The Chinese Cruiser, forget the carrier...

[iceHawk]

"In regards to China's surface fleet (presently consisting of 64 large combatant units: 21 destroyers and 43 frigates), for the next decade Beijing will be committed to the demanding process of replacing obsolete ships, that had for so long reduced the Chinese Navy to a mere coastal fleet, with more modern units. For this reason, P.L.A.N. continues to bring into service units of Russian Sovremenny class destroyers, while pursuing the construction of 052B and 052C class warships,in addition to the construction of a completely new ship, being built in China's Dalian shipyard, that is expected to be very large and loaded with heavy surface armament (probably similar to Russia's Slava class cruisers)."

"...The submarine fleet will have the same duties as surface vessels, but is also expected to be assigned the hard task of facing the "traditional" Taiwanese adversary and, supposedly, coping with U.S. battle groups. In fact, it appears that Beijing discarded the possibility of deploying a limited number of aircraft carriers (which would appear excessive in relation to other regional navies) since they would have little hope of prevailing in an engagement with U.S. naval forces. This explains why China's aircraft carrier planning and construction is slowing in pace. Indeed, Beijing now prefers a well-stocked fleet of diesel submarines and nuclear powered submarines to have the difficult role of exerting some deterrence against American ships in case of a crisis.

Following this path, China will rise to a respectable level of underwater power, partially repeating the Soviet strategy during the Cold War. However, unlike the past Soviet submarine fleet (essentially dedicated to attacking N.A.T.O. forces and protecting bastions full of SSBNs), Chinese submarine forces seem to be assigned the role of supporting surface forces -- in their attempts to control sea lines of communication, with the additional mission of trying to exert some form of counter-power against U.S. forces."


http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=364&language_id=1

[MIGleader]

one or two carriers arnt to bad, they are very useful for the pla to project around its sea lanes. crusers? i only know that the chinese have two 51c destroyers under construction.

[iceHawk]

Carrier > "would have little hope of prevailing in an engagement with U.S. naval forces" ie waste of $ if its going to the bottom of the sea anyways.

"construction of a completely new ship, being built in China's Dalian shipyard, that is expected to be very large and loaded with heavy surface armament (probably similar to Russia's Slava class cruisers)." > no clue either, hence posting it here, maybe someone can find out more info.

[MIGleader]

the carrier is not to be used against the u.s, but maybe japan or taiwan.

[iceHawk]

the carrier is not to be used against the u.s, but maybe japan or taiwan.
And just how would the US Carrier battle groups just let that happen??? :rolleyes: Either way the quoted paper seems very accurate of future Chinese naval intentions. It also seems to make sense. The recent deal for Il-76 and Il-78 transports would suggest that their air projection will go with J-11s and tankers, not a carrier. Makes much more sense either way.

[MIGleader]

it will happen when there's a war that doesn't invole the u.s. a carrier also lets china finally claim a blue water navy, something it deserves and has been wanting for a long time.

[Jeff Head]

"it appears that Beijing discarded the possibility of deploying a limited number of aircraft carriers since they would have little hope of prevailing in an engagement with U.S. naval forces.

I believe that they will try and do both, ie. deploy a larger surface combatant class and develop carriers. First possibly the Varyag, followed by their own development.

But that's just my opinion.

In either case, short of some sognificant breakthrough technologically, like an operational and effective supercavitator, or a major break down in the US, it will be years before either path, or both paths, represent a significant challenge to the US Navy.

[PLABUDDY]

"In regards to China's surface fleet (presently consisting of 64 large combatant units: 21 destroyers and 43 frigates), for the next decade Beijing will be committed to the demanding process of replacing obsolete ships, that had for so long reduced the Chinese Navy to a mere coastal fleet, with more modern units. For this reason, P.L.A.N. continues to bring into service units of Russian Sovremenny class destroyers, while pursuing the construction of 052B and 052C class warships,in addition to the construction of a completely new ship, being built in China's Dalian shipyard, that is expected to be very large and loaded with heavy surface armament (probably similar to Russia's Slava class cruisers)."

"...The submarine fleet will have the same duties as surface vessels, but is also expected to be assigned the hard task of facing the "traditional" Taiwanese adversary and, supposedly, coping with U.S. battle groups. In fact, it appears that Beijing discarded the possibility of deploying a limited number of aircraft carriers (which would appear excessive in relation to other regional navies) since they would have little hope of prevailing in an engagement with U.S. naval forces. This explains why China's aircraft carrier planning and construction is slowing in pace. Indeed, Beijing now prefers a well-stocked fleet of diesel submarines and nuclear powered submarines to have the difficult role of exerting some deterrence against American ships in case of a crisis.

Following this path, China will rise to a respectable level of underwater power, partially repeating the Soviet strategy during the Cold War. However, unlike the past Soviet submarine fleet (essentially dedicated to attacking N.A.T.O. forces and protecting bastions full of SSBNs), Chinese submarine forces seem to be assigned the role of supporting surface forces -- in their attempts to control sea lines of communication, with the additional mission of trying to exert some form of counter-power against U.S. forces."


http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=364&language_id=1



Please what kind of retarded article is this??? WHY MAKE THE PLAN A COSTAL DEFENCE NAVY??? PLAN SHOULD AIM FOR BLUE-WATER NAVY!

[iceHawk]

Please what kind of retarded article is this??? WHY MAKE THE PLAN A COSTAL DEFENCE NAVY??? PLAN SHOULD AIM FOR BLUE-WATER NAVY!

The title is ''The Modernization of the Chinese Navy''.
"The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader."

As to the costal defense statement. Thats retarded. The article claims they're going to follow the Soviet naval doctrine of blue water naval developement. "Indeed, Beijing now prefers a well-stocked fleet of diesel submarines and nuclear powered submarines to have the difficult role of exerting some deterrence against American ships in case of a crisis."

[MIGleader]

a blue water navy does not have to have a carrier. the soviet navy had world projection ability without carriers for the 80's. the british navy was a blue water one for hundreds of years with no carriers.

the aquisition of the forces make china green water, and if they ave one carrier, they will be blue water.

india
thailand
brazil
are all not blue water!!!!

[iceHawk]

Thank you...

[maddogy4645]

My speculations of the future Chinese cruisers:

general features expected:

-application of APAR or PAR: since the PLAN wish to control the airspace near Taiwan, also have the ability to coordinate hundreds of units in operations, the new cruisers are likely to feature improved PAR or APAR from the original 52C DDGs. Better supercomputers are needed to process more information, to track more targets, coordinate more units, and serve as Command and Control center for fleet ASW and AD center. Also the future application after the unification of Taiwan would be to challenge the control for the Middle east, West Pacific, and trade routes to South America. Those regions are vital to ensure that sufficient amount of oil are "flowing" to China.

-standardization of hot launch systems with the rest of the fleet

-new short range missile systems similar to ESSM and Sea Ram. Currently such system has not yet had its debut. However, we know that PLAN is studying the USN closely, and the current trend is clearly demonstrated by the new Arleigh Burke Flight IIs which lack CIWS and rely its close in defence on VLS ESSM. It is crucial for PLAN to develop such systems.

-VLS medium range missiles (<100km) might also be operated to save space
and thus carry more missiles.

-cruise missiles would definitely be incorporated if land strike is necessary. However, if the PLAN doctrine requires such cruiser to have substancial capabilities against enemy surface combatants, then the limited space would be used for VLS antiship missiles capable of ripple firing.

[Gollevainen]

a blue water navy does not have to have a carrier. the soviet navy had world projection ability without carriers for the 80's. the british navy was a blue water one for hundreds of years with no carriers.

Now this is defenetly stubidiest comment that ive read for a time...(I hope sincirely that you ment to be ironical on that last sentence ;) )

Soviet navy aquired carries to be a blue water navy. The soviet navy was large but its effectivenes on high seas agaisnt USN was very questionable up untill the latest parts of 80's when Kuznetsov begun seatrials. After WWII modern naval combat is been determed by the aviability of airpower and only practical way to bring this over the deep blue seas is carrier. British werent able to take out Falklands whitout the small VSTOL carriers, and if the opponent would have been any stronger, it would have required conventional carrier.

Even if PLAN dont want to take part in Powerprotection missions, carrier is a must in all other major task pointed to naval forces. Fleet airdefence, seacontrol, convoy escort, asw hunter-killer missions, all requires some sort of airpower to be conducted perfectly... India is blue water navy by the simble fact that it poses martime airpower in shipborne form and therefore its operational capapilityes in pure naval aspect suprass PLAN. Brazil may not have the most effective AAW ships, but it can still poses formitable ASW taskgroup to (hypothetically) challenge even PLAN. I would respect if memebers taking part in naval discussion would take even little look on the basics of martime strategy.

[Blob]

Now this is defenetly stubidiest comment that ive read for a time...(I hope sincirely that you ment to be ironical on that last sentence ;) )
I honestly think Migleader needs to see a psychiatrist because he rarely makes any sense in his posts. Or maybe his poor English is the problem which makes him sound non-sensical.

He must have an IQ of 70 or something.

[Gollevainen]

I think it got something to do whit the age...
but no personal attacks or insults, remember!

[MIGleader]

I honestly think Migleader needs to see a psychiatrist because he rarely makes any sense in his posts. Or maybe his poor English is the problem which makes him sound non-sensical.

He must have an IQ of 70 or something.

my iq is 139, thank you very much.
i have know english since four, and im much more fluent at it than chinese.
why do i sound stupid? no one else seems to think so

back to the carrier
a carrier will finally let china show off. its been building a modern fleet since the 90's, and now it can sent its own cvbg on a world tour. But my point was, a blue water navy does not have to have a carrier.

[Gollevainen]

But my point was, a blue water navy does not have to have a carrier.

maybe before the 40's but not in modern world. I would love to hear some points supporting your opinion...

[Wingman]

I agree that cruisers would be more fitting for the PLAN. Most of China's potential enemies are close enough that planes from mainland can easily reach them. The only potential naval enemy that is out of reach is the US and I don't think it would make a difference even if China did build a carrier, they'll lose to the USN anyway. It's both larger and more advanced.

[Gollevainen]

they'll lose to the USN anyway. It's both larger and more advanced.

....no country will ever base it's weapon aqustion policy to "whats the point, they are still larger than us" type of logic...Wheter US have carriers or how long they have had them is irelevant to chinese carrier aqustion plans.

[PLABUDDY]

....no country will ever base it's weapon aqustion policy to "whats the point, they are still larger than us" type of logic...Wheter US have carriers or how long they have had them is irelevant to chinese carrier aqustion plans.

Gollevainen i agree with you. I doubt there would be a major sino-american war in the next 10 to 20 years. The biggest battle that could happen which i believe is the sino-sino war. A carrier would definitely help mainland in a war with taiwan. If planes take off from Fujian, they would have to go back for re-fuelling 15-20 minutes after it arrives in the sky of taiwan. :)

[Raven]

People tend to forget that the Captial Ship has always changed in history. From my standpoint, the CV is in it's last days. Here's why:

-CVs demand an extreme amount of money,support and training.
-Air Force aircraft are cheaper,usually faster and are made in larger numbers.
-SSM and ASM missiles are clear threats to CVSG/CVBGs.
-Submarines are very dangerous opponents for CVs.
-Few nations can afford to spend trillions on the CV,CVSG and CVW.
-Naval aircraft, while very effective are serving in very small numbers.

At the moment the SSN and SSGN are slowly moving into the capital ship seat. Unlike a carrier, subs are very steathly and carry weapons to threaten enemy ships,land facilities and even aircraft. Submarines are very flexible and also very hard to detect. An amphibous assault would likely fail if enemy subs are present, wether firing SSMs and torpedos or flooding the beachhead area with mines and Special Forces.

[Jeff Head]

In my opinion, as long as the US Navy keeps building them, supporting them, and defending them, the carrier will be viewed as the premium capital ship.

Should any one of those three things fail (building, supporting, or defending), then things will move in another direction.

Until one of those nuts is cracked...the carrier will be top dog in the navy and on the world's oceans.

The SSN, with all its other capabilities is intregal to that defense, just as the airwing and the Aegis vessels are. As long as the USN keeps building those and enhancing and improving their technology to be the most capable in the world...no one will crack the other three nuts without significant expenditures, and dare I say, some surprizes that they will have to develop.

Just my opinion.

[MIGleader]

maybe before the 40's but not in modern world. I would love to hear some points supporting your opinion...


so if i had 100 arleigh burkes, 50 kilos, 10 lpds, and 20 ticos, i still wont have a blue water navy?

I expect if the chinese start now, they can complete varyag by 08, and get it operatinal by 2010. they can send a crew to train on kutznev while the ship is being completed.

[Jeff Head]

so if i had 100 arleigh burkes, 50 kilos, 10 lpds, and 20 ticos, i still wont have a blue water navy?

Clearly, if you have enough powerful ships, you can be a blue water navy...but if another blue water navy, who sports significant air power on those waves far from shore and land based air, employs that air power against you...you will most assuredly lose.

I expect if the chinese start now, they can complete varyag by 08, and get it operatinal by 2010. they can send a crew to train on kutznev while the ship is being completed.

I would not be surprized to see the Varyag, in some form, shown off by the PLAN in conjunction with the Olympics in 2008.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The missile-bearing ship is the future of naval combat. Forget carriers. In the future, there will be hypersonic missiles that can strike ships a thousand miles away. Also, new electromagnetic rail guns will be able to propel shells at targets over 200 miles away.

Clearly, if you have enough powerful ships, you can be a blue water navy...but if another blue water navy, who sports significant air power on those waves far from shore and land based air, employs that air power against you...you will most assuredly lose.

Not if you have strike missiles that have greater range than their aircraft. Missiles are harder to shoot down than aircraft. And if really did have 100 arliegh burkes, then it is impossible for their aircraft to get passed you air defences.

[swimmerXC]

so if i had 100 arleigh burkes, 50 kilos, 10 lpds, and 20 ticos, i still wont have a blue water navy?

I expect if the chinese start now, they can complete varyag by 08, and get it operatinal by 2010. they can send a crew to train on kutznev while the ship is being completed.

no you wouldn't you want to know why? YOU HAVE NO TRAINING ON THOSE SHIPS/SUBS!!!

[IDonT]

The missile-bearing ship is the future of naval combat. Forget carriers. In the future, there will be hypersonic missiles that can strike ships a thousand miles away. Also, new electromagnetic rail guns will be able to propel shells at targets over 200 miles away.



Not if you have strike missiles that have greater range than their aircraft. Missiles are harder to shoot down than aircraft. And if really did have 100 arliegh burkes, then it is impossible for their aircraft to get passed you air defences.


You will have a great fleet, as long as you have ammo on your ships magazines. The number of strike sorties a single carrier can generate will beat your ships. The fire power pack in a single cruise missile is only a small percentage to what a carrier borne aircraft can carry.

Plus it has the added bonus of easier to re arm and refuel while AT SEA. Reloading a ships magazine is a different. You need to be at dock for that, especially for those type of fast flying missiles such as the Sunburn.

In short, a carrier has endurance that no surface warfare ship can hope to match.

[MIGleader]

not if the russians made a carrier sized super cruser loaded to the teeth with rail guns, misslas, torpedoes, and sensors.

[IDonT]

not if the russians made a carrier sized super cruser loaded to the teeth with rail guns, misslas, torpedoes, and sensors.

You mean like the Arsenal SHip, US Navy got rid of that idea because it was not cost effective.

Russians can't afford to keep most of its fleet in operational, what makes you think they can afford to design, build, and arm a ship this size.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/arsenal_72.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/arsenal2.jpg

[Raven]

MiG Leader, if the PLAN wants a real Blue Water, good at sea support ships are a must. Underway replishment is also part of it. Heavy and Medium lift helicopters are also a big part. If the ships have to stop to refuel at very predicible points, they are easy to attack or neutralize.

[Jeff Head]

if the PLAN wants a real Blue Water, good at sea support ships are a must. Underway replishment is also part of it. Heavy and Medium lift helicopters are also a big part.

Amen, well said. And therfore the PLAN will also require the ability (meaning enough good combatants) to protect that logistics part as well. The movement and missions of the fleet can be successfuly interdicted by destroying the logistics trail as well.

[vincelee]

that PINR report is obviously written by someone not well versed in this field. Let's see, the "cruiser" is actually a destroyer, the type 051C if you will. HQ-9's performance is unknown, but let's not talk about that. China has had VDS for quite a while now, starting with the Luhu series, which employed the French DUXX-5(?) VDS set.

[drunkhomer]

i think china is goin in2 da rite direction rite now in investing more in submarines.....its suits them better 4 da time being.....i mean if china really wanted a carrier..dey obviosuly hav da money and capability 2 build one rite now...but if china got a carrier now..it be a sitting duck

[bd popeye]

In short, a carrier has endurance that no surface warfare ship can hope to match

Amen. As a former Avation oradnceman I can tell you with 100% certanity that a USN CV carries enough ammo to conduct airstrikes 24 hours a day for 3-5 days depending on the mission. After that time the ship would re-arm. You can't beat that firepower.

You mean like the Arsenal SHip, US Navy got rid of that idea because it was not cost effective

True. But the idea has been revived with the conversion of Ohio class SSBN. Converting them to an SSGN. They can carry 132 missiles.

http://www.ohio.navy.mil/html/conversion.htm[QUOTE]

[MIGleader]

an arsenal ship...the russians dont have the money...but the chinese do. theyu can pay the russians 2 billion to build an arsenal ship.

[bd popeye]

an arsenal ship...the russians dont have the money...but the chinese do. theyu can pay the russians 2 billion to build an arsenal ship.

MIGleader. :rolleyes: .you always have some sort of answer..no matter how outrageous it may be. :)

News flash MIGleader..the USN will have 4 subs like the Ohio. The Ohio is due to be fully operational by the end of this year. It's not a dream..it's not on the end some kids drawing pencil or a dream on someones computer. It's real...So are USN CV's. They are real. Manned by real sailors that are trained to do their jobs. It's real. Quit dreaming and tell me this..

MIGleader answer us all this question..besides a nuke missile or a nuke tipped torpedo ..How would the PLAN sink a CVN? Please let me know.

I will check for an answer later. I have to go to work...

[MIGleader]

well, i never really meant for the plan to go for any kind of arsenal ship it think they are a wate of money. ;)

how does the plan sink a cvbg?
it will be tough. i dont think they can even do it rgight now, looking how well defende a cvbg is. so how...well it needs an unorthodox tactics. perhaps build a few of the new facs...and let the shoot at the cvbg.
other option...shoot all missles pointed at taiwan at the cvbg. even if aegis manges a 100% shoot down rate, there still are too many missles.
subs...the klub and new yj-8's look lethal. attck from all angles not one.
the backfire...designed to kill carrier groups. load them up with standoff missles.

such a venture is costly and risky, but if the chinese put their mind to it, the cvbg will go down. im sure the chinese would never go so far though.

[bd popeye]

well, i never really meant for the plan to go for any kind of arsenal ship it think they are a wate of money. ;)

how does the plan sink a cvbg?
it will be tough. i dont think they can even do it rgight now, looking how well defende a cvbg is. so how...well it needs an unorthodox tactics. perhaps build a few of the new facs...and let the shoot at the cvbg.
other option...shoot all missles pointed at taiwan at the cvbg. even if aegis manges a 100% shoot down rate, there still are too many missles.
subs...the klub and new yj-8's look lethal. attck from all angles not one.
the backfire...designed to kill carrier groups. load them up with standoff missles.

such a venture is costly and risky, but if the chinese put their mind to it, the cvbg will go down. im sure the chinese would never go so far though.

Thank you for the answer. Personally I think we all realize that some missiles would get through. But sink a USN CV? Nope..damage it? Yes..Severly? Maybe.

The best shot the PLAN has right now of sinking a CV is using desiel subs. You know I always mention my son. He is an instructor of advanced USN sonar technics & equipment/systems at the ASW base in San Diego CA. I sent him an email and asked him why desiel subs are hard to track and was there any nuke sub the USN could not find...This is his answer. Nothing here is classified information. Please don't ask me to obtain any more info. I will not. He can't tell me the good stuff anyway. :( :rolleyes:

<<""STG2 Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center)" @navy.mil>
Hi dad.
I can answer your questions. diesel boats are hard to track because when submerged they're running on batteries. no moving parts in batteries so they don't make any noise. nucs have turbines, so there are a lot of moving parts associated with that. all those parts need systems in place to reduce the noise. those systems don't always work and when they fail we can see them. all of the nuc subs that are out there have their problems except for the U.S of course. so in comparison to a submerged diesel there are no nucs that I know of that would be harder to track.

i hope this helps"">>>>

In addition..he has more than once told me no one makes a sub as quiet as a LA class. No one....not on planet Earth..

[swimmerXC]

hey popey just wondering, if there was an reactor leak on a carrier, and it's be on repair, would the admiral force all to abandon ship and get all teh planes off? how long do you think that would take adn would they destory it or wait for a towage ship to come?
well we are forgeting one thing for the PLAN invasion... WEATHER!!! a powerful enough typhoon it stronger than the whole PLAN fleet and can halt or stop any carrier on its track; if i were PLAN i would look for the worst possible weather to attack, they have coverage on mainland, while missiles rain down on ROC... then when the sky is clear land the troops

[slackpiv]

-Air Force aircraft are cheaper,usually faster and are made in larger numbers.
Tell me how they would operate in the middle of the ocean.
-SSM and ASM missiles are clear threats to CVSG/CVBGs.
They are a threat to any surface vessel. The carrier is simply a platform of SSMs and ASMs. The strike aircraft of a carrier can carry SSMs and ASMs. This greatly increases the range of the strike packages of the USN farther than any russian or chinese missile.
Submarines are very dangerous opponents for CVs.
They are dangerous for any surface vessel however thats why CVs are protected by a ASW shield. It is near impossible of a submarine to penetrate USN SSNs and the USN ASW.
-Naval aircraft, while very effective are serving in very small numbers.
The US naval airwing is argueably the 2nd most powerful airwing in the world. Second to only the USAF.

[IDonT]

Tell me how they would operate in the middle of the ocean.

They are a threat to any surface vessel. The carrier is simply a platform of SSMs and ASMs. The strike aircraft of a carrier can carry SSMs and ASMs. This greatly increases the range of the strike packages of the USN farther than any russian or chinese missile.

They are dangerous for any surface vessel however thats why CVs are protected by a ASW shield. It is near impossible of a submarine to penetrate USN SSNs and the USN ASW.

The US naval airwing is argueably the 2nd most powerful airwing in the world. Second to only the USAF.


A single carrier airwing is more powerful than the airforces of 90 percent of the countries in the world.

[McZosch]

CVWs are evolving must faster than surface combatants.

F-35 will be a stealthy aircraft, and it will be operational around 2010. Even those LHDs will become true carriers using Marine Corps aviation.

Next, Boeing is developing the X-45 UAV. This programme is close to go-ahead for production. The software is FAR beyond USAFs requests. They could start next Monday. It's only a question of time to get this plane carrier-capable.

Surface ships are getting more stealthier, but they are not armed significantly better than 20 years before.

The idea of Cruise missiles sounds great. They are good at destroying immobile objects. But in an environment jammed by various ECM-systems, hitting a mobile target like a ship is very difficult for them. I've never heard of fighter-pilots who gets jammed by ECM.

Btw, regarding the size of missiles PLAN posseses (and this weird circular VLS it operates), how big will such a ship be? It must be 30000 ts to operate significant weaponry.

@bd_popeye:
Sinking an US carrier is IMHO only possible with those supercavitating torpedoes. But only, if you have 50. Only, if there is no countermeasure. Only if the launching subs will get in range to fire them. Extremely unlikely, you can mind. Apart from the fact, that no such torpedo has left the experimental stage.

Maybe some Kamikaze-attacks by ramming Ming-subs :p .

[vincelee]

skval has een operational for a decade or more.

[bd popeye]

hey popey just wondering, if there was an reactor leak on a carrier, and it's be on repair, would the admiral force all to abandon ship and get all teh planes off? how long do you think that would take adn would they destory it or wait for a towage ship to come?

First off remember there are two reactors on a Nimitz class.as for a reactor leak :rolleyes: ...No worry there. It won't happen. There are too many safe guards and backup systems for that to happen. There are several hundred nuclear power plant trained technicians on a CVN. They would lock down the reactor and repair it. The Nuke techs train for this everyday. Several drills daily 365 days a year.

It would take a catostropic failure to abandon ship. As for the planes. They could be deck launched. That is without a catapult.

Having served on a Nimitz class, I do not forsee any situation like this arising. never..ain't gonna happen....

[McZosch]

Shkval is operational since 1977. But it's unguided, designed to carry a nuclear warhead. Tactically, unguided torpedoes are almost useless. I would call that "experimental".

A more advanced version is believed to exist. But is it guided? It has flaps but no cable. Torpedoes are guided by wire. Even if so, it's highly risky for the launching sub itself to start such a weapon. Kursk is believed to be destroyed while testing that weapon. I would call that "experimental", too.

Here in Germany, we are developing the Barracuda, 500 knots fast and guided (don't ask me how, but no wire). It's in the late prototype phase. But always same problem: very fast is very short-ranged.

Anyway, back to topic.
A cruiser like the one described in this thread is not worth building instead of better ASW-destroyers or more and better AD-destroyers. It would be a prestige-project. If you want prestige, buy it by being very loud (aircraft carrier) or very silent (SSBN) ships.

To put it into operations against Taiwan or Japan is equally useless.
- What can that ship do, what land-based missiles cannot?
- PLAN has to face 4 japanese DDHs + 4 Osumi-class LPHs operational around 2012, maybe operating JSFs. How should such a cruiser help against that?

[MIGleader]

why does everyone the carrier will be used convetianally? it xan be a part od an infiltartion fleet, or a bigger task group. what else does it give? bragging rights. by 2010, china will have 13 modern destroyers, 14 modern frigates, at least 25 modern subs, and countless other ships full of upgrade potential. a carrier will alow china to finally project its new forces, and claim the blue water navy it wanted for so long.

[Lavi]

I think China could have quite much use of a cruiser, they pack a lot of punch in a single ship. However, a carrier is for sure more usefull in providing support for a blue water navy, since they have to operate outside their land-based fighters effective range. If the PLAN has enough money a mix of just a few carriers and cruisers, coupled with a number of destroyers and frigates can challenge and (if properly tarined) beat more or less any surface task force encountered.

My point is that PLAN should get cruisers, but only after they have a carrier or two.

[sumdud]

Crusiers are needed for a power projection fleet. You can't just escort a carrier with a destroye in the ocean, the gap is big, the destroyers need replenishment way often. Most destroyers don't have LACM capability (and definitely not PLAN ones.) and also C4ISTAR.

I am glad that China are building the crusiers first. After all, you can have a fleet w/o a CV but with a CG, but if you have a fleet w/ a CV but not a CG, it's much more vunlerable.

Small ships are good for littoral issues, but you need big ships w/ long endurance for projection.

PS-CVs still have many days. As others say, it is flexible, reloadable and consistent, even though it may take more maintence.
I doubt rail guns last too long on the sea. They need some pretty big maintence and I doubt they can stay at sea for too long. It might happen in the future though.

[MIGleader]

i dont think the plan has any crusers or is planning to build any. it doesnt need to sent ships arount the world, just around easter and southern asia, maybe iran.

[Wingman]

I don't know if this has already been talked about but, isn't it more advantageous and cost effective to build cruisers with long range missiles instead of carriers?

Essentially, carriers hold aircraft which carry weapons a long distance and fire them.
Isn't this the same as a cruiser with long range missiles? Not only that, but missiles generally fly faster than aircraft. Missiles that aircraft fire generally have a weaker warhead and slower speed than ship-launched missiles.

So in the end, which is cheaper and more effective?
To design and build a high speed, super long range SAM and a SSM and a ship capable of firing it, or

To design and build a carrier, aircraft capable of taking off from the carrier, missiles for the aircraft, and spend lots of money maintaining the aircraft?

[MIGleader]

I don't know if this has already been talked about but, isn't it more advantageous and cost effective to build cruisers with long range missiles instead of carriers?

Essentially, carriers hold aircraft which carry weapons a long distance and fire them.
Isn't this the same as a cruiser with long range missiles? Not only that, but missiles generally fly faster than aircraft. Missiles that aircraft fire generally have a weaker warhead and slower speed than ship-launched missiles.

So in the end, which is cheaper and more effective?
To design and build a high speed, super long range SAM and a SSM and a ship capable of firing it, or

To design and build a carrier, aircraft capable of taking off from the carrier, missiles for the aircraft, and spend lots of money maintaining the aircraft?

stop thinking like the frecnch. missles will eventually replace aircraft one day, but thats far from now. aircraft can search and destry subs, launch torpoedoes, and engage other aircraft. they can provide fighter cover. and awacs. the plan doesnt have a long range naval cruise missle yet.

[IDonT]

I don't know if this has already been talked about but, isn't it more advantageous and cost effective to build cruisers with long range missiles instead of carriers?

Essentially, carriers hold aircraft which carry weapons a long distance and fire them.
Isn't this the same as a cruiser with long range missiles? Not only that, but missiles generally fly faster than aircraft. Missiles that aircraft fire generally have a weaker warhead and slower speed than ship-launched missiles.

So in the end, which is cheaper and more effective?
To design and build a high speed, super long range SAM and a SSM and a ship capable of firing it, or

To design and build a carrier, aircraft capable of taking off from the carrier, missiles for the aircraft, and spend lots of money maintaining the aircraft?


Not necessarily.
Aircraft can carry more ordinance further than cruise missiles.
Aircraft can be recovered and rearmed. Once the missile is fired, it is gone.
Aircraft carriers are easy to rearm at sea. You need to be at port to reload your missiles. The further/faster the missile travels the more complicated the reloading process because these missiles are big.

The biggest cruiser is the Kirov, it can only carry 20 SS-N-19 missiles.
The biggest carrier is the Nimitz, it can carry 90 aircraft and can unleashed more firepower than 30 Kirovs.

[MIGleader]

Not necessarily.
Aircraft can carry more ordinance further than cruise missiles.
Aircraft can be recovered and rearmed. Once the missile is fired, it is gone.
Aircraft carriers are easy to rearm at sea. You need to be at port to reload your missiles. The further/faster the missile travels the more complicated the reloading process because these missiles are big.

The biggest cruiser is the Kirov, it can only carry 20 SS-N-19 missiles.
The biggest carrier is the Nimitz, it can carry 90 aircraft and can unleashed more firepower than 30 Kirovs.

the biggst "cruiser" is the kutznev.
Displacement: 67,500.0 (Tons) (Fully Loaded)
Length: 280.0 (Metres)
Beam: 37.0 (Metres)
Draught: 10.5 (Metres)
Flight Deck: 304.5 (Length Metres)
Flight Deck: 70.0 (Width Metres)
Speed: 30.0 (Knots)
Range: Unknown (Miles)


Missiles: SSM - 12 SS-N-19 Shipwreck launchers (Flush mounted)
SAM - 4 SA-N-9 Sextuple vertical launchers
SAM/Guns: 8 CADS-N-1; each with twin 30 mm Gatling
combined with 8 SA-N-1 1 and Hot Flash / Hot Spot fire
control radar/optronic director
Guns: 6-30 mm /65 AK 630 (6 barrels per mount)
Decoys: Chaff launching system

plus
Fixed Wing: 20 Su-27K Flanker D
4 Su-25 UTG Frogfoot
Helicopters: 15 Ka-27 Helix
3 Ka-29 Helix AEW

[bd popeye]

MIGleader, You are not comparing a Russian carrier to a Nimitz class are you?

Builder Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
Power Plant Two Nuclear Power Plant (A4W Pressurized Water Reactor)
Four shafts, Four propellers, with five blades each
Length, overall 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Flight Deck Width 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam 134 feet (40.84 meters)
Displacement Approx. 97,000 tons (87,300 metric tons) full load
Speed 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Actual top speed is classified
Aircraft elevators Four
Catapults Four
Armament 4 Sea Sparrow launchers
3 Phalanx CIWS 20mm mounts [Nimitz & Ike]
4 Phalanx CIWS 20mm mounts [Vinson and later]
Combat Systems SPS-48E 3-D air search radar
SPS-49(V)5 2-D air search radar
3 Mk91 Fire Control

AN/SLQ-32(V)4 active jamming/deception
AN/WLR-1H ESM
Service Life 50 years

Air wing(2005)
48 F/A-18 Hornet variants
10 SH-60 SeaHawk Variants
4 E/A-6B Prowlers
4 E-2C Hawkeyes
2 C-2 Greyhound logistics

A Nimitz class needs the nuke plant refueled about every 13 years. However CVN's 68,69 & 70 all went 20 + years before refueling.

A Nimitz class can launch tactical air strikes around the clock for 5-7 days before it needs to be re-fueld with JP-5 and re-armed with air launched weapons.

A Nimitz class and re-fuel and re-arm at sea with great profenciey.

A Nimitz class escorts provide AAW, ASW and ECM protection along with the ships own air wing.

The USN has 9 Nimitz class and is building one more. In addition the steel has been cut for CVN-78..a new class of CVN.

[Su-27 Pilot]

MIGleader, You are not comparing a Russian carrier to a Nimitz class are you?

Builder Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
Power Plant Two Nuclear Power Plant (A4W Pressurized Water Reactor)
Four shafts, Four propellers, with five blades each
Length, overall 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Flight Deck Width 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam 134 feet (40.84 meters)
Displacement Approx. 97,000 tons (87,300 metric tons) full load
Speed 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Actual top speed is classified
Aircraft elevators Four
Catapults Four
Armament 4 Sea Sparrow launchers
3 Phalanx CIWS 20mm mounts [Nimitz & Ike]
4 Phalanx CIWS 20mm mounts [Vinson and later]
Combat Systems SPS-48E 3-D air search radar
SPS-49(V)5 2-D air search radar
3 Mk91 Fire Control

AN/SLQ-32(V)4 active jamming/deception
AN/WLR-1H ESM
Service Life 50 years

Air wing(2005)
48 F/A-18 Hornet variants
10 SH-60 SeaHawk Variants
4 E/A-6B Prowlers
4 E-2C Hawkeyes
2 C-2 Greyhound logistics

A Nimitz class needs the nuke plant refueled about every 13 years. However CVN's 68,69 & 70 all went 20 + years before refueling.

A Nimitz class can launch tactical air strikes around the clock for 5-7 days before it needs to be re-fueld with JP-5 and re-armed with air launched weapons.

A Nimitz class and re-fuel and re-arm at sea with great profenciey.

A Nimitz class escorts provide AAW, ASW and ECM protection along with the ships own air wing.

The USN has 9 Nimitz class and is building one more. In addition the steel has been cut for CVN-78..a new class of CVN.
A spending more to get more. Nobody in the world is a threat to the US. Current carriers are more than enough for those Terrorists I presume ??

[bd popeye]

USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71.. A Nimitz Class

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/tr-cvn71.jpg

[bd popeye]

A spending more to get more. Nobody in the world is a threat to the US. Current carriers are more than enough for those Terrorists I presume ??

Spending money? Of course that what the US does. The DoD budget is under great scruinty. They would not spend it if they did not have it. It's in the budget.

No threats to the US? Not now. It's called "deterrence" , Force projection, in fact the carrier pictured CVN-71 nick name is the "Big Stick"

Terroist? They are not effected by USN carrier strenght. But those nations that are concerned about it..are really concerned....Deterrence.

Nice thread..Gotta go to work...

[adeptitus]

A spending more to get more. Nobody in the world is a threat to the US. Current carriers are more than enough for those Terrorists I presume ??

Imposing Pax Americana policy near its home turf <cough>:

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

"The Invasion was opposed by the British government, as Grenada was part of the Commonwealth of Nations, and Queen Elizabeth was head of state as Queen of Grenada. Grenada requested help from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Margaret Thatcher contacted Ronald Reagan, telling him “in the strongest possible terms” that “Grenada was part of the British Commonwealth, and the United States had no business interfering in its affairs.” Reagan assured her that an invasion was not contemplated. Reagan later said “She was very adamant and continued to insist that we cancel our landings on Grenada. I couldn't tell her that it had already begun” "

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

"On December 22 the Organization of American States passed a resolution deploring the invasion (Panama) and calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops. A similar resolution was passed on December 29 by the United Nations General Assembly. Earlier, a Security Council resolution condemning the invasion had been vetoed by the United States, United Kingdom and France (See Facts on File, December 31, 1989 reference)."

After the invasion, governments throughout Latin America — including the government of Chile under Augusto Pinochet, which was generally supportive of United States policies — issued statements condemning the invasion and calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. One of the reasons Bush gave for the invasion, the reestablishment of democracy in Panama, was widely viewed with suspicion, since the United States was perceived throughout Latin America as serving its own strategic or economic interests, often at the expense of democratic principles. Noriega himself was considered to be a former puppet of the United States who had cooperated with American efforts to destabilize the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. It is generally believed that during that time the United States did little to curtail his involvement in drug trafficking."

[MIGleader]

popeye, why would a i compare a meager russian carrier to the almighty nimitz? im just showing the stats of the kutznev, the worlds most capable
"cruiser". if i wanted to compare, i would need the orel stats.

[bd popeye]

popeye, why would a i compare a meager russian carrier to the almighty nimitz? im just showing the stats of the kutznev, the worlds most capable
"cruiser". if i wanted to compare, i would need the orel stats.

Sorry MIGleader. I thought you were. :o My"bad" as they say.

But..I don't think the Kuznetsov is a cruiser. To me it is a CV. It is just very heavily armed. It could sail with limited escorts.

[Gauntlet]

plus
Fixed Wing: 20 Su-27K Flanker D
4 Su-25 UTG Frogfoot
Helicopters: 15 Ka-27 Helix
3 Ka-29 Helix AEWLove your post, but I will have to correct something here.

Due to canceling of both the Freestyle and Fulcrum-D (in the Russian case atleast), the Kuznetsov now operates 2 full squadrons of Flanker-Ds. That means 20-24 planes. (that is what you said, I just "agreed"). Estimated production of the Su-33 seems to be 30-50 planes.

However, the UTGs are not part of Kuznetsovs airwing. They are only used for training as their combat equipment has been removed to make room for a second man, strengthening of the fuselage and various carrier equipment. 10 UTGs were produced, 5 for Ukraine and 5 for Russia. Russia lost one is a crash, and now only have 4.

For the spinner fleet, it consists of about 18 Helix-A ASW choppers, 4 Helix-D SAR choppers and 2 Ka-31 Helix-B (E?) AEW choppers. To this day about 100 Helix-As and Ds have been built for Russia, while probarly only 2-3 Ka-31 have been built. Its not likely that the Kuznetsov is using Ka-31s ATM, but will probarly do it in the near future.

In the furture Su-33UBs/Su-27KUBs will be part of the operational fleet with advance strike capability AND training purposes for the Flanker-D pilots. To this date, only 1 plane is flying.

Heres a RAR file I put together, with alot(!) of pictures showing the Kuznetsov with its air-wing.
http://www.sendmefile.com/00117686


PS: Be nice, this was my first post.

(BTW, great forum)


But..I don't think the Kuznetsov is a cruiser. To me it is a CV. It is just very heavily armed. It could sail with limited escorts.Well, seeing the orginal mission of the Kuznetsov were to support their submarines, I would classify it as a Cruiser with a heavy air wing.

Its Shipwreck missiles are not to be overlooked, as they are massive and leathal weapons.

[Gollevainen]

Admiral flota sovejetski sojuz Kuznetsov is pure aircraft carrier desinged to be one from the scratch. Those granit missiles doesent make it anyway less carrier, just gives it a better punch than many cruisers. Kiev's migth have been called cruisers, but the term taktiskoje aviatzia kreiserna(or something sounding like that:confused: ) comes from the fact that as they were build in Nikolajev docks in Black Sea. Order to get them truogh Bosboriouz straits, they needed that kind of desingnation as international treatyes forbids aircraft carriers to pass trough them. Kuznetsov was also build in Ukraine thus the same desingnation. I have seen soviet documentary about Kiev when she was bran new, and the it was called aviatzia koralb (or aviation ship in London's dialect).

[bd popeye]

Gauntlet, I'm sure the regular posters in this forum appericate your kind comments about this forum.

This link ...www.sendmefile.com/00117686.. did not allow me to recieve any pictures. If you could post them here I know I would appericate it.

Thanks. And welcome to the forum!

[Gauntlet]

Gauntlet, I'm sure the regular posters in this forum appericate your kind comments about this forum.

This link ...www.sendmefile.com/00117686.. did not allow me to recieve any pictures. If you could post them here I know I would appericate it.

Thanks. And welcome to the forum!
If you click "download file" you will download the rar file (20mb aprox) which I uploaded there. Its crammed full of the Kuznetsov and various Russian carrier planes/choppers (~300 pics).

Oh, and thanks for the welcome! :)

[Sea Dog]

Admiral flota sovejetski sojuz Kuznetsov is pure aircraft carrier desinged to be one from the scratch. Those granit missiles doesent make it anyway less carrier, just gives it a better punch than many cruisers.

Yes. The Kuznetzov made room for these missiles to overcome it's inability to field a significantly sized airwing. And it does give the Kuznetzov a good lethal reach.

[Gauntlet]

And the Shipwrecks also did the Kuznetsov more independent from US carriers, meaning it could risk engaging surface targets themself, a luxuary the US carrier doesnt have.

However, in an real life situation, using the Kuznetsov offensive would be the same as suicide.

Btw, is the any information regarding if the future Varyag will also have ASM missiles mounted under the front deck? Or would they remove them and modify the carrier to have an larger hangar deck?

[Sea Dog]

And the Shipwrecks also did the Kuznetsov more independent from US carriers, meaning it could risk engaging surface targets themself, a luxuary the US carrier doesnt have.

However, in an real life situation, using the Kuznetsov offensive would be the same as suicide.

Btw, is the any information regarding if the future Varyag will also have ASM missiles mounted under the front deck? Or would they remove them and modify the carrier to have an larger hangar deck?

Well Gauntlet, it depends on how you look at it. The US carriers do engage surface targets themselves. But thier anti-ship weapons come from swarms of missiles and Electronic attacks from carrier aircraft. This gives US carriers a longer and more potent reach than any other carrier in the world.

[Gauntlet]

Well Gauntlet, it depends on how you look at it. The US carriers do engage surface targets themselves. But thier anti-ship weapons come from swarms of missiles and Electronic attacks from carrier aircraft. This gives US carriers a longer and more potent reach than any other carrier in the world.
True.

But I was thinking in the lines of the ship themself, without any support. But then again, what would an carrier be without an airwing as support...

So, you do have right. Sorry.

[bd popeye]

If you click "download file" you will download the rar file (20mb aprox) which I uploaded there. Its crammed full of the Kuznetsov and various Russian carrier planes/choppers (~300 pics).

Sorry, My sorry server won't operate on that web site. I will probaly use the libary to see them.....Thanks anyway..

[Soyuz]

Btw, is the any information regarding if the future Varyag will also have ASM missiles mounted under the front deck? Or would they remove them and modify the carrier to have an larger hangar deck?


ON the old forum There were pics of a model of a refitted varyag (i would post a link or something but unfortunately computers seem to hate me!) armed with what looked to me to be

32 yj-85 (c-805) anti ship missiles in 8 4 cell launchers
60 HQ-6 SAM in 10 6 cell VLSs
4 Type-730 CIWSs

Although the models also showed J-8s as part of the airwing so i'm not sure how accurate a representation the model was of the refitted varyag!

[MIGleader]

ON the old forum There were pics of a model of a refitted varyag (i would post a link or something but unfortunately computers seem to hate me!) armed with what looked to me to be

32 yj-85 (c-805) anti ship missiles in 8 4 cell launchers
60 HQ-6 SAM in 10 6 cell VLSs
4 Type-730 CIWSs

Although the models also showed J-8s as part of the airwing so i'm not sure how accurate a representation the model was of the refitted varyag!

the gu who bult the model must be smoking some good stuff!!!!
i mean 32 yj-85S? haha. chinese destroyers can only handle 8.
60 hq-6? yeah right. i dont even think the carrier will use a vls system, probably a grizzly.

and the j-8s prove that this guy is high

[Soyuz]

well he even had JH-7s on the model carrier as well! would they even be able to take off from a carrier with those weak Spey engines!

60 hq-6? yeah right. i dont even think the carrier will use a vls system, probably a grizzly.


doesn't the Kuznetsov use a VLS for SAMs only for the short range SA-N-9s though

[tphuang]

the gu who bult the model must be smoking some good stuff!!!!
i mean 32 yj-85S? haha. chinese destroyers can only handle 8.
60 hq-6? yeah right. i dont even think the carrier will use a vls system, probably a grizzly.

and the j-8s prove that this guy is high
I truly hope plan doesn't put a garbage system like hq-6 on varyag. As for AShm, I believe 052 series have 16 Ashm launchers each.

[vincelee]

HQ-6? what's that?

If you're referring to the HQ-61, well, they are retired in naval roles. And that model did not sport HQ-61s, but LY-60Ns.

[MIGleader]

I truly hope plan doesn't put a garbage system like hq-6 on varyag. As for AShm, I believe 052 series have 16 Ashm launchers each.

52 and 52 have 16, 52c has eight

hq-6 isnt used ona anything exept the oldest plan warship
from global securities
The ship has a Granit anti-ship missile system equipped with twelve surface-to-surface missile launchers. The Granit missile (NATO codename SS-N-19 Shipwreck) is reported to have a range greater than 400km and is capable of carrying either a nuclear or conventional warhead.

The Klinok air defence missile system, with 24 vertical launchers and 192 missiles, defends the ship against anti-ship missiles, aircraft and surface ships. The system has a multi-channel electronically steered phased array radar and can achieve a firing rate of one missile every 3s. Four targets can be engaged simultaneously in a 60 x 60° sector. The range of the system is 12 to 15km.

The Kashstan Air Defence Gun/Missile System, supplied by the Instrument Design Bureau and Tulamashzavod JSC in Tula, provides defence against precision weapons including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, aircraft and small sea targets. Eight systems are fitted, combining missile launcher, 30mm twin gun and radar/optronic director. The range of the laser beam-riding missiles is from 1.5 to 8km. The gun can fire up to 1,000 rounds/min in the range 0.5 to 1.5km. Six AK630 AD 30mm air defence guns are also fitted.


not bad. i would hope the chinese would opt for an indegedous vls missles like hq-9 or hq-16. the space for granites can be better utilized for more planes. but 6 ak-630s and 8 khashtan! thats better than a nimitz!

[IDonT]

And the Shipwrecks also did the Kuznetsov more independent from US carriers, meaning it could risk engaging surface targets themself, a luxuary the US carrier doesnt have.

However, in an real life situation, using the Kuznetsov offensive would be the same as suicide.

Btw, is the any information regarding if the future Varyag will also have ASM missiles mounted under the front deck? Or would they remove them and modify the carrier to have an larger hangar deck?


Kuznetsov will be more effective if they got rid of the 16 missile lauchers and extend the hanger deck. Another squadron of Su-33 is more useful than a one use missile.

[Gauntlet]

Well, since the Flanker-D is unable to take off with the Moskit missile and fuel enough to give it enough range from the carrier, the Flanker-D aint as potent naval strike aircraft as it should be.

16x Shipwrecks is a better anti ship weapon than their Flanker-Ds IMO.

[IDonT]

Well, since the Flanker-D is unable to take off with the Moskit missile and fuel enough to give it enough range from the carrier, the Flanker-D aint as potent naval strike aircraft as it should be.

16x Shipwrecks is a better anti ship weapon than their Flanker-Ds IMO.


Flanker D's can be armed with Uran and smaller anti-ship missile. No need for the moskit. Plus, it can be used for anti-air and strike missions as well.

[Gauntlet]

True, but the Moskit is the standard of AShW power, and would actually have a chance against modern warships, unlike lots of other Russian AShW weapons.

[Jeff Head]

16x Shipwrecks is a better anti ship weapon than their Flanker-Ds IMO.
Yea, but when you shoot them you are done. A carrier with an effective air wing is an attack that keeps on giving. The carrier can hold a lot of weapons for those aircraft in its holds, where most ships have to go through a lengthy rearming process to reload their tubes.

Develop a true arsenal ship and it might be a different case in this regard...but an aircraft with a human pilot will still be more flexible, and does not have to shoot his weapons. You fire a missile, and it is gone...hit miss or destroyed, you cannot take it back.

Just my thoughts.

[MIGleader]

actually, that's suppose to be the Brahmos now or the Klub-S in its supersonic stage.

im meant in the chinese arsenal.
what about the mack 4 krypton?

[Gauntlet]

China does only operate the Moskit on the Sovremenny DDGs under the name SS-N-22 Sunburn, right? They dont have it fitted on their Su-30MK2s or anythiing like that, right?

[Gauntlet]

correct.
Thanks, mate.

So...AFAIK, the Soveremennys have a total of 8 launchers aboard...which would be 16 with both of the ships.

Do anyone knows how many spare missiles China recieved?

[MIGleader]

I think about a hundred.

they recieved about 100 with the two sovs.
the two new sovs will probably come with 100 more improved moskits.

[Lavi]

There is a rumor that a Seawolf underway is quieter than a LA lying in the harbour.

The Seawolf is really uniqe when it comes to silence, except for Virgina which isn't fully operational yet. Also, the Seawolf carries a range of new sensors giving it a capability unmatched so far, except for the Virgina again. But since the PLAN doesn't have either one of these three its best bet, as noted, is to use a SSK. The chances of an SSK being on the right spot at the right time, and then breaking through the most sophisticated ASW net in the world are however, as also have been noted, quite slim.

This has however nothing to do with the carrier vs. cruiser debate as far as I can see, so let's get back to it:

Any true blue-water navy needs both cruisers and carriers, since they are complements and not substitutes to each other. Therefore, if China wants a true blue-water capability, it needs to include both of them. That will however cost lots and lots of money, not only building the ships, but training crews, maintaining them etc.

For the moment China probably will have to live with the fact that it can't have both, and in that case it probably will choose the carrier.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

You will have a great fleet, as long as you have ammo on your ships magazines. The number of strike sorties a single carrier can generate will beat your ships. The fire power pack in a single cruise missile is only a small percentage to what a carrier borne aircraft can carry.

Plus it has the added bonus of easier to re arm and refuel while AT SEA. Reloading a ships magazine is a different. You need to be at dock for that, especially for those type of fast flying missiles such as the Sunburn.

In short, a carrier has endurance that no surface warfare ship can hope to match.


You know... aircraft, fuel, weapons for the aircraft, and other such things all take up space too. Last time I checked, a plane was bigger than a missile.

[MIGleader]

There is a rumor that a Seawolf underway is quieter than a LA lying in the harbour.

The Seawolf is really uniqe when it comes to silence, except for Virgina which isn't fully operational yet. Also, the Seawolf carries a range of new sensors giving it a capability unmatched so far, except for the Virgina again. But since the PLAN doesn't have either one of these three its best bet, as noted, is to use a SSK. The chances of an SSK being on the right spot at the right time, and then breaking through the most sophisticated ASW net in the world are however, as also have been noted, quite slim.

This has however nothing to do with the carrier vs. cruiser debate as far as I can see, so let's get back to it:

Any true blue-water navy needs both cruisers and carriers, since they are complements and not substitutes to each other. Therefore, if China wants a true blue-water capability, it needs to include both of them. That will however cost lots and lots of money, not only building the ships, but training crews, maintaining them etc.

For the moment China probably will have to live with the fact that it can't have both, and in that case it probably will choose the carrier.

i dont think a blue water navy actually requires crusiers. they are simply large missle platforms, can largew destroyers can do the job of a cruser perfectly well. as for china, its not at a lack for men, material, experience, or money to build ships. the plan has never shown itself to be interested in cruisers, but has expressed great interests in carriers.

[rommel]

i dont think a blue water navy actually requires crusiers. they are simply large missle platforms, can largew destroyers can do the job of a cruser perfectly well. as for china, its not at a lack for men, material, experience, or money to build ships. the plan has never shown itself to be interested in cruisers, but has expressed great interests in carriers.

I think the China maybe will be heading in cruiser,as we can see, the PLAN will be fielding a ship with VLS SAM and array radar system, the next step could be possibly a ship with VLS SAM and maybe cruise missile for deep strike capability,well, more exactly, a Chinese version of the AEGIS Ticonderoga Cruiser.

[MIGleader]

I think the China maybe will be heading in cruiser,as we can see, the PLAN will be fielding a ship with VLS SAM and array radar system, the next step could be possibly a ship with VLS SAM and maybe cruise missile for deep strike capability,well, more exactly, a Chinese version of the AEGIS Ticonderoga Cruiser.

well, the yj85 and 62 are considerd cruise missles, but are naval only. i'd like to see china put its new 1000km missle on a ship. but all this is still 5-10 years away.

[trkl]

well, the yj85 and 62 are considerd cruise missles, but are naval only. i'd like to see china put its new 1000km missle on a ship. but all this is still 5-10 years away.

The problem with a 1000km AShM is that you have to actually find the enemy ship to attack it, and I think that it would be very difficult for a surface ship to detect another surface ship that is 1000km away. The way I see it, the real advantage of the carrier is not its firepower, but rather that the carrier has capabilities in reconnaissance, surveillance, and air defence that a cruiser just can't match.

[MIGleader]

The problem with a 1000km AShM is that you have to actually find the enemy ship to attack it, and I think that it would be very difficult for a surface ship to detect another surface ship that is 1000km away. The way I see it, the real advantage of the carrier is not its firepower, but rather that the carrier has capabilities in reconnaissance, surveillance, and air defence that a cruiser just can't match.

no, the 1000 km cruise missle will be used againt ground targets, like a tomahawk. the aircraft on board a carrier can perform dozens of tasks a cruisers missles cannot. a carrier lets u claim a blue water navy, but a cruiser does not.

[IDonT]

You know... aircraft, fuel, weapons for the aircraft, and other such things all take up space too. Last time I checked, a plane was bigger than a missile.


Yeah but it is a far easier to move aircraft, its fuel, and its weapons than a missle. A missile needs to be reloaded, which is extremely time consuming and cannot be done at sea. The faster, or longer range the missile, the larger it is, which means it is more difficult. You need to be at port to reload a missile.

Aircraft can be flown from its land base to the carrier while it is on the way. Fuel lines can be hook up from the carrier and the oiler, ammo can be transferred from the supply ship to the carrier.

A missile cannot perform reconnaisance, attack, and air defence using one missile.

[IDonT]

China already has 3000 KM in HN-3. The HN-2000 should have 4000 KM range.


Arn't those ballistic missiles. Hitting a moving target with those is imposible.

[Eurofighter]

Arn't those ballistic missiles. Hitting a moving target with those is imposible.

well, what about those so-called "Assasin's Mace" weapons? I thought in Richard Fisher's report he was talking about a ballistic missile devoted to attack moving targets such as naval surface combatants...

it would be nice if someone can come up with other sources to confirm this, since if this turned out to be true then this would be a serious adversary for the Americans, since their ship's defence system are not prepared to intercept a ballistic missile...

as for the link to Richard Fisher's testament, get it here: http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.76/pub_detail.asp

[Lavi]

One thing that we also need to remeber is that the line between a DDG and a cruiser is quite uncertain. Some DDG's have the capabilities of cruisers in smaller hulls, and some cruisers are named DDG's for political reasons, just to take examples of what makes the debate over the need of a cruiser so confusing. A large DDG with commando facilities can effectively perform the task of a small/mid-sized cruiser.

The Kirovs still are beyond comparison.

[IDonT]

One thing that we also need to remeber is that the line between a DDG and a cruiser is quite uncertain. Some DDG's have the capabilities of cruisers in smaller hulls, and some cruisers are named DDG's for political reasons, just to take examples of what makes the debate over the need of a cruiser so confusing. A large DDG with commando facilities can effectively perform the task of a small/mid-sized cruiser.

The Kirovs still are beyond comparison.


The difference between the Burke destroyer and the Tico cruiser is not due to weapons and displacement, both are comparable. The Tico is a cruiser because it has better flag capabilities (command and control, etc)

Ballistic missiles are very difficult to aim. Even the US ballistic missiles are not that accurate against a fixed target. Hitting a manuevering target is practically impossible

[Lavi]

It was precisly that what I meant with "commando facilities"...

To complicate the matter there are, however, also smaller ships that has good flag capabilities, like the Dutch Tromp-class. Technically they were frigates, but they had very good flag capabilities and actually replaced two cruisers in Ducth service.

[Gollevainen]

I think that the term 'cruiser' should be dropped from use like the 'torbedoboat' and 'battle/line ship'. Cruiser was essentially a ship to cruise independently and operate alon or accompaning escorts. No in any terms was cruiser mented to be a 'flagship' or escort other warships. These charecratistics has came from using old cruisers, obsolence to their dedicated task in such manners in both West and East. US navy dropped the 'cruiser' from their post war ship building, merely just naming some bigger ships whit 'cruiser' prefix to seperate them from smaller ships. All of them were mented to ocean escorts and they were reclassifided as cruisers back in 70's when international naval charts showed that Soviet lead in terms of cruisers.
If the propoused strike cruiser concept would have materialised, USN would have been able to boost whit aegis cruiser whit tomahawks, harpoons, 8inch guns and even VSTOL fighters in wildest concepts! Under this desing was concerned thae revial of cruiser as sole combatant apart of task groups as the Aegis system was felt to be so revolutionar that it would have allowed operations outside taskgroup air cover.

In soviet side, the cruiser term remained whit RKRs, missile cruisers mented to challenge big US carriers. They were thougth a remrant of Stalins and Kuznetsovs naval strategy and hastly replaced in naval building by large ASW ships mented to be more of taskgroup leaders of smaller ASW ships. (whit some desings, like Kresta II and Krivaks the switch would merge only after the ships were launched. Both were desinged to carry P-700 Malachit (SS-n-9) SSMs but substituted the SS-n-14 ASW missile instead (also a derivate from that missile) NATO wasent were of this sift and thought first that the missiles onboard Krestas were SS-N-10, a new SSM of unknown type. (thats why the designation never covered any 'existing' system. This was typical to NATo and surffix SS-N-11 was assigned to normal P-15M Termit (SSN2C) missiles onboard Kashin class due their 'smooth' cannister compared to curved ones in OSA II class FACs. In other hand, NATO designated sometimes different missiles whit same name and systems like SS-N-3, -7, -9, and -22 have covered multible missiles, mostly from totally different desing and designer)

But back in to BPKs these werent 'real' cruisers, but fregates whit cruiser dimmensions. Slavas and Kirovs returned to orginal RKR concept but this time assigned also to function as fleet and flotilla flagships and Slavas could be seen as 'flotilla' leaders to brigade of Sovromenyy class destroyers. Or more correctly, Soviet naval thinking called ultimately a three brigade divisions whit two ligth and one heavy brigade. This thinking can be seen on any class of warships from missile facs to nuclear powered missile submarines. Therefore there were always a shortrange and longrange armed ship build or designed at the same time.

But time will show that Slavas and Kirovs, last of the line will prove them selves as relics of past glory and Russian navy, in great decline of funds and resources will have to focus on smaller, cheaper and more multipurpose ships to rebuilt its migth. China in other hand is the sole candinate of revialing of cruisers and I would be delighted to see any possible cruiser news, thought you can thing many ways about the benefits of these levithans, but big dick is always a big dick, no matter who you dismoralise and look down upon to those who eagerly present one...:china:

[vincelee]

*********************

For god sake yue, are begging for the permanet ban?

[coolieno99]

Arn't those ballistic missiles. Hitting a moving target with those is imposible.
The HN-3 is probably a copy of the Russian Kh-55 cruise missile. Ukraine(Russia) sold 6 Kh-55s to China in 2001. The long range version of the Kh-55 carries expendable conformal external fuel tanks to extend its range to 3000 km(1860 mi). This could also explains China's decision to continue production of the "outdated" H-6 bomber. The H-6 serves just as an aerial platform for the HN-3s. Just bring these missiles within 3000 km from the target(well outside ranges of defending fighter aircrafts and SAMs). Fired. Turn around. Scoot away ... :coffee:

[tphuang]

Arn't those ballistic missiles. Hitting a moving target with those is imposible.
HN series are cruise missiles. JL and DF series are ballistic missiles.

[MIGleader]

The HN-3 is probably a copy of the Russian Kh-55 cruise missile. Ukraine(Russia) sold 6 Kh-55s to China in 2001. The long range version of the Kh-55 carries expendable conformal external fuel tanks to extend its range to 3000 km(1860 mi). This could also explains China's decision to continue production of the "outdated" H-6 bomber. The H-6 serves just as an aerial platform for the HN-3s. Just bring these missiles within 3000 km from the target(well outside ranges of defending fighter aircrafts and SAMs). Fired. Turn around. Scoot away ... :coffee:

production? they are merely upgrading the existing inventory of 120 bombers. no new planes have been built since the 90s, exept test models.

[tphuang]

production? they are merely upgrading the existing inventory of 120 bombers. no new planes have been built since the 90s, exept test models.
there has been recent speculation that production started again, because there are enough H-6 regiments to have more than 120 H-6.