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

[Jeff Head]

They have learned and have been practising UNREP activities for the last several years. One of the pictures in this post shows an example.

[Jeff Head]

I tend to agree. We have downsized rapidly with this idea that we are both unassailable and that the time for large conflict is over. I do not agree. many thought the same thing after World War I and it ultimately begat World wr II.

IMHO, we should have 14 large carrier battle groups and 12-14 jeep carriers...in addition to our Phibron groups with the large Amphibious Assault vessels. And, of course all of the DDGs FFGs SSNs and AOR vessels to support them.

A smaller carrier with 30-40 aircraft, flying JSF and using AEW and ASW versions of the Opsrey would be an awesome vessel for escort of the amphibs, sea control, large ASW operations, etc., freeing up the large "fleet" carriers for the heavy pounding needed against land targets and to chase down and destroy other nations carriers.

All of that would be necessary in a large scale war...and unless we do something to halt the PLAN juggernaut that it is building, sooner or later we will be facing one.

Just my opinion, and one reeason why I wrote the Dragon's Fury Series novels. They are filled with a lot of naval engagements, as well as all the rest associated with a World War III. If you are interested, it is available in free download form---> HERE.

[Jeff Head]

Anyhow...hitting a target moving at 35-45 miles per hour with GPS weaponry is not real likely anyhow. You need guided munitions for strike at sea warfare...but not GPS guided. Radar, infrared, EM, etc.

[FreeAtlanta]

That is the ugliest aircraft carrier in the world. Clinton - the bent one - would be find something familar about it.

[El Gato]

Harpoon warhead is kinda small for taking out something that big. Turn a Los Angeles class fast attack, or better one of the new SSN-21 class, at this point the Virginia and the Texas. Their MK 48 ADCAP, 650 lbs (292.5 kg) high explosive warhead, torpedoes would be much more effective than the smaller (488 pounds/224 kg) warhead on the Harpoon, in part because it's delieved below the waterline, perhaps even below the keel. Here's the effect of a MK-48 on a destroyer sized ship.

The rest of the sequence is here

[El Gato]

IMHO, it is more likely that either our own carrier aircraft, or one of our subs, would be firing the warshots that struck this vessel if it ever came to a shooting war.

Yep, a 2,000 or 5,000 pound "Bunker buster" laid right next to the island would do a number on her, two or three would be even better. Even a regular 2,000 HE bomb would quiet likely break her back and send her to Davy Jone's locker . However she'd have her own air defense, and likely would never operate far from land based air cover, mostly within it. Of course that wouldn't save her from the attack subs.

[Jeff Head]

Oh, heck...let's just post the entire sequence...

There. The MK-48 is awesome...and VERY powerful. That is the weapon that would do the trick in such an engagement.

[El Gato]

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

GPS guidance is not too useful for moving targets, unless they also have a separate terminal stage guidance of some sort, which would track the actual target, not just a set of coordinates, which is what GPS does. The GPS would serve to get the weapon into the acquisition basket of the terminal seeker, although depending on how far away the launch platform is when it launches, even that might be problematic. But it does raise some interesting possible combinations of GPS and other guidance techniques.

[El Gato]

For all the time, effort, and money they're sinking into this thing they could have bought two new ones from a Russian shipyard.

Not really, the Chinese work much Cheaper than Russians or Ukrainians (It's the Ukrainians who have the experience in building these sorts of ship, or did anyway). Meanwhile they are also learning a lot about how to build this kind of ship, only better. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Chinese "students" have been aboard all the "Museum ships", Lexington (Corpus Christi Tex), Intrepid (New York), Yorktown (Charleston SC) Hornet (Alameda), Midway(San Diego), and any other's I've missed (Maybe even the Cabot before she was sent to the breakers). (Projects underway for Saratoga and Ranger as well) The Chinese also tried to get hold of the hulk of the Coral Sea, after the company scrapping her went under, but that was blocked by the US Navy.

[WLR]

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.

First off US Meeting engagements in Iraq GW1 were against tanks that SURVIVED the Apaches and Warthogs. None the less by adding other elements you miss the purpose of the example..

What I am trying to demonstrate is that the actual difference between the pentultimate weapons system M1 and a more run of the mill but same field weapon system (the M60) is far thinner than one might imagine.. Further that holds for F22 Raptors or Aircraft Carriers or nearly any weapons platform you can think of..

This is backed by history and only makes sense.

Before I go further someone asked would the M60s get flanking shots.. Well if they are in the Defense one can pretty well be assured they have sought to analyze the terrain and select those positions which maximize that opportunity. Further in the defense the M1s would maybe run into 3-4 M60s deployed forward who would fire and run for home along preplanned escape routes. Under the covering fire of the rest of their company. Consider for every 20 M1 Abrabs (Company) you could buy nearly a Battalion of M60s. (60 plus Tanks and assessories) The M1 has to be refueled every few hours while the M60s can run for about 3 days or 250 Miles.. The advantage becomes less clear. Surviving a front mantle hit does not mean the tank is dead nor that all is ok so that is nothing to sneeze at.

The most important point is we need BadAssed Systems like the M1, B1 Bomber, Large Carriers but we cannot sacrifice one for the other we need a mix and we don;t have it..

That is bad news.

W

[Tatze]

It will make an excellent reef in the Straits of Taiwan!

[El Gato]

20 B1 may be fine if there are 1000 B52 behind them (I don't know the number)..

Well, it's a whole lot less than 1,000.

There are only 85 B-52s in the active force, and 9 in the Reserve. Add to that 65 B-1Bs (plus some in storage at the boneyard, which could be brought back to flight status...maybe if we haven't taken too many parts off of them to keep the others flying). That's it for heavy bombers in the USAF inventory, and of course the Navy and Marines don't have any heavies. BTW, there are 21 B-2s, but one is used strictly for tests.

[Jeff Head]

Not enough. IMHO, we should have a couple of hundred B-1Bs and 80-100 B-2s...minimum.

The Navy should have gotten the A-12...or should get something similar to replace the A-6. There are no more S-3s on the carriers so there is no long range, high endurance, high capacity, airborne ASW aircraft on the carriers anymmore...and I believe that is a big mistake.

We need a longer range AAW missile on our barrier CAP aircraft, although with the upgrade to the AIM-120D we are getting close.

[El Gato]

The Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) will be using the same 105mm rifled gun as the old M-60. Much better electronics too I'm sure. Of course it's very thin skinned, and is out ranged by various threat tanks.

I also don't know that they've actually been able to keep it from flipping over when the gun is fired abeam. They claim to have, but I'm skeptical. :) We'll see, Initial Operational Test is sometime next year, IIRC.

[Jeff Head]

Perhaps so, but we cannot afford to underestimate what the PLAN is doing and their capacity for rapid growth and manufacturing as more and more time goes on.

For example, in the last 5-6 years they have added over 80 new, modern, and capable major combatants to their fleet. In that same period they have not decommissioned any major combatants. Their Navy has grown by a net 80+ vessels.

In the same time period, we have built about 46 new major combatants...but we have decommissioned close to 50 major combatants, many of them, like all the Spruance class destroyers, with 10-15 years of service life remaining in them. Our net growth is a loss of four major combatants in the fleet.

The trend is not a good one at all.

[El Gato]

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.

Which the Soviets did with their Badgers a long time ago. Although it looks like the Chinese modification is not the same as the Soviet one.

From FAS:

from 1963 on the TU-16 was converted into TU-16N tanker aircraft. This tanker version featured a 'Probe and drogue' system with a Yakovlev-built centerline fueling unit in the bomb bay and ARK-5 beacon. It was mainly used to support probe-equipped Tu-22 and Tu-22M Blinder bomber regiments..

The earlier Tu-16E could could refuel other Tu-16s in an unusual wing-tip to wing-tip configuration.

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. Another enemy ship = another target.

[Jeff Head]

Its interesting because the Chinese keep building that design on their own. The just restarted production in 2006 for a new crusie missile platform variant capable of carrying four cruise missiles on wing pylons.

The design is not quite as old as the B-52, but they are also not nearly as capable as the last B-52 designs, either in armament, payload, electronics, counter measures, range, etc. But they are new airframes.

[Jeff Head]

Sounds like you either are, or were, a submariner. All surface vessels are targets to submariners.

[El Gato]

Not enough. IMHO, we should have a couple of hundred B-1Bs and 80-100 B-2s...minimum.

Yeh but that would require the DoD budget to get up to where it was, in terms of % of GDP, say in the beginning of the Clinton era, which even *after* 9-11, we haven't done, although we are finally getting close. FY-93 it was 4.4%, FY-05 it waws 4.0%, but only 4 years after 9-11, and a couple of years into the Iraq phase of the War on Islamic Terrorists.

The Navy should have gotten the A-12...or should get something similar to replace the A-6

I'd say the latter. The A-12, while cool, was a monstrosity, even naming it after the aircraft that the President, GHW Bush, had flown couldn't save the overweight pig. The Navy's aircraft development system is broken, IMHO, and the Army is having it's own problems in development. Only the Air Force seems to be able to bring new weapons systems to deployment. although ghe Navy ship side, including subs, is still on the track as well.

I worked on a major sub contract for the A-12, way back in those days, even before the down select. In fact I think that is one of the Navy and Army's problems, they down select too soon. The AF tries to do that after the prototypes or demonstrators are built, and not just on the basis of paper designs.

Even the F/A-18E/F is product improved F/A-18, which itself is Navalised YF-17, the loser to the YF-16 in the Air Forces fly-off. They also went to competitive prototypes or concept demonstrators with YF-22 vs YF-23 and X-32 vs X-35.

Of course they did not do this with B-1B or B-2, or even F-15 IIRC.