More news on the carrier (China)

My question on this subject is this. Should China make Varyag seaworthy again, I would assume they would create a CBG. However, I would imagine that this would only be the beginning as China’s government would most likely decide to design their own indigenous carriers. How many do you guys think the Chinese Navy would need in order to be able to counter any threat they might encounter? As well, would the Varyag, if it is indeed being retrofitted, be involved in a move to take over Taiwan?

China might need carriers as time progress as power projection ability is required. THat may be 10 or even as long as 50 years down the road.
Right this moment there is no immediate need for a CV.

Why do people here always tie Varyag with Taiwan? Shadow isn’t the only one here… Hopefully people should realize Chinese desire of a CV does focus on the ability to attack Taiwan but rather to secure and protect sealanes and project power where they are not yet within the reaches of the PLAN or PLAAF.
In a nut shell Taiwan is only 200km off the Chinese shore no real need for a CV.

My question on this subject is this. Should China make Varyag seaworthy again, I would assume they would create a CBG. However, I would imagine that this would only be the beginning as China’s government would most likely decide to design their own indigenous carriers. How many do you guys think the Chinese Navy would need in order to be able to counter any threat they might encounter? As well, would the Varyag, if it is indeed being retrofitted, be involved in a move to take over Taiwan?

and what wars did the ’25th’ fight in?

surely you see the folly in wasting money on a carrier that was never used in combat when the money and manpower tied up in that ‘prestege’ project could very well have turned the tide of battle in a real war.

how much did the ’25th’ and its air wing cost? how many more exocetes and super etondarts could that money have bought?

as for the need to intimidate its weaker neighbours. well which would be more intimidating to you? a navy that can take on the british and win, or one that can’t?

as i said before, deterance only comes from real fighting ability. with real ability, one does not need to get ‘monument’ systems to give their opponents pause for thought. on the other hand, only having ‘monument’ systems that only look imposing but cant fight is unlikely to fool the people that count (military commanders and government leaders), and if your ‘bluf’ fails, you would be faced with a humiliating back down, or a costly defeat.

a cruiser (WWII size) can easily be sunk by a single volly from a sub, or a volly from a frigate or even some FACs, and fighter loaded with the right missiles can also easily have enough firepower to sink a ship of that size. a cruiser is of similar size to a carrier.

nations have the right to declear war if a soilder from another party so much as sets foot on one of their warships without permission. on the other hand, the shooting down of civilian air lines resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians have been explained away before.

a carrier can be sunk by the actions of one man on one sub, ship or plane just as easily as any other warship. if the loss of a frigate or destroyer can be exused, and the destruction of civilian airliners can be explained away, what is the point in such a ‘tripwire’?

a real tripwire is (or rather was) the US ground forces based along the 38th in SK. if NK attacked, many of those men would die, but more importantly, many would live and continue to fight. as such, the US would be forced into acting as no president, no matter how much he wants to, can stand aside and let american soilders get butchered without acting to help them.

PLAAF and PLANAF flankers and JH7s can provide air cover for those areas with or without tanker support. a carrier would be more useful, but an operation in those areas without one is by no means impossible.

as for an attempt to cut china’s sea based oil lines. well with the degree of intergration china has achieved with the international economy, any such actions against chinese oil lines would cause tremendous economic damage to china’s biggest trading partners, which happens to be the US, japan, russia and the EU, as well as major harm to the economies of the rest of the world on the side.

the US, russia and EU will never stand for it unless its one of them that is doing the cutting (even then the others will likely be far from happy, but they are unlikely to come to blows over the issue).

anyways, if anyone except the US, britian, france, or russia (no one else has much of a realistic chance of being able to) tries to cut china’s sea based oil lines, the US, EU, russian and china (which happens to be a full house of the UN PMs) would unite against the offending nation and put huge political pressure on them to desist. if the attacker does not heed, at the very least the PLA has a free hand to get stuck in, and most likely would have direct military support from some other nations to boot. but part from the above meantioned list of nations, the PLA can take on and beat pretty much any other nation without needing a carrier.

if its the US, france, britian or russia that is trying to disrupt chinese sea based oil lines, then one ancient carrier with a handful of flankers is not going to make any difference. china would be better off (and is) investing in SSNs and SSBNs.

so either way, a solitary carrier is of little practical value to the PLA. if they are getting into carriers, they will do so in a big way. right now china is not ready for that.

as for chinese cotributions to the UN, well that is off topic and biased. china is still a developing nation. you expect the chinese government to be pouring money abroad when their own people are still living in poverty? :rolleyes:

have a look at all the BS coming from certain quaters about china’s small police contengent to liberia and you can see that its not just a lack of political will on the chinese side that is standing in the way of more chinese peacekeepers in UN service.

I will not go into that mix of facts. If Argentina, Brasil or some other single CV-user are really in need of that, it is questionable and there we agree.
When it comes to China, the future will show, who is right. The fate of the ‘Varyag’ will give a first glimpse about that.

I agree with you too, that “strong balls” or military spending does not help to overcome poverty! (and here I use your on words again)

“china is still a developing nation. you expect the chinese government to be pouring money abroad when their own people are still living in poverty? :rolleyes:”

About Argentina we agree in some way. But the true role of the ’25 de Mayo’ was not to face the superior RN, but the regional neighbours (Exspecially Chile). Brasil and Argentina are both exceptions with no real worldwide intrests, like France or the UK for example.

and what wars did the ’25th’ fight in?

surely you see the folly in wasting money on a carrier that was never used in combat when the money and manpower tied up in that ‘prestege’ project could very well have turned the tide of battle in a real war.

how much did the ’25th’ and its air wing cost? how many more exocetes and super etondarts could that money have bought?

as for the need to intimidate its weaker neighbours. well which would be more intimidating to you? a navy that can take on the british and win, or one that can’t?

as i said before, deterance only comes from real fighting ability. with real ability, one does not need to get ‘monument’ systems to give their opponents pause for thought. on the other hand, only having ‘monument’ systems that only look imposing but cant fight is unlikely to fool the people that count (military commanders and government leaders), and if your ‘bluf’ fails, you would be faced with a humiliating back down, or a costly defeat.

Loosing a FF or DD in the Persian Gulf is something different than a CV. To sink a CV you are in need of a coordinated attack, which can not be done by an erronous fire order!

a cruiser (WWII size) can easily be sunk by a single volly from a sub, or a volly from a frigate or even some FACs, and fighter loaded with the right missiles can also easily have enough firepower to sink a ship of that size. a cruiser is of similar size to a carrier.

nations have the right to declear war if a soilder from another party so much as sets foot on one of their warships without permission. on the other hand, the shooting down of civilian air lines resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians have been explained away before.

a carrier can be sunk by the actions of one man on one sub, ship or plane just as easily as any other warship. if the loss of a frigate or destroyer can be exused, and the destruction of civilian airliners can be explained away, what is the point in such a ‘tripwire’?

a real tripwire is (or rather was) the US ground forces based along the 38th in SK. if NK attacked, many of those men would die, but more importantly, many would live and continue to fight. as such, the US would be forced into acting as no president, no matter how much he wants to, can stand aside and let american soilders get butchered without acting to help them.

One area of intrest for China is the ‘Southern Chinese Sea’. Here it has to operate within a constant air-threat and has very limited air-support at best.
A second area of intrest for China may be the ‘Street of Hormuz’. I can not see that western navies will feel committed to that for all times, to ashure the flow of oil to the PRC too. Oil shortage or blocked shipping-lanes is a real threat for the PRC too. China can not hope to fullfill all UN-tasks with some voting or an ashaming small amount of money for all days to come!

PLAAF and PLANAF flankers and JH7s can provide air cover for those areas with or without tanker support. a carrier would be more useful, but an operation in those areas without one is by no means impossible.

as for an attempt to cut china’s sea based oil lines. well with the degree of intergration china has achieved with the international economy, any such actions against chinese oil lines would cause tremendous economic damage to china’s biggest trading partners, which happens to be the US, japan, russia and the EU, as well as major harm to the economies of the rest of the world on the side.

the US, russia and EU will never stand for it unless its one of them that is doing the cutting (even then the others will likely be far from happy, but they are unlikely to come to blows over the issue).

anyways, if anyone except the US, britian, france, or russia (no one else has much of a realistic chance of being able to) tries to cut china’s sea based oil lines, the US, EU, russian and china (which happens to be a full house of the UN PMs) would unite against the offending nation and put huge political pressure on them to desist. if the attacker does not heed, at the very least the PLA has a free hand to get stuck in, and most likely would have direct military support from some other nations to boot. but part from the above meantioned list of nations, the PLA can take on and beat pretty much any other nation without needing a carrier.

if its the US, france, britian or russia that is trying to disrupt chinese sea based oil lines, then one ancient carrier with a handful of flankers is not going to make any difference. china would be better off (and is) investing in SSNs and SSBNs.

so either way, a solitary carrier is of little practical value to the PLA. if they are getting into carriers, they will do so in a big way. right now china is not ready for that.

as for chinese cotributions to the UN, well that is off topic and biased. china is still a developing nation. you expect the chinese government to be pouring money abroad when their own people are still living in poverty? :rolleyes:

have a look at all the BS coming from certain quaters about china’s small police contengent to liberia and you can see that its not just a lack of political will on the chinese side that is standing in the way of more chinese peacekeepers in UN service.

one doesnt become a competent carrier navy overnight just by throwing money at the problem. if PRC harbours ambitions of becoming a carrier navy someday (they need to if they want to supplant the USN in east asia), then best way is to start somewhere small like varyag and work to build institutions and competence. the skills arent going to appear magically even if two 80,000t CVNs emerge from a secret shipyard.

i know that, but still i feel its still too early for china to start worrying about carriers right now.

economically, china might find it hard to add the costs of another 1 or 2 new built carrier groups on top of what it is spending on its overal military modernisation program.

purhaps when the re-organisation of the air force, army and naval sub and surface fleets are nearing complete, but not at this earily stage.

politically, there is still too much mistrust of china in the west and in the US and japan in particular. investing in a carrier now might trigger even more military build up on the american and japanese side, and could trigger an arms race that china could well do without right now.

A carrier can be still a usefull tool in power-projection below ‘Super Power level’. See Russia, India and several other Navies about that. It even can act as ‘tripwire’, because a direct attack on such capital ship means ‘real business’, when a frigate or destroyer can still be labeled as an error or a mistake.

A helo-carrier is the next best thing, but the ‘Varyag looks’ ‘overdesigned’ and too expensive to operate in such a limited role only.

Agree, but there is potential for this ship in air assault role as well as ASW. Still, we’ld have to see some sort of action related to (re)engining.

one doesnt become a competent carrier navy overnight just by throwing money at the problem. if PRC harbours ambitions of becoming a carrier navy someday (they need to if they want to supplant the USN in east asia), then best way is to start somewhere small like varyag and work to build institutions and competence. the skills arent going to appear magically even if two 80,000t CVNs emerge from a secret shipyard.

Absolute correct. Even the Russians keep “their white elefant” in times of depression, not to loose all its hard earned gains and the core personal for that kind of ‘business’.

look up what argintina’s carriers did during the falklands to see the value of such white elephants.

a weapon system’s first and formost objective in life is to be able to fight and win. only after that most basic object have been achieved can one think about concepts such as using deterance to avoid having to fight at all(because without real power, there is no deterance to speak of).

the navies that a medium sized carrier can successfully take on are of no threat to china anyways, and the powers that are a threat to china will easily eat up one ancient cold war relic, so whats the point besides showing off?

thats a mightly expansive ‘tripwire’. :rolleyes:

anyways, how the hell does one go about ‘accidentally’ misplacing a serveral ton AShM in the middle of someone else’s frigate or destroyer? :rolleyes:

if a nation or government doesnt have the balls to act when they loss a frigate to hostile fire, then chances are such a government would also be able to find some excuse not to act if they loose a carrier instead.

and frankly, one can easily think of far better uses for the money and lives involved then as a great big target for others to shoot at at their lesuire.

About Argentina we agree in some way. But the true role of the ’25 de Mayo’ was not to face the superior RN, but the regional neighbours (Exspecially Chile). Brasil and Argentina are both exceptions with no real worldwide intrests, like France or the UK for example.

Loosing a FF or DD in the Persian Gulf is something different than a CV. To sink a CV you are in need of a coordinated attack, which can not be done by an erronous fire order!

One area of intrest for China is the ‘Southern Chinese Sea’. Here it has to operate within a constant air-threat and has very limited air-support at best.
A second area of intrest for China may be the ‘Street of Hormuz’. I can not see that western navies will feel committed to that for all times, to ashure the flow of oil to the PRC too. Oil shortage or blocked shipping-lanes is a real threat for the PRC too. China can not hope to fullfill all UN-tasks with some voting or an ashaming small amount of money for all days to come!

one doesnt become a competent carrier navy overnight just by throwing money at the problem. if PRC harbours ambitions of becoming a carrier navy someday (they need to if they want to supplant the USN in east asia), then best way is to start somewhere small like varyag and work to build institutions and competence. the skills arent going to appear magically even if two 80,000t CVNs emerge from a secret shipyard.

A carrier can be still a usefull tool in power-projection below ‘Super Power level’. See Russia, India and several other Navies about that.

look up what argintina’s carriers did during the falklands to see the value of such white elephants.

a weapon system’s first and formost objective in life is to be able to fight and win. only after that most basic object have been achieved can one think about concepts such as using deterance to avoid having to fight at all(because without real power, there is no deterance to speak of).

the navies that a medium sized carrier can successfully take on are of no threat to china anyways, and the powers that are a threat to china will easily eat up one ancient cold war relic, so whats the point besides showing off?

It even can act as ‘tripwire’, because a direct attack on such capital ship means ‘real business’, when a frigate or destroyer can still be labeled as an error or a mistake.

thats a mightly expansive ‘tripwire’. :rolleyes:

anyways, how the hell does one go about ‘accidentally’ misplacing a serveral ton AShM in the middle of someone else’s frigate or destroyer? :rolleyes:

if a nation or government doesnt have the balls to act when they loss a frigate to hostile fire, then chances are such a government would also be able to find some excuse not to act if they loose a carrier instead.

and frankly, one can easily think of far better uses for the money and lives involved then as a great big target for others to shoot at at their lesuire.

Making the Varyag into a conventional carrier would be unwise for china. its small size would make it of limited use in any possible future conflict the PLA might fight in.

the massive investment needed to assemble and maintain a carrier air wing would also not be worth while for just one small carrier. but china is still not in a position economically to be able to easily afford a large fleet of carriers and support ships.

the same thing applies to a training ship – the investment is just too great for one or two ships to be worth while. but atm, china cant afford many more without having to make significant cuts to other projects (subs) or other services (air force and army). whats the point in starting to train people now if these people would likely be nearing retirement age when china does start fielding carriers?

this is either a commerical venture (some businessmen have more money then sense), or if the PLAN is behind it, then its most likely that they plan to convert the Varyag into a helo carrier.

a helo carrier would be useful in providing ASW helo, and prop AWACS support for the PLAN’s surface fleet and could also be used as a mobile base to launch helo-board SF troops if a conflict with taiwan erupts.

a helo carrier would also cause less of a political ripple internationaly, and could be a means to ‘break’ china’s neighbours into the idea that the PLAN will no longer be just a coastal defence force without the intimidation that a full-fledge carrier would bring.

a helo carrier would also be of great use in UN peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance missions, which would help beijing’s goal of trying to improve china’s image abroad.

A carrier can be still a usefull tool in power-projection below ‘Super Power level’. See Russia, India and several other Navies about that. It even can act as ‘tripwire’, because a direct attack on such capital ship means ‘real business’, when a frigate or destroyer can still be labeled as an error or a mistake.

A helo-carrier is the next best thing, but the ‘Varyag looks’ ‘overdesigned’ and too expensive to operate in such a limited role only.

what’s the point if your not choosing to use it? If they are stripping the ship for scrap they they wouldn’t bother with the paint which could potenially cost a lot for a ship of this size. If PLAN are stripping the ship they might as well do it now…they already had a ton of time for engineers to come and study the design no point in actually keeping a ship at the Ship Yard and take up valuable space that can be used to build other ships.

But what would be the use of Varyag? Unless they are converting it into training deck or less likely a conventional carrier or maybe only a helo carrier… I don’t see the point.

Making the Varyag into a conventional carrier would be unwise for china. its small size would make it of limited use in any possible future conflict the PLA might fight in.

the massive investment needed to assemble and maintain a carrier air wing would also not be worth while for just one small carrier. but china is still not in a position economically to be able to easily afford a large fleet of carriers and support ships.

the same thing applies to a training ship – the investment is just too great for one or two ships to be worth while. but atm, china cant afford many more without having to make significant cuts to other projects (subs) or other services (air force and army). whats the point in starting to train people now if these people would likely be nearing retirement age when china does start fielding carriers?

this is either a commerical venture (some businessmen have more money then sense), or if the PLAN is behind it, then its most likely that they plan to convert the Varyag into a helo carrier.

a helo carrier would be useful in providing ASW helo, and prop AWACS support for the PLAN’s surface fleet and could also be used as a mobile base to launch helo-board SF troops if a conflict with taiwan erupts.

a helo carrier would also cause less of a political ripple internationaly, and could be a means to ‘break’ china’s neighbours into the idea that the PLAN will no longer be just a coastal defence force without the intimidation that a full-fledge carrier would bring.

a helo carrier would also be of great use in UN peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance missions, which would help beijing’s goal of trying to improve china’s image abroad.

what’s the point if your not choosing to use it? If they are stripping the ship for scrap they they wouldn’t bother with the paint which could potenially cost a lot for a ship of this size. If PLAN are stripping the ship they might as well do it now…they already had a ton of time for engineers to come and study the design no point in actually keeping a ship at the Ship Yard and take up valuable space that can be used to build other ships.

But what would be the use of Varyag? Unless they are converting it into training deck or less likely a conventional carrier or maybe only a helo carrier… I don’t see the point.

Well, I don’t get it? Many state her condition is so bad. That it would be uneconomical to return her to service. Also, Wanshan brought up a good point. Without engines she would be useless as a training ship. You can’t perform flight operations with no wind over the deck. Also, from last I heard the ex-Minsk was a total failure as a Casino/Entertainment Complex. So, whats left???? 😮

But what would be the use of Varyag? Unless they are converting it into training deck or less likely a conventional carrier or maybe only a helo carrier… I don’t see the point.

Use as a theme park would also require a lick of paint. The point being that a lick of paint says nothing except that there will be no scrapping in the near future. Use as training deck is unlikely: while you could land CTOL aircraft on deck, it would be difficult if not impossible – as I understand it – to take off without wind over the deck i.e. without turning the ship into the prevailing wind and running at some speed. Which requires propulsion.

The paint job could be just to keep the ship from deteriorating further?

what’s the point if your not choosing to use it? If they are stripping the ship for scrap they they wouldn’t bother with the paint which could potenially cost a lot for a ship of this size. If PLAN are stripping the ship they might as well do it now…they already had a ton of time for engineers to come and study the design no point in actually keeping a ship at the Ship Yard and take up valuable space that can be used to build other ships.

But what would be the use of Varyag? Unless they are converting it into training deck or less likely a conventional carrier or maybe only a helo carrier… I don’t see the point.

Let me bring things back on track.

Recent photo of Varyag posted from our good friends at CDF

Definately a new lick of paint. light blue or grey( whatever the colour of PLAN since I could never figure out…)

… but what is the thing on the starboard side?

The paint job could be just to keep the ship from deteriorating further?

I don’t think there is any airframe of mock-up air frame on deck. From the stage of what workmen seem to be doing (exterioor paining, no activity on the deck itself or elevators), it would be too early anyway. If there is interior work going on e.g. sanding and painting, they are going to need one or more air conditioners. From what we’ve seen on finishing ships, that usually is a square or rectangual, often blue-ish item parked on deck with a lot of yellow of white air-hoses sticking out of it and going into the ship. There may also be a need for generators.

well if you look at the rear of the ship, there appears to be a blue object of considerable size (compared to the workmen on deck), which might be an air conditioning unit. however, th blur makes it hard to be sure.

If you do not have to offer more than personal accusations about that topic, just stay away.

if you would just excerise a tiny bit of common sense and think through what you are writing before posting; not butt in to make pointless remarkes just for the sake of trying to get one back, and not post SPAM just for the sake of trying to get the last word, then maybe i wouldnt have to waste so much time responding to you. :rolleyes:

I don’t think there is any airframe of mock-up air frame on deck. From the stage of what workmen seem to be doing (exterior painting, no activity on the deck itself or elevators), it would be too early anyway. If there is interior work going on e.g. sanding and painting, they are going to need one or more air conditioners. From what we’ve seen on finishing ships, that usually is a square or rectangual, often blue-ish item parked on deck with a lot of yellow of white air-hoses sticking out of it and going into the ship. There may also be a need for generators.

Let me bring things back on track.

Recent photo of Varyag posted from our good friends at CDF

Definately a new lick of paint. light blue or grey( whatever the colour of PLAN since I could never figure out…)

… but what is the thing on the starboard side?