Author Topic: New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !  (Read 1600 times)

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2005, 04:22:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger


My whole assertion is that with out a catapult assisted launch any A/C would be at a HUGE disadvantage in combat againts an american CVN Battle Group.
]

In that case, I just have to again point to the Su-33 and respectfully disagree.

As a Navy man myself of course I agree that US Carriers and Carrier aviation are top notch. But I disagree that the lack of catapults is such a deficiency in the Kuznetsov design, considering the planes embarked. Compare the Su-33 to the French Rafale (launched via catapult from the CDG), or the F/A-18.  

Of course as a "tin can" guy, I'd have to say it's all about the Aegis :p
 

-Sik
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2005, 04:29:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Russian
Russian designers didn’t implement catapult, not because they couldn’t, but because it’s so bloody troublesome to maintain it. If it would affect fighters so much that they cannot operate to full potential, I’m sure they would spend extra money on spies and get needed technology. :aok

Btw – notice combat radius operation of aircraft discussed. Also special version of Su can refuel.


but can you get a refueler off of a CV w/o a catapult?

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2005, 04:31:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sikboy
]

In that case, I just have to again point to the Su-33 and respectfully disagree.

As a Navy man myself of course I agree that US Carriers and Carrier aviation are top notch. But I disagree that the lack of catapults is such a deficiency in the Kuznetsov design, considering the planes embarked. Compare the Su-33 to the French Rafale (launched via catapult from the CDG), or the F/A-18.  

Of course as a "tin can" guy, I'd have to say it's all about the Aegis :p
 

-Sik


but as an aviation guy I KNOW that you cannot fully load up an A/C to it's full potential if you have limited take off space.  That's going to limit it on the battlefield.

This is were tactics come to play wich would not match this A/C up well against a hornet.  OR more realisticly a SQAUDRON of fully fueled Fully armed awacs supported AGEIS supported Hornets.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2005, 04:39:16 PM by Gunslinger »

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2005, 04:33:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
but as an aviation guy I know that you cannot fully load up an A/C to it's full potential if you have limited take off space.  That's going to limit it on the battlefield.

This is were tactics come to play wich would not match this A/C up well against a hornet.  OR more realisticly a SQAUDRON of fully fueled Fully armed awacs supported AGEIS supported Hornets.


I just wonder if there's a Chinese guy wondering why US CVs don't have a ramp.

[edit]

Upon further research, I agree with Gunslinger.


-Sik
« Last Edit: May 28, 2005, 04:37:47 PM by Sikboy »
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2005, 05:10:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow no cats?  How do they expect to take off with fuel and ord?

seriously they'd have to be light as hell.  F18s and Super hornets would eat them alive.



Reminds me of the "light" carriers the British Royal Navy has with the sloped decks for their Harriers.  

IIRC, the reason why the USN decided to keep the flat deck instead of going to the slope deck the Brits pioneered was that it would limit take off weight.  

Wonder how the Commie Chinese carrier compares to one our more modern Super Carriers?  The USS Midway that sits anchored in San Diego Bay looks larger than that Chinese tin can.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2005, 08:12:47 PM »
U guys shouldn be afraid the US will always dominate just because they have the most experience, it is also a good reason to spend money on new cv's.

hence the reason to keep such a expensive mutli billion dollar fleet exists.

And our gawddamned navy talkin about dumping its frigates and only sail coastal patrol boats in the future.

sigh.

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2005, 10:22:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
U guys shouldn be afraid the US will always dominate just because they have the most experience, it is also a good reason to spend money on new cv's.

hence the reason to keep such a expensive mutli billion dollar fleet exists.

And our gawddamned navy talkin about dumping its frigates and only sail coastal patrol boats in the future.

sigh.


I'm also concerned (and in awe) that the Chinese will turn out more scientists, engeeneers, chemists, ect. Chinese Students mirror that of the soviet children back in the 50's-60's.

Offline spitfiremkv

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1135
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2005, 11:50:19 PM »
US still beat them to the moon. HA!
but now the same US relies on Soyuz to take their astronauts to the ISS.
cancel HA!

Offline Enduro

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2005, 12:13:13 AM »
we should bomb the thing now before it has a chance to sail.  mark my words...you'll regret it later if we don't.

Sincerely,

G.W. Bush
TBolt
Last edited by hitech on 09-08-2004 at 10:51 AM for flaming everone.

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2005, 12:46:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
US still beat them to the moon. HA!
but now the same US relies on Soyuz to take their astronauts to the ISS.
cancel HA!


     Every time I think that you've posted the dumbest post ever,
you manage to top yourself, bravo!
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline Pooh21

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3145
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2005, 01:52:10 AM »
We should arrange for it to have an accident like their embassy did.
Bis endlich der Fiend am Boden liegt.
Bis Bishland bis Bishland bis Bishland wird besiegt!

Offline ASTAC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1654
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #56 on: May 29, 2005, 08:00:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Reminds me of the "light" carriers the British Royal Navy has with the sloped decks for their Harriers.  

IIRC, the reason why the USN decided to keep the flat deck instead of going to the slope deck the Brits pioneered was that it would limit take off weight.  

Wonder how the Commie Chinese carrier compares to one our more modern Super Carriers?  The USS Midway that sits anchored in San Diego Bay looks larger than that Chinese tin can.


ack-ack


Actually...the slope allows heavier take off weight...for the harriers anyway...looking for the source now.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2005, 09:42:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
Actually...the slope allows heavier take off weight...for the harriers anyway...looking for the source now.


ASTAC, I think what Ack Ack was refering to is the same thing that Gunslinger was refering to: You can't put as much weight into the air with a ramp as you can with a catapult.

In looking into the Kuznetsov (and the Varyag which is the carrier referenced in this thread) really gives you a window into the Long range plans the Soviets had when the wheels came off the Commie train.

While US Naval Doctrine focuses on power projection, the Soviet's focused most of their resources on Submarine warfare. The bulk of their surface assets were geared towards ASW operations, and this includes their Sea going naval aviation units. If you look at the actual and planned Avation ships, you can see a very clear evolution.

The first operational Aviation ships in the Soviet fleets were the Helo-Carriers "Moskva" and "Lenningrad." These were som ugly bellybutton ships. But they provided the utility of having a dozen or so ASW Helos. I imagine they also carried one or two OTH targeting Helo's as well, but I'm not sure about that. The point being, this first step in Seagoing Aviation was primarily to serve as an ASW platform.

The Second step in their evolution were the Kiev class ships. These were the first to carry fixed wing aircraft. The Yak-38 was as ugly an airplane as the Moskva was an ugly ship. But I would suggest that the Kiev was still primarily an ASW support ship. The meat of the aviation wing was geared towards the same Ka-25/27 units that were on the Moskva ships. While the Yak-38 has some a2g/anti-ship capabilities, I believe they were primarily relied on to provide fleet air defense. We used to joke about them comming equiped with Hull mounted sonar since they spent so much time in the drink.  

That brings us to the Varyag.

These ships carry conventional fixed wing aircraft, and this is a first for Russian aviation. However, they are still very limited in capability. I don't have a lot of research on it, but according to John Pike over at globalsecurity.com, they can not launch heavily loaded planes which precludes the use of ground attack varients of the Su-33, and limits them to an Air Defense role. Obviously the Su-33 is a significant upgrade over the Yak-38, yet still the Ship is limited in its ability to project power. But just as important as providing improved fleet air defense, these ships were going to pave the way for the next generation of ships. The Kuznetsov and Varyag would be used to train a cadre of Carrier pilots who would man the next two ships to come off the lines.

These are the ships that were never built. The Soviet plan was to build actual fleet carriers with a full flight deck including catapults.  The Varyag and Kuznetsov would still be used as Air defense carriers, but the new CVs would have a much greater offensive capability.

Thats my $.2 anyhow.

-Sik
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2005, 09:55:42 AM »
They Kuzentsov class also has 192  SAM's and 12 ASM missiles. Dunno what the Chinese will do regarding that tho.

Offline ASTAC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1654
New Chinese Aircraft Carrier !
« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2005, 10:01:09 AM »
I agree with your analasis Sikboy.

This is exasctly what we in the US Navy have always figured about the Russian CV programme...They did have a ship on the building way that was much larger more modern CV that was scrapped before much work was done due to the cost to build it.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety