Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5820
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 01:55

sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Really??? The Varyag was totally neglected for over a decade and was in extremely poor condition when she finally arrived in China. The Admiral Kuznetsov was in active service during the same period. While, not in excellent condition or refitted to Western Standards. She clearly was in far better shape than the ex-Varyag.

Honestly, to suggest otherwise is absurd.... :doh:


So you don't actually know anything, you're just assuming. They stripped it back to the bare metal and rebuilt from there. That's why it's as sea far more often than the Kuznetsov.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News ... 561460566/



Sorry, your source doesn't support your claims at all. In addition my "point" was the condition of the Varyag at the time China acquired it. Was in far poorer condition. Than the Admiral Kuznetsov is today. Again that is "easily" supportable.

Unless you think you can leave a ship half completed and open to the environment* for over a decade. Is in better shape than a ship that is manned and maintained over the same period....


* A satellite image taken by the U.S. in 1995 showed that the ship's ammunition elevator was open to the elements, which may have further damaged the interior.

http://www.varyagworld.com/mystery.php

"ABSURD" :doh:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5820
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 02:01

mixelflick wrote:Kustenov is in much better condition than the Liaong? That's a scary proposition!

Even assuming 3 ski jump carriers plus a conventional boat, that still only brings them to 4 vs. what, 11 or so American? 7 more carriers is no small amount, and that doesn't take into account our amphibious assault ships. They can now carry F-35's, so are some of the most capable carriers in the world.

China is no doubt making great strides in naval operations, but in terms of carriers is still well behind the US IMO..



I said acquiring the Admiral Kuznetsov would help close the gap! Never said it would match the USN Carrier Fleet. In addition while the USN would have 10-11 Carriers. It has global commitments. While, the PLAN would likely be focused solely on SE Asia.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5820
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 02:05

hornetfinn wrote:A single US Navy carrier is likely more capable than several of those STOBAR carriers in Chinese Navy. Simply because they can launch and recover aircraft far more often and keep up much higher operational tempo. Also aircraft can take off with a lot of weapons, fuel and equipment. AFAIK, J-15s can take only take off with light weapons and fuel load.

So I'd say that there will be pretty significant Carrier Gap between USA and China for decades to come, but Chinese Navy is definitely quite powerful compared to any other navy in the world and having those carriers give them nice capabilities and flexibility against all other potential adversaries.


I wasn't comparing the capabilities between PLAN and USN Carriers. Just stating China could acquire an additional carrier from Russia. In order to close the gap....

Also, Germany only had two modern Battleships at the early stages of the Second World War. So, they weren't a threat to the Royal Navy that had many more....
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5820
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 02:12

pmi wrote:
sferrin wrote:So you don't actually know anything, you're just assuming. They stripped it back to the bare metal and rebuilt from there. That's why it's as sea far more often than the Kuznetsov.


He is saying that the Kuznetsov is currently in better condition than the Varyag was when she was acquired by the Chinese.

That being said I think the odds of the Chinese being interested in her is slim to none at this point.



Only to Chinese know the true extent of the work that was needed to rebuild the Varyag. (i.e. Liaoning) So, they may determine the Admiral Kuznetsov isn't worth the effort. Who knows.....

Just pointing out Chinese "ambitions" and the Admiral Kuznetsov as an option.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2850
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 06:08

Corsair1963 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:A single US Navy carrier is likely more capable than several of those STOBAR carriers in Chinese Navy. Simply because they can launch and recover aircraft far more often and keep up much higher operational tempo. Also aircraft can take off with a lot of weapons, fuel and equipment. AFAIK, J-15s can take only take off with light weapons and fuel load.

So I'd say that there will be pretty significant Carrier Gap between USA and China for decades to come, but Chinese Navy is definitely quite powerful compared to any other navy in the world and having those carriers give them nice capabilities and flexibility against all other potential adversaries.


I wasn't comparing the capabilities between PLAN and USN Carriers. Just stating China could acquire an additional carrier from Russia. In order to close the gap....

Also, Germany only had two modern Battleships at the early stages of the Second World War. So, they weren't a threat to the Royal Navy that had many more....


Ok, I somewhat misunderstood your point. Also my point was that China is likely not that interested in closing any carrier gap between US and Chinese Navies, but their ambition is to be more effective against other navies and countries. And I'd say that they now have pretty impressive navy with a lot of capabilties and would be highly dangerous to any navy in the world. In the future (2030+) they will likely get close to US Navy in most areas, although I think carriers will take more time to get close to US Navy.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1789
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 06:38

When I was studying the old Soviet aircraft carrier doctrines back in the 80s, it wasn't about offensive carrier airpower like how the US does it. The Soviets developed aircraft carriers to defend their naval fleets. That's the complement comprising fighters & ASW helos and that's why VSTOL yaks came first followed by ski-jumps which were acceptable compromises.

If the Chinese adopts the same doctrine, that means defending their fleets is a priority. An amphibious assault fleet would otherwise be pretty dead meat in the face of US/Allied airpower. China is developing larger amphibs which are much more easily defended in a convoy.

A couple of carriers aren't going to be useful against the USN but against a much smaller ROCN/ROCAF, that's a different story.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5820
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 06:42

hornetfinn wrote:
Ok, I somewhat misunderstood your point. Also my point was that China is likely not that interested in closing any carrier gap between US and Chinese Navies, but their ambition is to be more effective against other navies and countries. And I'd say that they now have pretty impressive navy with a lot of capabilties and would be highly dangerous to any navy in the world. In the future (2030+) they will likely get close to US Navy in most areas, although I think carriers will take more time to get close to US Navy.



In the case of China hard to predict what course they will take. Many didn't believe the ex-Varyag would ever be rebuilt and returned to service....
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5820
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 06:45

weasel1962 wrote:When I was studying the old Soviet aircraft carrier doctrines back in the 80s, it wasn't about offensive carrier airpower like how the US does it. The Soviets developed aircraft carriers to defend their naval fleets. That's the complement comprising fighters & ASW helos and that's why VSTOL yaks came first followed by ski-jumps which were acceptable compromises.

If the Chinese adopts the same doctrine, that means defending their fleets is a priority. An amphibious assault fleet would otherwise be pretty dead meat in the face of US/Allied airpower. China is developing larger amphibs which are much more easily defended in a convoy.

A couple of carriers aren't going to be useful against the USN but against a much smaller ROCN/ROCAF, that's a different story.


Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2850
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 10:04

Corsair1963 wrote:Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)


Definitely so. Currently only US Navy has enough carriers for sustained and full time presense and combat capability. All the rest would likely need quite a lot of preparations and planning before getting a carrier to real combat operation. Depending of course what the status of carrier(s) is. Like for Falklands War the British managed to get their carriers moving within few days. If they are under repair or refit, it would likely take quite a bit more time to get them underway.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1789
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 10:22

Yup, the Brits got all 3 CVLs into the fight and that was based on Argie timing.

In a Taiwan scenario, China is likely to control the timing i.e they can ensure the CVs are operational on D-day.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2850
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 11:21

Besides Taiwan, I can see several other scenarios where Chinese carriers might be useful. There are quite many potential reasons to fight near China (like South China Sea) and one interesting would be Africa where China has been rather active. There could well be some armed conflict where aviation might be needed and carriers would be perfect for that. Even current STOBAR carriers could be very useful there.
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 11:48

Corsair1963 wrote:Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)


To put things in perspective in 1990 there were 15 commissioned carriers. Six of them participated in Desert Storm.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3495
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 13:44

pmi wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)


To put things in perspective in 1990 there were 15 commissioned carriers. Six of them participated in Desert Storm.


15 big flat tops, or say 11 and 4 amphibious assault ships? I suppose you can call all of them "aircraft carriers", but I don't remember us having 15 CVN's, or even 15 large ones, with a few of those being (non) nuclear powered ???
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1789
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 14:11

Hornetfinn is right. USN had 6 cvn and 9 CV during desert storm deploying cvn-71 and 5 CV (cv-41, 60, 61, 66 and 67) for the fight. There were 2-3 more Cv/cvn that could in theory deploy but did not.

The CV that did not deploy were cv-59, 62, 63, 64. Cvn back then were 65, 68, 69, 70 and 72.
Offline

Tiger05

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 14:19

mixelflick wrote:
pmi wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)


To put things in perspective in 1990 there were 15 commissioned carriers. Six of them participated in Desert Storm.


15 big flat tops, or say 11 and 4 amphibious assault ships? I suppose you can call all of them "aircraft carriers", but I don't remember us having 15 CVN's, or even 15 large ones, with a few of those being (non) nuclear powered ???


He is correct. 9x CVs and 6x CVNs in service in 1990.

And technically, there were even 16 carriers in the fleet at that time if you count the training carrier CVT-16 USS Lexington (decommissioned in 1991).

EDIT: Weasel1962 beat me to it. :P
Last edited by Tiger05 on 27 Jun 2019, 15:02, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests