Latest pictures out of China of PLANs work on the Carrier Varyag

CHINA.COM Military Pics ^ | 10 Octoner 2005 | Jeff Head

[Jeff Head]

The PLAN is readying the former Russian carrier Varyag for something. These pictures show the exterior painting now being completed in the standard PLAN surface combatant colors, with the superstructure preparing to be painted.

They have been working on the project in their naval shipyards for over two year now.

[Jeff Head]

Here's another view:

[Allen H]

Thank God and Ronald Reagan for the U.S. Navy. I sleep well at night knowing they've been planning for a full out conventional and/or nuclear war with China, so if it happens, they have a plan to fight and win it. And you have to know for a fact that every ships and sub Captain and crew, and every aviator would LOVE to bag a Chinese carrier something fierce. It's been a LONG TIME since anyone has sank a carrier in war. That would be a great career booster to those who accomplish that, if that war happens.

[DarthVader]

You can convert LA versions to TASM quite easily. That is the beauty of NATO modular systems and US systems engineering.

[Allen H]

Heh heh. Are you saying you'd like to put a few Mk-48 ADCAPs into the side of that ship sailing in open water? :)

[tanknetter]

I believe they will use the ship as a political tool...and in any intital exchanges, as a method of drawing our own forces (sub surface and air) in to to get her, hoping to inflict as many losses on our forces as possible in the exchange.

That would be playing the game on the ChiCom's field ... and what is the likelihood of us doing that?

A credible counter to this point that I've heard is that from the ChiCom's political/propaganda and military perspectives they HAVE to take out a US carrier in the opening phases of an action against Taiwan.

OTOH, the US can keep its CSGs out of the Strait (putting them into the Strait as was done back in what? 1998? is a political stunt done at a time when we know the ChiComs aren't going to do anything against it), still conduct operations over Taiwan and the Strait and draw the PLAN out onto a blue-water playing field much more suited to our capabilities.

The wild card here is what happens if the ChiComs are seriously stupid and figure out that exiting the strait with their high-value platforms is suicide ... and decide to go after a US CSG with some nuke-tipped IRBMs? Chances of them actually hitting a CSG would be minimal, but still within the realm of possibility ...

[Allen H]

Nice lines on it. Too bad it may have to be sent to the bottom some day. 8) Heh heh heh.

[Jeff Head]

We will operate well to the east of Tawian. They will hope to draw large numbers of aircraft and our subs in after the carrier and other high value targets.

I believe that is how it will work.

I do not believe the ChiComms will go nuclear to get a carrier. That will play to an absolute strength we have that if unleashed, destroys them completely and absoultely.

I do believe they will try the political victory, putting many of their eggs in that basket, making it as costly for us to succeed militarily as possible and then waiting for an administration that may not be willing to pay that cost.

[JamesP81]

It's been a LONG TIME since anyone has sank a carrier in war.

IIRC, I don't think we've sank a hostile capital ship or escort ship larger than a patrol craft since WW2. The Navy has spent its days shooting cruise missiles, naval artillery, and flying sorties against land targets since WW2.

That being said, the United States Navy's first mission is to find and destroy other people's ships, and no one can do it better.

[Jeff Head]

Same lines as its sister ship, the Kusnetzov, that the Russians have been operating for over ten years.

[JamesP81]

Actually, they are already talking about different roles for the F-22...even an enlarged bomber version

That's like saying that the F-15C is good for ground attack, which it truly is. But look at its airframe and other characteristics: it's obvious from the design that it's first and foremost mission is to find hostile aircraft and blow them out of the sky. The Raptor is in much the same mold as the F-15 and the F-14. Find enemy planes, and shoot them down. The Raptor has the improvements of extreme speed and stealth as compared to our current aircraft.

The JSF is a true multi-role, multi-force fighter. Lots of money and expertise invested in it. Some believe it is ill spent because attempts at the same in the past have been such failures. We shall see.

I have always been highly suspicious of these kinds of aircraft. The F-18 attempted to do the same thing. And while the Hornet turned out alright, it didn't turn out to be the stellar fighter/bomber everyone had hoped it would be. Specifically, the C model suffered by not having quite the speed many other fighters had (although the E and F models do much to redress this). I think we would be better off with a little bit more specialization. I think a ground attack plane should be just that: a ground attack plane and a fighter should be solely for shooting down hostile planes. It's good for attack aircraft to have some air-to-air capability for self-defense, but trying to make a fighter and an attack plane in one package is problematic at best.

[JamesP81]

On thing is clear to me, the VTOL version of the aircraft will make every LPH Wasp or Tarawa class ship in the worlkd a potentially potent jeep carrier.

Yes. Our LHDs are going to become far more serious threats overnight. It's good to have some backup for the big boys just in case. And it allows us to project more power in more places at once.

[tanknetter]

I do believe they will try the political victory, putting many of their eggs in that basket, making it as costly for us to succeed militarily as possible and then waiting for an administration that may not be willing to pay that cost.

But for whom is it more important to sink the other side's carrier? Them or us?

I'd wager it's for them ... because in sinking one of our carriers they score an important political victory and it might just act as a military deterrance against a POTUS.

That means we can sit back on the defensive (maybe running some harassment ops to bait the ChiComs out ... offensive fighter sweeps and sub-launched TLAM "Doolittle-style" strikes) and pick them off as they come out to us.

The ChiCom's attempting to sit in the Strait in a defensive posture is a losing scenario for them, because beyond harassment attacks we won't be going after them offensively, en masse. They're the ones who have to achieve control the Strait ... we just need to deny them control of it. And that kind of attrition scenario favors our qualitative advantages.

[Allen H]

IIRC (newbie, don't know all the acronyms just yet). 8)

And yes I can't think of any significant ships since WWII that have been engaged and sank by the U.S.N.. The Brits sank that Argentinian heavy cruiser with Sub launched torpedos in the Falklands War. Saw a really good documentary on that. Our Navy is sure MORE than capable of sinking anything any other nation can put on the water. God willing, in the coming years, there will be more Arleigh Burkes, more advanced additions to the Sub fleet that improve on the Seawolf, and an F-22 type carrier borne type of stealthy fighter/interceptor/all purpose attack craft.

[Jeff Head]

I'd love to see them add an AWACS capability/version of the V-22..along with another one for EW capabilities. That, in conjunction with the JSF, would round out the gator decks for the sea control/jeep carrier duties nicely.

[Allen H]

Thanks for the pic. I have some good ones of the Kusnetsov, but didn't have any of the Varyag until now. They've had more names than Elizibeth Taylor if she'd of taken each husbands name. 8) Are there any others of the class? And what was the Varyag's registry number in the Russian navy, and what is it's registry number in the Chinese number?

[Jeff Head]

The politcal victory would only come if they convinced a demop POTUS not to come to the ROC's aid at all, or with absolutely no staying power. With a Hillery or Kerry, that is very possible. That is what I am talking about.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Allen H]

Excellent observation. Tactically, it would be great to have a single airframe that could accomplish the interceptor and strike roles as well as a role specific aircraft can, like the F-14 in the interceptor role or the A-6 in the strike role. If that was possible, it would allow one carrier to have three full squadrons of 15 each, of the same class aircraft, that could all be used for air to air, or in a strike role. But it seems that to do that, both roles trying to be met have to take hits in one area or another making it less than excellent in both roles. It would be nice thoughm but doesn't seem practical.

[Allen H]

"I'd love to see them add an AWACS capability/version of the V-22..along with another one for EW capabilities. That, in conjunction with the JSF, would round out the gator decks for the sea control/jeep carrier duties nicely."

Now that's a GREAT idea. Would really lighten the load on the fleet carriers in areas not as critical that still need a naval presence, but doesn't necessarily require a Nimitz task force presence. Two or three V-22's in the AEWAC's roll and a couple in the EW role would really be a huge advantage if added to the Tarawa, Wasp, and Iwo Jima class ships.

[GOP_1900AD]

Tu-95s can be used for ASW. There have been rumors of talks with the Russians, around either a sale or a license, for years.