PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Launching Su-33 from a Catapult.

A few questions:
1. can they build a CAT from Ulyanovsk class drawings they have access to?
2. how easy or hard it is to retrofit a CAT on Kuznetsov class?
3. will it be worth it- since the PLAN isn't likely to use their CVs in sustained land attack role, carrier aircraft can takeoff with lighter load, and ASMs can be carried, as designed, below the flight deck; or, use 2 fighters with reduced payload instead of 1 with heavy payload to get around the ski-jump limit; also, they can takeoff with reduced fuel load and then be refueled inflight by land based tankers, if need be- am I right?
IMHO, since the land based bombers and cargo planes occasionaly been taken off the carrier decks in the past,






The could be navalized, perhaps given more powerful engines, and used on CVs (even without CATS) for transport/tanker/sea control/ - it's no bigger (it's actualy smaller!) in relation to the flightdeck size than the US !






This pic gives an idea of its size-

Some

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

were also demilitarized and transferred to the Soviet airline Aeroflot for use as mail transports.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The fire from the tail gun mount while breaking away gave the enemy no chance for gun fire burst or launching the "Stinger" to the unprotected tail, like in cases with the MiG or the Su aircraft.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Re: Launching Su-33 from a Catapult.

If the PLAN want to operate more than lightly armed fighters and helos, catapults are the only way to go. If the Carrier aircraft are dependant on land based aircraft (Tankers or AEW) then the raison d'etre of the carrier and it's aircraft will be called into question (why not just use land based fighters along with the land based tankers and land based AEW?). Carriers allow you to deploy air power away from land, a LONG way from land. The RAF used this argument against the RNs CV force in the sixties, but the concept wasn't tested for real until the early seventies when it was proved beyond doubt that land based fighters could not provide aircover for ships in the middle of the Atlantic, as they couldn't reach the operational area for at least two hours. A carrier launched interceptor would reach any 'bogey' in less than ten minutes by comparison, and this was how approval for the Sea Harrier was obtained.

Getting back to the Chinese paradigm, they will need to deploy more than just fighters in order to be credible, and although fighters such as the SU-33 (and probably any indigenous follow on) can launch from a ski jump with a light load, Prospective AEW and Tanker types cannot. Even if a 'Buddy' system is used the fighter equipped as a tanker will not be able to leave the deck without catapult assistance due to it's weight. If the PLAN ever wants to deploy beyond their coastal waters (as surely they must if they join the carrier club) then these other capabilities are essential. All the fighters in the world are of little use aboard a carrier without AEW control (Falklands being a case in point) and Tankers are also considered 'Force Multiplyers' as they keep a smaller number of aircraft in the air for longer. I believe that catapult equipped Chinese carriers are an inevitability, and also that the Kuznetzov design most probably made provision for them to be retro fitted to the Angled deck (Ulyanovsk was essentially an enlarged nuclear powered Kunetzov with two cats in the waist, she would have been the test ship for them, and it would not make sense to develop different aircraft to operate from her and not the previous two ships. Also Ulyanovsk's bow form was different, with the ski jump being built as a superstructure on top of an essentially flat deck, suggesting the Soviets were planning for the possibility of replacing the ski jump with two more cats at a later date. The Kuznetzovs would only be able to recieve two cats in the waist position by comparison). Chinese access to catapult technology has been covered before, and remember catapults are not that complicated. Te prototype steam catapult was designed, built and tested at sea in under a year by a nation on the verge of bankruptcy after being ravaged by five years of war, whilst it's citizens were still coping with rationing and long before computer aided design was even a twinkle in a sci fi writer's eye.

China has put men in orbit. Steam Catapults? Hardly a challenge for them...

Re: Launching Su-33 from a Catapult.

I agree but the only reason why I think the aircraft carrier program isn't moving as fast as there space program is that carrier isn't much of a priority to them yet. An currently space program is more important giving more focus and funding...as many people said China think long term not short term. Sure if carrier was a priority to China no doubt they can get a carrier going in 2 or so years even maybe less...but the thing is that carrier to China is a short term solution to modernisation while long term is up in space. Reading from all the serveral years of interviews of chinese military officials, I conclude myself that if China and US were ever going to war the first thing China will do is shoot down the eye of the US meaning satelittes rendering the effectiveness of US military significantly.

Re: Launching Su-33 from a Catapult.

In this forum, I shouldn't doubt anybody's intention behind portraying China as an agressive role either in the conceivable regional conflicts originated by Taiwan issue and other border disputes or the theoretical full scale war with the United States. But Chinese government, my government, has solemnly declared that the defence policy of China was defensive. We will not take any actions aggressively in any types of confrontation through military means, which will further escalate the situation. The rise of China is peaceful and beneficial to the world. The PLA is an armed forces dedicated to safeguard the dignity and territorial integrity of China. We say that and we will do that. We will not shoot any U.S. satelittes down minutes before the U.S. shoots ours down. We certainly will not nuke any other nations before they nuke us first. The lessons have been learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union. We can't afford the price to fight against U.S. for insignificant causes. 1.3 billion people's happiness is on the stake. Nothing is more important than that. The purpose for China to conduct the ASATs experiment, as Premier Wen said, was solely experimental and defensive. What we want to achieve is to gain the limited capability in that field in order to deter the U.S. from using that weapon first in a war scenario against China, as all our military developments are. Besides, U.S. had done that weapon experiment long before China did so and possessed more the capability and motivation to use them first, what's ground they have to accuse us for the same thing they have done. We are not disturbing the blance of the world. From my perspective, the pace of the PLA's modernization is fairly moderate. Even in the political field, we have been constructively and practically given up the military approach to legitimately reunify Taiwan. Any knowledgeable people in China and around the world should agree that such a strategic decision is great, the kind of decision a winner country will make.

I shall apologize for my failing to make this reply in line with the military topic. I hope everybody could forgive me for this time. Because I was writting them down in a hurry and realized my fault afterward.

Re: Carriers vs Fixed Bases in the 21st Century

We know that China is looking to open Bases in Burma and Pakistan to better facilitate its imports or raw materials

Click to expand...

Better add Sri Lanka to that list:

The Hambantota Development Zone, which the Chinese will help build, will include a container port, a bunkering system, an oil refinery, an airport and other facilities. It is expected to cost about US$1 billion and the Chinese are said to be financing more than 85% of the project.

Construction on the first phase of the project is scheduled to begin in July and is due to be completed in three years. The entire project is scheduled to be completed in the next 15 years.

Sino-Sri Lankan cooperation on the port project is expected to propel Hambantota, 240 kilometers south of the Lankan capital, Colombo, into a major transshipment hub. Hambantota's infrastructure will help service hundreds of ships that ply the waters to the south of Sri Lanka.

Click to expand...

Source:

Regardless of what anyone might say in or out of China, eventually "self-defense" is going to include these new bases and so they'll find a way to "defend" themselves.

Re: Carriers vs Fixed Bases in the 21st Century

Not sure about this but doesn't Sri Lanka have much better relations to India than do Pakistan & Myanmar ? But I guess if we're to look at decades ahead, it's hard to say.
More likely to happen before any bases in Pakistan & Myanmar, China is looking at pipelines in those 2 countries. And one in the north of Peninsular Malaysia.
All of these is to shorten the route of Mid East oil to China.

Re: Carriers vs Fixed Bases in the 21st Century

I guess the deal is highly lucrative and Sri Lanka might be able to use the money

Re: My trip to the US Navy Reserve Fleet in Bremerton, WA

bigstick61 said:

RE: US RESERVE FLEET

Click to expand...

Thought you guys might enjoy this thread and all of the pics of the reserve fleet (DDGs, FFGs, CG, CVs, etc.) from 18+ months ago when I traveled over to Bremerton.

Re: My trip to the US Navy Reserve Fleet in Bremerton, WA

Too bad most of the reserve fleet is gone now. I went to the one in Philadelphia and saw Knox-class FFs, Spruance-class DDs, a Des Moines-class CA, and other warships. Almost all of them are gone now, either sunk or sent to the breakers. Even the Des Moines just got sent to the breakers. Most of what remains is planned for disposal. Another one I've been to is the MARAD facility in Suisun Bay. There are a couple of Belknaps there, some old frigate preceding the Knox-class, and an Iowa-class BB (the Iowa herself), along with some amphibious vessels, and of course, since it is a MARAD facility, dozens of merchant and auxiliary vessels. To the west at Mare Island there was and still is an Iwo Jima-class LPH. I've also seen the reserve vessels at Pearl.

Re: My trip to the US Navy Reserve Fleet in Bremerton, WA

Jeff Head said:

Thought you guys might enjoy this thread and all of the pics of the reserve fleet (DDGs, FFGs, CG, CVs, etc.) from 18+ months ago when I traveled over to Bremerton.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff. I think that it is really disappointing that the USN seems to have moved away from its policy of maintaining a substantial reserve fleet. I think the Spruance class destroyers in particular would have been worth keeping for any future emergency.

The USN placed hundreds of destroyers in reserve after WW1 (the flush deckers) and WW2 (Fletchers, Sumners, etc). Of course the big difference (apart from the fact that the Spruances are similar in size to many WW2 cruisers) is that the Spruance class were worked hard for a long time and many may have been worn out. Many of the WW1 flush deckers, on the other hand, went almost straight into reserve after completion.

In the case of the carriers it would probably be uneconomical to try to get any more out of them. The big carriers have all given magnificent service and no one can say that they didn't give value for money. They deserve their retirement. It is sad though to see fine ships in the last days of their lives as they wait for disposal.

Cheers