The Chinese Navy (PLAN) is Transforming the VARYAG into an operational aircraft carrier

The Rising Sea Dragin in Asia Web Site ^ | March 3, 2007 | Jeff Head

[Tallguy]

My personal opinion is that the Varyag is there to provide defensive air cover & airborne ASW coverage for the CG's & DDG's and that's about it. Her offensive capabilities are marginal.

[Right Winged American]

Presently China has a coastal navy and not a very well-organized one. It is no secret that they want to expand to a Blue Water force of some size and capability. Such is a MASSIVE undertaking for a nation whose last experiences were big wooden junks sailing to Africa and back by eunuchs.

You do not sail a carrier battle group into the oceans without years of training, and I estimate 10 years, starting from scratch! Reason: A carrier battle group has to operate in all conditions where every able seaman, petty officer, officer up to and including the Admirals performs as a "Single Organism"! That does not happen easily and it can expire very soon without constant training and operations.

Well stated. Unless they learn and practice Underway Replenishment (UNREP), they're Brown Water all the way. The US Navy does this all the time, the Brits most of the time, and the old USSR did it really badly. It doesn't matter how many spiffy new Curiser, Tin Can, and DE equivalents they build, unless they can load food, ammo, and fuel at sea, Force Projection is a non-starter for the PLAN.

[IrishCatholic]

bookmark for later printing.

[WLR]

Actually I think I essentially agree with both of you.

You both are correct...no slam dunk...My concern is our fleets are shrinking in size. Further, the argument that they are more capable is not fully quantifiable as technological advantage is ephemeral and transitory..

That is to say they advantage the newest ship has over 5 older less costly vessels is sleight in terms of combat.
The argument that older ships are more expensive when examined in detail often proves species.

This is broad based problem with technological advantage.

Better I should use an example I am most familiar with.

The US M60A3 Series Medium Tank without the Blazer Armor add on is terribly vulnerable to direct fire engagement, Main gun and even RPG. The hulls except the front Mantle and Glacias are pretty thin.


However dug in in the defense had the Iraq Tankers been US Tankers using the M60s. Our M1 Tanks would have been mauled if not defeated in a Tank on Tank engagement.. Why?

The 105mm rifled Main Gun is extremely accurate in the real world. More than 30 years of ballistic history and knowledge went into the Ballistic Computer and Fire Control Systems. The Thermal Sight on the A3 was actually more costly that the M1 and more effective.... mmmm

Couple those two thing with well trained disciplined and aggressive Tankers who could engage at the same distances as the M1s and you have a recipe for disaster for our best Heavy Battle Tank...

Now fortunately we haven;t faced a mirror image of ourselves yet...

The Chinese would like to address that.. They are intelligent, economically solvent and are about a picky where they steal technological advantage as JAG Officer is about what whore house his mother works in (as long as he can refer his friends and gets his commission on her daily receipts).

I do not want our US Forces to be so concentrated as to make them vulnerable to that "one chink" :) in our technological armor. So few in number we are history before we can develop a counter.

In short we it is not "either or", Technology or numbers it is a balance that is needed.. 20 B1 may be fine if there are 1000 B52 behind them (I don't know the number).. 12 Super Carriers may be fine if there were 50 Jeep Carriers behind them..

The problem is our Generals and Admirals view everything as a zero sum game and if they allow for a Medium Tank like the M60 (which with the Up_Armor Package is better in an insurgency like Iraq). Or Jeep Carriers they conclude there will be less for the M1 or the Super Carrier..

The truth is we need both the most advanced and numbers and no one in the leadership position gets it yet.

I look forward to your response.

W

[glorgau]

This carrier battle group against say, the USS Reagan carrier group would be outclassed in just about any specialty you could think of. AND it is only one against about 12 of our groups.

But it would compare favorably to any of the regional rivals - Japan, Australia, India.

[glorgau]

The Thermal Sight on the A3 was actually more costly that the M1 and more effective.

Not that I recall, and I've fired both. The A3 did have that nifty azimuth indicator though...

[WLR]

Hey TreadHead

Yes it was not a too popular subject when folks found out. You could actually see the difference in the original M1 vs 60A3. They have upgraded the M1 Thermal but it wasn't updated in 89 as far as I know.. The point would hold true with equivalent optics as you know the 105 Rifled sabot is just a darn accurate round but even if only equivalent I would not want to be downrange and live on the difference.. The M1 could probably take a 105 sabot to direct front (I would not want to aboard) but on the sides I don't think so and properly deployed in the defense the M60's would have many opportunities for flanking shots against a company of M1's in the assault. That would be one on one two or three on one... I don't think the M1s would prevail..More crews would survive but I think the losses would be staggering and unsustainable. Considering that you can buy 5 M60A3 Up-Armored from Greece for the price of an M1...My original premises that technological differences are sleight and ephemeral, that numbers and quality are needed not either or still stands..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patton_tank

The M60A3 was phased out of service in the early 1990s, but it remained a front-line MBT into the 21st century for a number of countries.

While overall a less effective tank than the M1 Abrams, the M60A3 did have some advantages over M1 models:

The M60A3 had a notably better passive infrared scope than that of M1 up into the 21st century, until many M1 had newer ones installed.



How can Mech Armor tell they just ran over a group of operators?

By the number of wires in their Treads

W

[investigateworld]

bttt for surface warfare

[Tallguy]

The M1 could probably take a 105 sabot to direct front (I would not want to aboard) but on the sides I don't think so and properly deployed in the defense the M60's would have many opportunities for flanking shots against a company of M1's in the assault.

How likely was ANY tank going to get a flank shot against a company of M1's in Iraq? Given the nature of the terrain, I mean. As soon as you get up out of your revetments your meat for the Warthogs & Apaches.

[Cheburashka]

I admit that I haven't spent much time keeping track of it, but you don't just sneak them onboard. If they aren't in now then they'll have to cut holes in that newly non-skidded flight deck to install them. Just seems backwards to me. And if the Chinese do want a carrier then they've chosen a gold-plated way to go about it. For all the time, effort, and money they're sinking into this thing they could have bought two new ones from a Russian shipyard.
---
They probably put the engineering equipment in from below or the sides when it was in drydock, then sealed it back up again.

The thing that surprises me is they haven't actually hit the ignition and taken it out for a run to prove the it all works. Russian, Ukrainian, and Chinese hands on the designs of these engineering spaces - it seems to be a prescription for some engines that will have some kinks to work out. And if it don't go, the fancy deck treatment is money down the drain.

But maybe the Chinese are cleverer than I give them credit for and have it all under control.

AS for buying from the Russians, the Kuznetsov was built in the Ukraine, and if I were Russian or Chinese I would expect that any classified info given to Ukrainian builders would be forwarded to the Pentagon within the day. I'm not even sure the Russians now have a dockyard capable of building a Kuznetsov. I expect any further Chinese carriers will be built in Chinese yards. If they haven't started work I expect they are waiting to see how this little experiment works out before ordering home production.

[Cheburashka]

Although the Chinese are apparently developing the ability to project power, I can't imagine how a navy that can be tracked by satellite and sunk with GPS guided weapons can survive against the United States Navy.
---
You weren't paying attention, but the Chinese just proved they can shoot down satellites. GPS capability suddenly becomes iffy.

[Wildbill22]

We had like 9000 M-60s. What happened to them? Scrapped, or stored?

[SLB]

WLR - Hate to tell you this, but the Abrams will come out ahead in the M60A3 scenarios you describe. The 120mm smooth bore will out range the 105mm by a considerable distance. The accuracy of the Abrams now far surpasses the M60A3. You were correct in comparing the M60A3 to the M1 and to some extent the M1A1, but look at the M1A2 and things change rapidly.

All tanks have vulnerability, but the M60A3, even with reactive armor added is still nothing but an active target for any M1A2 on the battlefield of today.

I don't want to get into specifics, as "loose lips sink ships" but suffice to say, the Abrams will be the premier MBT in the world until at least 2025 and probably years beyond.

[SLB]

We had like 9000 M-60s. What happened to them? Scrapped, or stored?

Many were de-miled and are now in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic as fish reefs.

[Jeff Head]

The Chinese fly and now license build a mopdernization of the Russian TU-16 badger bomber to this day. They have modified the design and used 14 of them for quite some time as refueling aircraft.

More recently that have purchased 8 IL-78 tanker aircraft from Russia...much more modern, much more capable.

[Jeff Head]

Exactly...that is why on a lot of Chinese forums, and from some of their military people, that that name is being bantied around.

[Jeff Head]

Lol!...or perhaps, Clin Dong

[Jeff Head]

Our carriers used to carry their own tankers...and they still retain the capabilbility with what are known as "buddy stores". Ie. a Super Hornet with a buddy store under its wings flies along with the strike group and refuels them when necessary. Add 3-4 such Hornets to the strike group and you extend the range significantly. Theoretically, a strike group could be formed that would only be limited by the pilot's enduraance.

[Jeff Head]

The chinese are b7uilding many new, large amphibious assault vessels as we speak.

[Jeff Head]

That was the Soviet doctrine...it is yet to be seen if the Chinese will adopt the same doctrine.

The vessel can carry a larger and more divers airwing than what the russians use. If it turns out that their negotiations for a more multi-role version of the SU-33 comes about, adding the air to surface targeting and munitions and vectored thrust, they could develop a credible, albeit not too long range, strike capability.