TO ALL

TEMPER YOURSELVES PLEASE, MODERATE YOUR TONE AND BEHAVE CIVILIZED
THIS IS ONLY AN INTERNET FORUM AND NOT OF TRUE IMPORTANCE
THIS REQUEST IS DIRECTED AT ALL READERS/POSTERS, NOT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR.

Well it is a question we have debated many times, we can presume a significant amount of machinery was installed when the plug was pulled on Varyag construction. On the other hand that machinery had pretty much zero preservative maintenance as she lay along side, add to that whatever the Ukrainians ripped out as condition for her sale to the Chinese Casino company;) and I lean towards installation of new boilers, steam turbines and pipework. Maybe some stuff was found to be adequate for overhaul and retained, its not as if this kind of work hasn’t been done before. Many ships have had their machinery and boilers replaced during their life including warships, add to that the known reliability problems with the machinery installed in the AK and I think it makes sense for China to install similar but indigenous propulsion then mess around with whatever was left installed.

Not to mention the Chinese have 2 Kiev class ships with essentially the same propulsion plant which they ccould possibly use for parts, plus 4 operational Sovremenny which also have the same boilers/turbines….

Can saomeone please close this ‘useful’ thread after merging the relevant/interesting bits into the PLAN thread?

(good grief!)
:rolleyes:

Interestingly the Qing class can carry three medium range land attack missiles (CJ-10K) which are capable of being fitted with a tactical nuclear war heads.

http://www.newcenturychina.org/forums/index.php?/topic/2486-chinas-qing-class-ssk/

(Second post of interesting details).

CJ-10K is s DH-10 derived cruise missile, it is not a ballistic missile. DH-10 measures 7.2m x 0,75m and would not fit a torpedo tube. If three are carried by Qing class, then that suggests it employs vertical launch, with VLUs located in the sail (similar to the projoect 629 Golf class submarine, the plans to which China obtained from Russia in the 1950s but which employed surface launch with the Skud-like missile being lifted out of the sail prior to launch). However, if so, that makes the Qing class an SSG rather than an SSB. Either way, it would serve as complement to China’s SSBNs. Missile range would be 3000+.

It is unlikely in view of international arms trade regulation which limits the maximum range that China would deliver this type of sub with this type of missile to e.g. Pakistan, though it could deliver the subs to Pakistan for use with Pakistan’s own 500-700km range Babur cruise missile. But Babur is quoted to have a 53 cm diameter and so could well be fired from conventional torpedo tubes. So why bother with a Qing when Yuans would do just as well?

It’s overcast obviously. We have no idea what time of day it is either.

The crowd of onlookers are obviously there for a reason.

Also, it is interesting to note that the Super Frelon was designed as a naval helicopter.

It is overcast in this pic. Note there is a shadow.

The complement of airplanes currently assigned to the CVW is 20-25 airplanes fewer than during the ’60s, 70s and ’80s:

• 2 squadrons of 10 F/A-18E/Fs for air defense
• 2 squadrons of 12 F/A-18 C/Ds for strike (to be replaced one-for-one by F-35Cs)
• A 4-5 airplane detachment of F/A-18Gs for EW
• A 4 airplane detachment of E-2C/Ds for early warning
• A detachment of 6-8 SH-60s for plane guard and inner zone ASW
• Two C-2 CODs typically fly from the nearest Fleet Resupply Point to the CVN, but they are not assigned to the CVW

Despite carrying fewer airplanes, the CVN sits 4 inches lower in the water because of new ship’s kit added to the CVN. It will be a challenge to add 6-8 UCLASS UAVs in 2018 because many of the spaces used to support the CVW 25 years ago are being used for ship’s kit today.

Is there reason to assume one or more carriers sent to a zone where major conflict is expected or occurring (i.e. near peer) would not be augmented and loaded out to the fullest of their capability?

Standard ARM wasn’t a SAM used as an anti-ship missile. It was an air to surface anti-radiation missile based on a SAM. Different seeker, a bit shorter & lighter than the SAM. Retired over 20 years ago.

That 97kg warhead was a lot bigger than that of Aster, BTW.

If Type 45, as currently equipped, is put into a position where it has to use some of those expensive SAMs as SSMs, then someone has screwed up very badly indeed. If surface opposition is possible, then there should be other vessels around to deal with it, and/or the T45 should have those FFBNW Harpoons put aboard, & (like the other ships in the area) a helicopter with anti-ship missiles. If there’s a threat around none of that can deal with, & that’s too big for the gun, then BIIIIG mistakes have been made.

I know what the Standard ARM is. The AGM-78 Standard ARM (Anti-Radiation Missile) was a development of the RIM-66 Standard shipborne air-defense missile.The original AGM-78A-1, which was also known to the U.S. Navy as STARM (Standard ARM) Mod 0, was nothing more than an air-launched variant of the RIM-66A, fitted with the anti-radar seeker of the AGM-45A-3A Shrike. I used Standard ARM for indication of warhead weight only, as it is the same warhead as on RIM-66. I also gave numerous references to materials indicating the intended (if secondary) role of antishipping for the RIM66/67 SAM.

This missile was used by Israel in a land based application (Keres) and in seabased application on Knox frigates, Asheville class PGMs and similar missile boats (South Korea) i.e. before Harpoon became available. Standard missile was also offered (though not adopted) in air-to-air variant AIM-97 Seekbat.

Starting on 28 January 1971, Benicia began evaluation of a special surface-to-surface guided-missile system designed for gunboats. Part of a larger study intended to develop anti-missile boat warfare doctrine, this system was designed to increase gunboat firepower and counter the anti-ship missile threat from Soviet-made fast attack boats. Equipped with a single Standard ARM missile launcher on the fantail, Benicia conducted fire control and operational tests in preparation for a live-fire exercise. On 6 March, she became the first American gunboat to successfully fire a guided missile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Benicia_(PG-96)

RGM-66: The US Navy sought an “off the shelf” anti-ship missile after Egyptian success with the Soviet-supplied Styx in the 1970s, and developed a shipboard version of the AGM-78 for small ships; the RGM-66 Standard ARM. Two cells on the Mk117 ASROC launchers of the Knox class frigates were also modified to fire it. The RGM-66 missile was successful, however the new Harpoon missile quickly superseded it. South Korea incorporated the RGM-66 onto some small missile craft.

http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1695.aspx

Btw, the actual USN use of Standard Missile SAMs in anti-surface warfare is documented …

On 18 April 1988, during Operation Praying Mantis, the USS Simpson (FFG-56) fired four RIM-66 Standard missiles and the USS Wainwright (CG-28) fired two RIM-67 Standard missiles at Joshan, an Iranian (Combattante II) Kaman-class fast attack craft. The attacks destroyed the Iranian ship’s superstructure but did not immediately sink it. (It went down later.)

http://chockblock.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/ada-history-talos-terrier-and-the-standard-missile/
(Same source further documents surface launched uses of Standard ARM: see chttp://www.gunboatriders.com/theboats/evolution_of_the_asheville_class… by one Hank Morris)

The point is not that I proposed to use SAMs in this manner. The question I tried to answer is whether it is a possibility. Now, if you want to make it into a debate about the wisdom of doing so, that is you choice.

Standard Missile
Weight
RIM66 621 kg
RIM66 VL 707 kg
RIM67: 1340 kg
Warhead weight 97 kg
Range:
RIM-66A: 32 km (17 nm);
RIM66B/RGM-66D: 46 km (25 nm);
RIM67A: 65 km (35 nm)
RIM66C: 74 km (40 nm);
AGM-78B: 90 km (56 miles)
RIM67C: 185 km (100 nm)

Sea Sparrow
Weight: 281.2 kg
Warhead weight: 38.6 kg
Range: 8 nm Sea Sparrow (RIM-7-series)

Aster 15: 310 kg, 1.7-30 km, 15kg focused fragment warhead loaded with two types of fragments
Aster 30: 510 kg, 3-100 km (50km for low flying targets) , Block 1: 15kg Dual Mode Warhead (anti-aircraft / BMD > blast/frag versus hit-to-kill)
Terminal dart: 100 (110?) kg. at intercept
http://www.eurosam.com/aster.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/aster-30/
http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/ground/3/effector
One could use Aster 30 in BMD mode against surface targets, which would mean impacting the whole 100kg dart rather than setting off the blast/frag warhead 2m from the target.

RN ships would carry helicopters either Sea Lynx (i.e. 2-4 Sea Skua > 30 kg semi armor piercing warhead each, range 25km) or Merlin (this should be able to carry a pair of heavy AShM like Exocet or Harpoon or 4 smaller ones like Sea Skua. However, is at present not yet capable of even Sea Skua). Using the helicopter for AShM would give nice range but could put this important ASW asset at risk, depending on the nature of the opponent (specifically the type of SAM carried).