Posted on 06/29/2005 5:33:55 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Other good names for this carrier:
Sal Walton
Wal-Mart
I spent my time in the gulf enforcing the sanctions that Kofi Annan used to make his son rich.
80 footers were merely part of the job. Try running from back-to-back typhoons before the skipper decideds that perhaps we should try to hide the ship inside one for a bit.
Fascism, at least as it deals with economics, is that it promotes capitalism with a very heavy hand from government. It's a partnership, but a very totalitarian one.
In America, the government doesn't own any part of any corporation. In China, the government owns a part or most of everything.
Yet individuals are allowed to compete for whatever jobs they can get.
It's a hybrid of communism and capitalism and if it's run right, it can be extremely efficient for the government and for the lucky people in the right place at the right time.
Ok, FR Navy vets..riddle me this
Just how many Harpoons will it take to send this parade float to the bottom of the sea?
I expect that if we ever get into a shooting war over Taiwan, that ship will be the first one on the USN target list.
More like a combination of socialism and capitalism. That's an important distinction to make between socialism and communism.
One of the problems with fascist economies, however, is that they do not adapt easily to changing market conditions, since the government directs all production and restricts access to markets for it's own purposes.
There can't be a lot of steel in a $360 million dollar carrier. One harpoon ought to do it, if there is enough metal in it to show up on radar. Maybe even a well placed 5" round.
My guess is a minimum of three, max of 5. Harpoon does not carry all that large a warhead (about 300 pounds or so, if memory serves). The question should be "How many Tomahawks or Mk. 48's will sink this baby?"
Thanks for the explanation.
<< If [1] they fly like that idiot that midaired the EP-3 back in 2001, whoever's working deck crew will [2] be hating life. >>
[1] They all do and;
[2] But not for long!
Do you think it will be compartmentalized? It would take a couple of harpoons to sink our big boys because of watertight integrity. If this think is a great big banana boat it ought to go really easy. A MK48, there is a cool idea.
If it is in the 78000T class, I wonder if the design is based on the never completed Ulyanovsk.
To be honest with you the whole project is a joke and meant to distract the citizens of China from their real problems, lack of clean water, air pollution, bad social policy. It's right out of 1984. They built this big battleship to keep people busy and make them proud and took it out and sunk it. (IIRC, it was a long time ago)
Now, 54 planes and 13 choppers on a 78,000 ton hull (unless it's a nuc boat) sounds like a floating gas can.
The Midway class CV's were smaller than that, with a larger airwing.
If based on the Ulyanovsk, then some space is taken up by SSM's (The Ulyanovsk was to have at least 12 SS-N-19 Shipwrecks, which were BIG missiles - ~300nm range, ~Mach 2.5, and 1000kg warhead. However not sea skimmers like the SS-N-22 Sunburn)
Let's take it for granted that this baby has at least a double hull, and watertight integrity is minimum of western standards and reserve buoyancy equals at least 1/4 of the ship's displacement. Of course, this also assumes decent damage control training and equipment. It's oiriginally Russian, which means it's probably overengineered to the nth degree.
A Harpoon, being a surface attack weapon, would leave massive holes and start some nasty fires, but the blast from a single one or even a pair might not be enough to cause severe damage to cause sinking. A Tomahawk, with a minimum 1,000 lb warhead would cause much more devestating damage. Still, it's not likely, given all the above factors, that the ship is automatically doomed.
A Mk. 48, however, exploded under the hull, is a different story. A pair would be better. The expectation of critical damage which cannot easily be repaired or countered is much greater in this scenario. Do not forget that a ship is most vulnerable below the waterline, not above. Break a keel or destroy steering or propulsion gear, and it's merely a floating target.
It does not automatically follow that a missile hit, above the waterline, would cause much critical damage to a ship that large.
I didn't think the Midway class could handle the F-14. I know that they had the F-4 Phantoms, but then later used the F/A-18.
It's oiriginally Russian, which means it's probably overengineered to the nth degree.
Chernoble (spelling?) was engineered by russians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.