India have small (usually STVOL or helicopter) carriers. This allows them to get (albiet somewhat limitied) ability to force project in their own regions, or act as part of a coalition, to influence world events. France has a full deck carrier and the UK is working on one or two full deck carriers. Australia had one up until not to long ago, and has talked of aquireing one of the older US ones again.

en.wikipedia.org...

So while the individual carrier isn't much, it's what it represents for the future of the Chinese navy that's the issue. Remember what 6 carriers did camping north of Pearl Harbor awhile back ?????

I suggest everyone read up a bit on the virtues of the aircraft carrier.

en.wikipedia.org...

I posted Wiki for anyone that wnats to look. Not trying to be to snarky, but some of you need some basic reading before you discuss these matters. Other wise it's just, "OURS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS"...........

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 10:59 AM by BIHOTZ

I have a question about China's intentions. Someone who might know can answer if I am barking up the right tree.

Do you see China developing a submergable carrier in the future? Would that technology be too farfetched for them to aspire for?

EDIT:
I think this one is for training purposes as well as showing false hand. They would be better off going the route of operating a competent and versitile sub fleet. They don't like to show how good they can be at things. It is not their style. They like to know more than they reveal. Smart cookies.

edit on 2-10-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 11:55 AM by Zaphod58

reply to post by BIHOTZ

No. Japan built several during WWII, and they were more trouble than they were worth. They had to surface, roll the planes out on the deck, attach the wings and tail, all of which took hours to do, which meant they were vulnerable. And they could only carry two planes per hull. To carry any kind of meaningful air wing, it would have to be the size of a modern carrier, and building a sub that size would be.....problematical.

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 12:08 PM by SrWingCommander

While it wouldn't likely be worth the time, money, and engineering trouble.......what about a heavily modified Typhoon. I bet if you took the missile tubes and all associated machinery out, put one large door where some of the missile tubes were, you could fly VTOL's out of it. Keep maybe two tubes and convert them to carry fuel. Depending on aircraft type, I bet you could get 12 in easy. AH-1 Cobra's have really narrow fuselage. They could fit in easy as well. Just fun food for thought.

Typhoon class sub.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class

Typhoon Cargo Concept.....just found...looks like taking out the tubes for cargo has already been looked at. The Typhoon displaces 40,000+ tons, that's not far off from early WWII carriers....

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 2-10-2012 by SrWingCommander because: found Cargo Concept on subafter posting

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 12:22 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by SrWingCommander

If you're going to put a few helicopters on board, that's more feasible, but it still would be an engineering nightmare. That would require something that would give all submariners nightmares. Really big doors. That means a really big failure area if something goes wrong. A standard submarine has really small hatches just for that reason. If you look at the SEAL delivery system that they have attached to the back of some subs, it attaches to a hatch on the deck, which means that if there is a failure of the module, then only the module floods.

The last thing you want is to have a really big door, or any kind of large failure point on a submersible craft.

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 12:33 PM by justwokeup

The Ohio class boats converted to cruise missile carriers (SSGN) could probably deliver as much day one firepower as your submerged carrier, a lot cheaper and simpler.

A unexpected salvo of 154 Tomahawks is not to be sneezed at.

Then once the enemy airfields and infrastructure are burning bring the carrier into play.

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 02:21 PM by SrWingCommander

reply to post by Zaphod58

That's why I said it would be difficult enginering wise.

BTW I didn't mean the whole front of the typhoon opening where all 20 missile tubes were. Just a portion to bring one aircraft up at a time. Still a MAJOR feat.

I agree the Ohio style SSGNs would be the better bet.

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 03:12 PM by BIHOTZ

What if you did not launch conventional air craft and did not launch the way conventional aircraft would. What if you launched like a missile. That technology already exists. A shallow depth launch, but still submerged. The aircraft itself would be role specific. You could have one heavier version for long duration missions /fuel requirements, and a smaller version for fighter interception/ air raid.

Recovery could be land based. Or it could use conventional surface fleet recovery platforms.

A small craft with staged shallow depth launch capabilities that uses the ascribed space for an ICBM already in place in our older subs.

We could retrofit our older subs from ICBM payloads to what I describe here using existing launch technologies and just change the missile, a staged rocket to fighter/ bomber....

The strike capability of a submerged carrier should not be downplayed. If the Japanese succeeded in using theirs during WW2 to hit panama, they would have crippled our shipping lanes and our war effort in the pacific. The subs they had, which were impressive to say the least, worked brilliantly and could have changed the tides of war. They were studied by our people and found them to be functional and well designed.

If we could have instant and undetected strike capabilities added to our air superiority we would have an advantage other nations would not for a very long time, if ever.

They can see our carriers coming from miles away, and we have to defend them. All we really need is a few aircraft for most missions. If we could use a combo of conventional surface fleet far off and submerged carriers deep in enemy waters we could operate in combat zones while keeping our risks to a minimum. When air craft are exhausted, the sub turns back to port to re arm with the recovered crafts the surface fleet already picked up.

Eliminate recovery and use conventional misile launch technologies and just alter the missile to launch staged air craft instead of nuclear payloads.

the craft would not have to be that special either. You would already be operating within enemy territory when launched so only its escape would need to be well thought out. Make it fast and small.....use smart bombs and just launch more of the air craft. Make them cheap too....If a missile could launch two or more at a time you would have a huge advantage....quick small craft that are role specific for either air defense of a conventional surface fleet, or a bomber version that carried more fuel and heavier payloads....

I really think this idea is not being explored by our military enough. I think China will develop a platform for a submerged carrier of some kind eventually. It is a great advantage that is hard to counter...you could hurt any infrastructure with relatively low risk. One sub and a few air craft that alternately a carrier battle group might cost in terms of risk.

edit on 2-10-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 03:19 PM by JIMC5499

reply to post by BIHOTZ

The main problem that I see it that the Conning tower kinda gets in the way of landing on the damn thing.

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 03:27 PM by BIHOTZ

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by BIHOTZ

The main problem that I see it that the Conning tower kinda gets in the way of landing on the damn thing.

no, you see, have the missile break apart..ask NASA....

the missile would only be used to get the aircraft out of the water and into an appropriate altitude....then the craft could drop from the thing or break away at the best altitude....

I would have a staged rocket that deployed small air crafts the ship would not recover directly...it's a launch and forget carrier...recovery to be done by land bases or at sea by the conventional fleet.

The missile just houses the craft....it is a deployment system...not the pay load...

EDIT:
Or have a dozen drones break away from the missile.....instead of a single or pair of small aircraft....

edit on 2-10-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-10-2012 @ 03:56 PM by Zaphod58

The problem is that you would have to have a capsule around the aircraft, which means that you would have to have a tiny aircraft, or a really big rocket. Trying to launch an airplane from underwater would be......not good. There is talk of a sub launching UAVs, but I haven't heard what the launch system would be like.

reply posted on 3-10-2012 @ 02:53 PM by JIMC5499

reply to post by Zaphod58

The same system that is used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles would work just fine. As a matter of fact the Tomahawk airframe would work as well. You would just switch out the warhead with any of several multi-mission packs. As long as the weight and balance works out, you could carry anything that fits.

reply posted on 3-10-2012 @ 03:14 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by JIMC5499

Yeah, that would be your best bet there. It's already set up to launch from a sub so you wouldn't have to adapt it, other than the sensor platform for it.

edit on 10/3/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-10-2012 @ 03:17 PM by syrinx high priest

why do people think two nations with a jillion nukes that are joined at the hip financially will engage in a traditional war with planes and ships ?

doom porn ?

reply posted on 3-10-2012 @ 03:20 PM by zatara

Originally posted by NullVoid
Do you know the "what is this blank city in China ?" thread?
If they made few blank cities, do you think aircraft carrier is big deal to them ?

Interesting but.....I have no idea what you are talkig about. Can you provide a link or further info on this?

Sec.line.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^