PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security China's first carrier starts sea trials


Donger
08-10-2011, 09:07 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/08/10/china.aircraft.carrier/index.html

(CNN) -- China's first aircraft carrier sailed out of the northeastern port of Dalian for sea trials Wednesday morning, the state-run news agency Xinhua reported.

China has spent nearly a decade refurbishing the 67,000-ton, 300-meter (1,000-foot) ship, begun by the former Soviet Union but never completed.

Xinhua quoted military sources as saying the trials would be brief, and the carrier would return to Dalian for further refits.

China once renounced aircraft carriers as tools of imperialism, but has been developing a blue-water navy in recent years, along with air power to back it up.

It purchased the rusting, gutted shell of the Varyag, the Soviet-begun carrier now under way, from Ukraine in 1998.

Only a handful of other nations operate aircraft carriers -- and only the United States, with 11, has more than two in service.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 10:42 AM
Ah, Donger, playing the fear card again. This time regarding China.

Donger
08-10-2011, 10:45 AM
Ah, Donger, playing the fear card again. This time regarding China.

Not really. We could sink this turd pretty easily.

I posted this because it's real and China is developing a blue water navy. I realize that you and yours would rather just ignore that fact, but that doesn't make it not real.

BigRichard
08-10-2011, 10:45 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/08/10/china.aircraft.carrier/index.html

(CNN) -- China's first aircraft carrier sailed out of the northeastern port of Dalian for sea trials Wednesday morning, the state-run news agency Xinhua reported.

China has spent nearly a decade refurbishing the 67,000-ton, 300-meter (1,000-foot) ship, begun by the former Soviet Union but never completed.

Xinhua quoted military sources as saying the trials would be brief, and the carrier would return to Dalian for further refits.

China once renounced aircraft carriers as tools of imperialism, but has been developing a blue-water navy in recent years, along with air power to back it up.

It purchased the rusting, gutted shell of the Varyag, the Soviet-begun carrier now under way, from Ukraine in 1998.

Only a handful of other nations operate aircraft carriers -- and only the United States, with 11, has more than two in service.

So what is being said here is that we could cut back to 4 carriers and still be twice as large as any other navy???

Donger
08-10-2011, 10:45 AM
So what is being said here is that we could cut back to 4 carriers and still be twice as large as any other navy???

Yes.

BigRichard
08-10-2011, 10:47 AM
Yes.

Ok, just wanted to clairfy. :D

BigRichard
08-10-2011, 10:48 AM
Does anyone have the costs to run 1 carrier?

Donger
08-10-2011, 10:51 AM
Does anyone have the costs to run 1 carrier?

Going from memory, ~$1 million/day while at sea.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 11:00 AM
Not really. We could sink this turd pretty easily.
So if this is the case, why bother being so concerned?

I posted this because it's real and China is developing a blue water navy. I realize that you and yours would rather just ignore that fact, but that doesn't make it not real.

It's not a matter of ignore to me at all. It's that any nation has a right to a defense system which you seem to think otherwise. That and if they do build one we should knock it out if they get too strong eventhough trade prevents war. We are a big trading partner of theirs.

Dave Lane
08-10-2011, 11:03 AM
So what is being said here is that we could cut back to 4 carriers and still be twice as large as any other navy???

I like maybe 8 carriers and scuttle most of the support ships other than destroyers and tankers.

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:08 AM
So if this is the case, why bother being so concerned?

I'm not sure that concerned is the correct word. However, being aware that a global power has put an aircraft carrier to sea is a news-worthy event.

It's not a matter of ignore to me at all. It's that any nation has a right to a defense system which you seem to think otherwise. That and if they do build one we should knock it out if they get too strong eventhough trade prevents war. We are a big trading partner of theirs.

Aircraft carriers aren't typically viewed as defensive weapons, BEP.

Detoxing
08-10-2011, 11:11 AM
Any pics of this beast?

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:14 AM
Any pics of this beast?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/USNWC_Varyag01.jpg/300px-USNWC_Varyag01.jpg

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 11:15 AM
I'm not sure that concerned is the correct word. However, being aware that a global power has put an aircraft carrier to sea is a news-worthy event.

There a global "power" but we can sink the "turd." I think you need to make up your mind which it is, Donger.

[quote] Aircraft carriers aren't typically viewed as defensive weapons, BEP.

Oh please, they're warships that deploy and recover aircraft operating as a seagoing airbase. You national defense types promote the idea of having offensive capability as part of an overall defense strategy including the use of preventative war. Quit splitting hairs.

You're nervous. Admit it.

Jaric
08-10-2011, 11:16 AM
Aircraft carriers aren't typically viewed as defensive weapons, BEP.

Depends on how you look at things.

Lets say some random country starts talking big and acting like they're going to do something.

Then a pair of US aircraft carriers show up on their doorstep and they are reminded of what happens if they decide to attack the United States. Reality sets in and they realize attacking us might not be a good idea. Those carriers were a far more effective defense than anything because the stopped the attack from happening before it even started.

Same principle of our nuclear submarines. Their mere presense acts as a major deterent against agression.

Jaric
08-10-2011, 11:17 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/USNWC_Varyag01.jpg/300px-USNWC_Varyag01.jpg

Ooooo pretty.

jiveturkey
08-10-2011, 11:19 AM
Ooooo pretty.Except for the retarded ramp that's on it.

Are they launching BMX bikes?

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:19 AM
Depends on how you look at things.

Lets say some random country starts talking big and acting like they're going to do something.

Then a pair of US aircraft carriers show up on their doorstep and they are reminder of what happens if they decide to attack the United States. Reality sets in and they realize attacking us might not be a good idea. Those carriers were a far more effective defense than anything because the stopped the attack from happening before it even started.

Same principle of our nuclear submarines. Their mere presense acts as a major deterent against agression.

That's why I wrote "typically." Take Midway, for example. Our carriers put to sea in order to confront the Japanese carriers in order to defend Midway from invasions.

The primary role of a carrier is force projection.

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:19 AM
Except for the retarded ramp that's on it.

Are they launching BMX bikes?

Heh. I think you know better, right?

jiveturkey
08-10-2011, 11:21 AM
Heh. I think you know better, right?Know what better?

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:23 AM
There a global "power" but we can sink the "turd." I think you need to make up your mind which it is, Donger.

Both, obviously.

Oh please, they're warships that deploy and recover aircraft operating as a seagoing airbase. You national defense types promote the idea of having offensive capability as part of an overall defense strategy including the use of preventative war. Quit splitting hairs.

You're nervous. Admit it.

And, when those planes take-off armed for bear, yes, it's typically on an offensive operation.

And, no, I'm not nervous about this. It's just one carrier. It warrants watching, especially since they may be developing an indigenous capability to build their own.

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:23 AM
Know what better?

I thought you flew on Hoovers?

Jaric
08-10-2011, 11:24 AM
Except for the retarded ramp that's on it.

Are they launching BMX bikes?

They gotta do something to keep occupied while out at sea.

:shrug:

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 11:25 AM
That's why I wrote "typically." Take Midway, for example. Our carriers put to sea in order to confront the Japanese carriers in order to defend Midway from invasions.
Why did you use the word "defend" if they are not for defense.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 11:25 AM
Going from memory, ~$1 million/day while at sea.

And that's probably just the CV itself, not including all the support vessels. As you (but perhaps not others) know, when a carrier puts to sea, it has an entire fleet going with it.

Not that it's not justified. Carriers are the best way to project power around the world.

jiveturkey
08-10-2011, 11:25 AM
I thought you flew on Hoovers?I worked on them.

I still find the ramp set up completely retarded. Isn't that how all Russian carriers are set up?

Is our catapult system really that difficult to replicate?

I would think that launching off a ramp would reduce your maximum take off load.

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:26 AM
Why did you use the word "defend" if they are not for defense.

LMAO

Read it again, honey.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 11:26 AM
So if this is the case, why bother being so concerned?

Cuz the next one probably won't be a turd.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 11:27 AM
Both, obviously.



And, when those planes take-off armed for bear, yes, it's typically on an offensive operation.

And, no, I'm not nervous about this. It's just one carrier. It warrants watching, especially since they may be developing an indigenous capability to build their own.

You're splitting hairs. You are implying they intend to use it for aggression first. If that's the case, then the same can be said of our having them.

Do you work within the military-industrial industry? You sure sound like you do.

Jaric
08-10-2011, 11:27 AM
Cuz the next one probably won't be a turd.

Even still, I like our odds.

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:28 AM
I worked on them.

I still find the ramp set up completely retarded. Isn't that how all Russian carriers are set up?

Is our catapult system really that difficult to replicate?

I would think that launching off a ramp would reduce your maximum take off load.

The Soviets borrowed it from the Brits, as they both used STOVL birds on their carriers. I think that Russians have a carrier that uses standard catapults now.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 11:28 AM
Cuz the next one probably won't be a turd.

Well, that's where I was going in my original post to him about using fear.

jiveturkey
08-10-2011, 11:29 AM
The larger concern with regards to China's carrier technology is their work towards medium range anti-carrier missiles.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/china/admiral-china-progressing-on-anti-carrier-missile-system-1.130209

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:30 AM
You're splitting hairs. You are implying they intend to use it for aggression first. If that's the case, then the same can be said of our having them.

Do you work within the military-industrial industry? You sure sound like you do.

No, I'm stating that the primary purpose of a carrier is force projection and, if desired, offensive combat operations.

Yes, in modern history, our carriers have been utilized in purely offensive operations.

No, I don't work in the military/industrial industry, as you've been told before a few times.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 11:31 AM
I like maybe 8 carriers and scuttle most of the support ships other than destroyers and tankers.

Problem is that a VERY significant slice of whatever force you have is in dock or undergoing maintenance/overhauls. If you have 8 carriers total, you're only going to have maybe 4 of them deployed at any given time, which isn't alot given how big the world is.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 11:33 AM
And, no, I'm not nervous about this. It's just one carrier. It warrants watching, especially since they may be developing an indigenous capability to build their own.


The Chinese navy is, currently, a complete joke. This ship, however, seems to me to be a guinea pig for testing and trials so they can develop a real aircraft carrier and navy.

Just as the Chinese aviation industry was a joke 30 years ago, but they are VERY rapidly catching up, so too with its navy.

Radar Chief
08-10-2011, 11:34 AM
Depends on how you look at things.

Lets say some random country starts talking big and acting like they're going to do something.

Then a pair of US aircraft carriers show up on their doorstep and they are reminded of what happens if they decide to attack the United States. Reality sets in and they realize attacking us might not be a good idea. Those carriers were a far more effective defense than anything because the stopped the attack from happening before it even started.

Same principle of our nuclear submarines. Their mere presense acts as a major deterent against agression.

They also have a hospital and kitchen that can operate 24/7 feeding and caring for thousands of people at a time.
Power can be connected from the nuclear power plant to onshore facilities providing emergency power. Our carriers could be a platform for tremendous good will, disaster relief/aid if used as such. Will China's carrier be as versatile? I certainly don't know.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 11:36 AM
Even still, I like our odds.

In 2012? Of course.

In 2022, no doubt.

How about in 2050, which is within our lifetimes?

Remember, 30 years ago China was a feeble country still trying to recover from the Great Leap, which was really the Great Famine Fuckup. Now, they're the second most powerful country in the world. Underrate them at your own risk.

They also understand power, how to get it, how to use it, and how to be strategic about acquiring/locking up rare minerals and resources. They're playing the game well...

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 11:36 AM
Well, that's where I was going in my original post to him about using fear.


Nobody fears this thing. It's a joke.

The concern si where is China going long term with this.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 11:39 AM
No, I'm stating that the primary purpose of a carrier is force projection and, if desired, offensive combat operations.

Yes, in modern history, our carriers have been utilized in purely offensive operations.
So what. It's irrelevant to my original point on you playing the fear card—AGAIN.
China is another boogeyman to the right much as Iran is.

No, I don't work in the military/industrial industry, as you've been told before a few times.

I don't believe you. It's that or energy related.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 11:40 AM
I don't believe you. It's that or energy related.




ROFL ROFL

Typically BEP. When the real world doesn't meet your preconceptions, ignore it as inconvenient.

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:41 AM
The larger concern with regards to China's carrier technology is their work towards medium range anti-carrier missiles.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/china/admiral-china-progressing-on-anti-carrier-missile-system-1.130209

It certainly is a concern, yes. That thing has got some serious legs.

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:43 AM
So what. It's irrelevant to my original point on you playing the fear card—AGAIN.
China is another boogeyman to the right much as Iran is.

Yes, I aware that facts aren't really of any concern to you and yours when they don't mesh with your world-view. Thankfully, you and yours aren't in power.

I don't believe you. It's that or energy related.

I don't care if you believe me.

Pants
08-10-2011, 11:51 AM
The larger concern with regards to China's carrier technology is their work towards medium range anti-carrier missiles.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/china/admiral-china-progressing-on-anti-carrier-missile-system-1.130209

Can't we just develop a cannon that can track the missile and burst 1000 20mm rounds its way as it approaches the targeted carrier? Or are they going to be flying at too high speeds for that to work?

Param
08-10-2011, 11:52 AM
The Chinese navy is, currently, a complete joke. This ship, however, seems to me to be a guinea pig for testing and trials so they can develop a real aircraft carrier and navy.

Just as the Chinese aviation industry was a joke 30 years ago, but they are VERY rapidly catching up, so too with its navy.

Their subs are definitely coming along, and as you said, 30 years from now they could possibly have an entire fleet.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 11:53 AM
Can't we just develop a cannon that can track the missile and burst 1000 20mm rounds its way as it approaches the targeted carrier? Or are they going to be flying at too high speeds for that to work?



That's what the Phalanx is.

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:54 AM
Can't we just develop a cannon that can track the missile and burst 1000 20mm rounds its way as it approaches the targeted carrier? Or are they going to be flying at too high speeds for that to work?

We already have that in a way and have for years. Look up Close In Weapon System.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 11:54 AM
Yes, I aware that facts aren't really of any concern to you and yours when they don't mesh with your world-view. Thankfully, you and yours aren't in power.
Same can be said for you and everyone in this forum. It comes down to values.
However, what I posted originally was my opinion. Where there were facts, such as an aircraft carrier not being part of an overall defense, there wasn't any real discrepancy of fact ....you were simply placing more importance on another aspect. I still say that's parsing and splitting hairs to spin but it didn't disprove any facts.

I don't care if you believe me.
ROFL You still responded though. I don't care if you don't care either.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 11:55 AM
Their subs are definitely coming along, and as you said, 30 years from now they could possibly have an entire fleet.

Guess what country is making this all possible?

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 11:56 AM
Their subs are definitely coming along, and as you said, 30 years from now they could possibly have an entire fleet.


I'm less worried about submarines. Submaries are the most technologically intensive naval weapons, with even minor adjustments making a significant impact (relatively) on the performance of the vessel. American subs flat out dominated Russian subs during the entire Cold War.

And, as far as I know, most technologies used in submarines doesn't have tremendous commercial utility. The reason the Chinese are catching up to us so fast in aviation/avionics is because of the commercial cross-over. Not as easily done, I don't believe, in the submarine and ASW realms.

Donger
08-10-2011, 11:57 AM
Same can be said for you and everyone in this forum. It comes down to values.
However, what I posted originally was my opinion. Where there were facts, such as an aircraft carrier not being part of an overall defense, there wasn't any real discrepancy facts....you were simply placing more importance on another aspect. I still say that's parsing and splitting hairs to spin but it didn't disprove any facts.

It's pretty simple, BEP. Every weapon system CAN be used for both offense and defense, from an M-16 to a carrier to ICBMs. However, the carrier's primary purpose is mobile force projection. If you don't believe that fact, meh.

ROFL You still responded though. I don't care if you don't care either.

Sure, I responded. Men often respond to nagging in the futile hope that the woman will finally listen, get it and shut up.

Saulbadguy
08-10-2011, 12:00 PM
That's something we haven't had enough of in recent past, naval battles. We need more.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 12:01 PM
It's pretty simple, BEP. Every weapon system CAN be used for both offense and defense, from an M-16 to a carrier to ICBMs. However, the carrier's primary purpose is mobile force projection. If you don't believe that fact, meh.

Who said I didn't believe you? Now you're admitting my point on defense.( See bolded type) which you denied earlier. I mean wtf?

Sure, I responded. Men often respond to nagging in the futile hope that the woman will finally listen, get it and shut up.
I got it the first time. You didn't. ( See bolded type)

Anyhow, I love the doting attention you give me. ;) :Peace: :grouphug:

Pants
08-10-2011, 12:03 PM
That's what the Phalanx is.

So why is Dong Feng such a concern?

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:03 PM
Who said I didn't believe you? Now you're admitting my point on defense.( See bolded type) which you denied earlier. I mean wtf?

I didn't deny that they can be used defensively. Are you having some kind of comprehension issues today?

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 12:04 PM
I didn't deny that they can be used defensively. Are you having some kind of comprehension issues today?

Why are you projecting? You're the one who corrected me for saying they were building a defense. I mean I know you just want to keep talking to me. I understand. It's flattering.

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:08 PM
So why is Dong Feng such a concern?

It's a hypersonic, ballistic missile, not a cruise. CIWS was designed to destroy incoming aircraft, cruise missile, etc. To counter this, we'd have to use ABMs.

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:09 PM
Why are you projecting? You're the one who corrected me for saying they were building a defense. I mean I know you just want to keep talking to me. I understand. It's flattering.

No, I didn't. I stated this: "Aircraft carriers aren't typically viewed as defensive weapons, BEP."

jiveturkey
08-10-2011, 12:11 PM
So why is Dong Feng such a concern?Itching and burning while you pee.

A wicked case of Dong Feng can ruin an otherwise perfect weekend.

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:12 PM
Itching and burning while you pee.

A wicked case of Dong Feng can ruin an otherwise perfect weekend.

LMAO

I HATE the name of those missiles.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 12:13 PM
No, I didn't. I stated this: "Aircraft carriers aren't typically viewed as defensive weapons, BEP."

:LOL: That's pretty much the same thing—a correction that they not seen as defensive.

Seeing something that is similar as different is an illogic.

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:16 PM
:LOL: That's pretty much the same thing—a correction that they not seen as defensive.

Seeing something that is similar as different is an illogic.

Sigh. I'll give you one more chance:

If China views aircraft carriers as a purely defensive platform, why make them move around the oceans? They could just build land bases if that was their only desire.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 12:18 PM
Sigh. I'll give you one more chance:

If China views aircraft carriers as a purely defensive platform, why make them move around the oceans? They could just build land bases if that was their only desire.

Now you are adding words that I did not use such as "purely."
Besides, I already answered this.....offense can be part of a defense.

Pants
08-10-2011, 12:21 PM
Besides, I already answered this.....offense can be part of a defense.

But not when the US does it, because then it's called aggression.

Radar Chief
08-10-2011, 12:23 PM
Itching and burning while you pee.

A wicked case of Dong Feng can ruin an otherwise perfect weekend.

And the treatment, woof. :eek: Almost worse than the disease. Almost.

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:28 PM
Now you are adding words that I did not use such as "purely."
Besides, I already answered this.....offense can be part of a defense.

It's much more likely that the Chinese want this (and these) for the typical role and duty of an aircraft carrier, which is offensive in nature, instead of defensive. Like I've tried to make you understand, that's been the role of carriers going back to WWII. They are designed, built and typically used for force projection.

Like I said, if defense was their primary goal, they don't need them.

Radar Chief
08-10-2011, 12:31 PM
I'm less worried about submarines. Submaries are the most technologically intensive naval weapons, with even minor adjustments making a significant impact (relatively) on the performance of the vessel. American subs flat out dominated Russian subs during the entire Cold War.

And, as far as I know, most technologies used in submarines doesn't have tremendous commercial utility. The reason the Chinese are catching up to us so fast in aviation/avionics is because of the commercial cross-over. Not as easily done, I don't believe, in the submarine and ASW realms.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/April/Pages/AntiSub2301.aspx

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:32 PM
And that's probably just the CV itself, not including all the support vessels. As you (but perhaps not others) know, when a carrier puts to sea, it has an entire fleet going with it.

Not that it's not justified. Carriers are the best way to project power around the world.

Sorry, Amno. Missed your post.

Yep, a Carrier Battle Group. I don't know if it includes what it used to, but a CBG also use to include at least one attack boat. I was just referring to the cost of the carrier itself, though.

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:33 PM
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/April/Pages/AntiSub2301.aspx

Yeah, but they've got to surface (or at least snorkel) when the Energizers run out.

jiveturkey
08-10-2011, 12:39 PM
Yeah, but they've got to surface (or at least snorkel) when the Energizers run out.Time to bring the War Hoovers out of retirement.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3_3.jpg

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:40 PM
Time to bring the War Hoovers out of retirement.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3_3.jpg

:thumb:

What is our navy ASW bird now? The F-18?

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 12:41 PM
Sorry, Amno. Missed your post.

Yep, a Carrier Battle Group. I don't know if it includes what it used to, but a CBG also use to include at least one attack boat. I was just referring to the cost of the carrier itself, though.

As I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 12:43 PM
Yeah, but they've got to surface (or at least snorkel) when the Energizers run out.

Yeah, range is a problem.

I skimmed the article. I understand the concern, but honestly, I'm not too anxious as a resutl of enemy submarine activity. Could they get lucky enough to put a hole in teh side of a Carrier? Maybe, but they'll be losing a shitload of boats compared to what htey do to us if there's any kind of serous mix-up in the next couple of decades.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 12:45 PM
:thumb:

What is our navy ASW bird now? The F-18?

Still the trusty P-3, I guess. That was my supsicion. DOn't think the F-18 is well designed for ASW.

Apparently there's a new bird coming online for ASW, the P-8. First I've heard of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-8_Poseidon

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:46 PM
Still the trusty P-3, I guess. That was my supsicion. DOn't think the F-18 is well designed for ASW.

Apparently there's a new bird coming online for ASW, the P-8. First I've heard of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-8_Poseidon

Yeah, but we were talking ship-borne ASW. Damn, now I've got to look it up.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 12:49 PM
Yeah, but we were talking ship-borne ASW. Damn, now I've got to look it up.

Ship-borne is choppers, right?

Radar Chief
08-10-2011, 12:50 PM
Yeah, but they've got to surface (or at least snorkel) when the Energizers run out.

True, but they’ve proven to be incredibly quiet running on batteries. Quiet enough to surface next to our war ships and disappear back underwater again.
They’re also cheap, easy to build.

Donger
08-10-2011, 12:50 PM
Ship-borne is choppers, right?

Yes, but I would like to think that we wouldn't rely only on helos. At least I hope not. Short legs.

jiveturkey
08-10-2011, 12:54 PM
Yes, but I would like to think that we wouldn't rely only on helos. At least I hope not. Short legs.That's what I was going to say. Even during war games we rarely saw the helos participating in ASW.

Outside of that I'm not sure that there's a current ship board system to handle that mission. The latest F/A 18's were supposed to take over most of the missions but I don't see how they could handle ASW. It's a shit load of avionics or at least it was in the 90's.

Radar Chief
08-10-2011, 12:56 PM
Yeah, range is a problem.

I skimmed the article. I understand the concern, but honestly, I'm not too anxious as a resutl of enemy submarine activity. Could they get lucky enough to put a hole in teh side of a Carrier? Maybe, but they'll be losing a shitload of boats compared to what htey do to us if there's any kind of serous mix-up in the next couple of decades.

Range, sure but they are enough of a threat to have our Navy pretty concerned.
I would assume their current mission would simply be defending territorial waters. Don’t really see more than one or two of these making it across the Pacific undetected, not having to run on the surface to make any distance.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 12:56 PM
Current helo ASW is apparently this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-60_Sea_Hawk

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 01:00 PM
Yes, but I would like to think that we wouldn't rely only on helos. At least I hope not. Short legs.

Sure, short legs, but I think the plan is for the battle group to have the helos and the destroyers working in tandem.

I can't remember reading anything anywhere about a carrier-launched jet plane ASW platform. I think generally the plan is to send out the helos, vector the destroyers to help, and meanwhile have the Carrier increase to flank speed to get the hell away. Sub can't keep up without making too much noise.

Donger
08-10-2011, 01:02 PM
That's what I was going to say. Even during war games we rarely saw the helos participating in ASW.

Outside of that I'm not sure that there's a current ship board system to handle that mission. The latest F/A 18's were supposed to take over most of the missions but I don't see how they could handle ASW. It's a shit load of avionics or at least it was in the 90's.

I'm starting to think that we are depending on helo ASW only. I can't find a thing about fixed wing carrier aircraft doing ASW now.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 01:03 PM
Range, sure but they are enough of a threat to have our Navy pretty concerned.
I would assume their current mission would simply be defending territorial waters. Don’t really see more than one or two of these making it across the Pacific undetected, not having to run on the surface to make any distance.


That's right. They're only a concern when we move to operate in close to Chinese (hypothetically) waters, etc.

Those boats don't have the range to sneak in too close on our side of the pond (whichever pond you want to refer to).

jiveturkey
08-10-2011, 01:03 PM
Looks like the future of ASW might be more unmanned vessels.

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

ACTUV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) is a DARPA funded project launched in early 2010 to develop an unmanned ship for Anti-submarine warfare (ASW).
[edit] Overview

It is stated that the ACTUV will be "a first unmanned naval vessel that is designed and sized for theater or global independent deployment". The aim of the four part program is to develop a surface vessel optimized to overtly track and trail target submarines. A suite of sensors "capable of tracking quiet, modern diesel electric submarines" will be implemented into the completely unmanned vessel.

It is intended that ACTUV will operate under minimal supervisory command and control; with shore bases intermittently monitoring performance and providing high-level mission objectives through beyond line-of-sight communications links. The vessel will be provided with advanced autonomous navigation and anti collision features to keep it within maritime law and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

It is hoped that the unmanned nature of the vessel will open up new technologies in terms of stability and sea keeping. The four part program will culminate in an integrated prototype vessel and sea trials following evaluation and design phases.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=082477444105052ba6724bad1fc0ac69&tab=core&_cview=1

Donger
08-10-2011, 01:04 PM
Sure, short legs, but I think the plan is for the battle group to have the helos and the destroyers working in tandem.

I can't remember reading anything anywhere about a carrier-launched jet plane ASW platform. I think generally the plan is to send out the helos, vector the destroyers to help, and meanwhile have the Carrier increase to flank speed to get the hell away. Sub can't keep up without making too much noise.

The Hoover, the S-3 Viking, was a carrier ASW jet that was retired some time ago.

Donger
08-10-2011, 01:04 PM
That's right. They're only a concern when we move to operate in close to Chinese (hypothetically) waters, etc.

Those boats don't have the range to sneak in too close on our side of the pond (whichever pond you want to refer to).

Or the Gulf.

Donger
08-10-2011, 01:05 PM
Looks like the future of ASW might be more unmanned vessels.

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

ACTUV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) is a DARPA funded project launched in early 2010 to develop an unmanned ship for Anti-submarine warfare (ASW).
[edit] Overview

It is stated that the ACTUV will be "a first unmanned naval vessel that is designed and sized for theater or global independent deployment". The aim of the four part program is to develop a surface vessel optimized to overtly track and trail target submarines. A suite of sensors "capable of tracking quiet, modern diesel electric submarines" will be implemented into the completely unmanned vessel.

It is intended that ACTUV will operate under minimal supervisory command and control; with shore bases intermittently monitoring performance and providing high-level mission objectives through beyond line-of-sight communications links. The vessel will be provided with advanced autonomous navigation and anti collision features to keep it within maritime law and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

It is hoped that the unmanned nature of the vessel will open up new technologies in terms of stability and sea keeping. The four part program will culminate in an integrated prototype vessel and sea trials following evaluation and design phases.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=082477444105052ba6724bad1fc0ac69&tab=core&_cview=1

God, DARPA gives me wood.

KC Dan
08-10-2011, 01:07 PM
Here are my phone pics of the Chinese carrier docked in Dalian one Saturday back in June. Was heading downtown on a train and saw it and snapped these.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 01:08 PM
I'm starting to think that we are depending on helo ASW only. I can't find a thing about fixed wing carrier aircraft doing ASW now.


Did we ever? At least, in the Supercarrier, jet airplane age?


Nevermind -- apparently the S-3 did the job for a while, but has been replaced in the ASW realm by, among others, as you said, the F-18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking


I'm thinking the F-18 probably ain't great at ASW, but I can't say I'm well-versed in it.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 01:10 PM
Or the Gulf.


Yeah -- at this piont I wouldn't be keen to send too many ships into the Gulf. We have bases around the Gulf for a reason.

Donger
08-10-2011, 01:11 PM
I can't find a damn thing about the Hornet being utilized for ASW! Argh!

Calcountry
08-10-2011, 01:32 PM
In 2012? Of course.

In 2022, no doubt.

How about in 2050, which is within our lifetimes?

Remember, 30 years ago China was a feeble country still trying to recover from the Great Leap, which was really the Great Famine ****up. Now, they're the second most powerful country in the world. Underrate them at your own risk.

They also understand power, how to get it, how to use it, and how to be strategic about acquiring/locking up rare minerals and resources. They're playing the game well...There is nothing like having dipshits as your main opponent either. Los Alamos hard drives? Campaign cash to Clinton. Now, we don't secure our own supply of rare earths and leave China with a monopoly on it. Nice.

orange
08-10-2011, 02:12 PM
Los Alamos hard drives?

Some stories just never die. No matter what.


In July 2004, an inventory of classified weapons data revealed that four hard disk drives were missing: two of the drives were subsequently found to have been improperly moved to a different building, but another two remained unaccounted for. In response, director Peter Nanos shut down large parts of the laboratory and publicly rebuked scientists working there for a lax attitude to security procedures. In the laboratory's August 2004 newsletter he wrote, "This willful flouting of the rules must stop, and I don't care how many people I have to fire to make it stop". Nanos is also quoted as saying, "If I have to restart the laboratory with 10 people, I will". However, a report released in January 2005 found that the drives were in fact an artifact of an inconsistent inventory system: the report concludes that 12 barcodes were issued to a group of disk drives that needed only 10, but the two surplus barcodes nevertheless appeared on a master list. Thus, auditors wrongly concluded that two disks were missing. The report states, "The allegedly missing disks never existed and no compromise of classified material has occurred". This incident is widely reported as contributing to continuing distrust of management at the lab. In May 2005, Nanos stepped down as director.

chasedude
08-10-2011, 02:28 PM
I don't understand the "Fearmonger" label placed on Donger from BEP?

All he did was post an article. I didn't see him post anywhere "Run and hide, the Chinese are coming!" LMAO

Donger
08-10-2011, 02:31 PM
I don't understand the "Fearmonger" label placed on Donger from BEP?

All he did was post an article. I didn't see him post anywhere "Run and hide, the Chinese are coming!" LMAO

Oh, she'll be along shortly to explain in great erroneous detail. Watch.

JohnnyV13
08-10-2011, 03:03 PM
I'm sure most of Asia isn't happy about this at all.

Where else do you think China intends to project power?

I think it time for Japan to give up their non-military stance and build a navy and air force again.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2011, 03:47 PM
I don't understand the "Fearmonger" label placed on Donger from BEP?

All he did was post an article. I didn't see him post anywhere "Run and hide, the Chinese are coming!" LMAO

He has routinely, put up Iran has a nuke threads. He's skeer'd but there ain't a war he doesn't like.
Anyhow, I am teasing him. Pretty much as he does me.

chasedude
08-10-2011, 04:58 PM
He has routinely, put up Iran has a nuke threads. He's skeer'd but there ain't a war he doesn't like.
Anyhow, I am teasing him. Pretty much as he does me.

Ah, I see. I thought I had severe comprehension problems while reading the OP.

Saulbadguy
08-11-2011, 07:34 AM
Here are my phone pics of the Chinese carrier docked in Dalian one Saturday back in June. Was heading downtown on a train and saw it and snapped these.

Cool pics

JohnnyV13
08-11-2011, 03:34 PM
Funny how China's first carrier goes out for sea trials just as the US is testing a UAV that could make carrier power obsolete.

If that plane can attack any target on the globe within an hour, what need is there for a carrier? It's then just a big, vulnerable and expensive target out at sea.

Obviously, carrier-borne craft will still have more versatility and better on site decison-making flexibility (pilots call this situational-awareness or SA) than UAV platforms. For example, I doubt there will be any electronic survellence UAVs that hit mach 22 for many years. Also, UAVs are always going to be vulnerable to electronic warfare (see how some of our UAV data streams got hacked by radio shack stuff in afghanistan).

SciFi master Robert Heinlen called these type of craft "semi-ballistics" in the 80's. Once we either create UAVs with as much versatility, situational awareness and electronic security as a manned craft, OR we create manned semi-ballistics, the day of the carrier is DONE.

Amnorix
08-11-2011, 03:42 PM
Funny how China's first carrier goes out for sea trials just as the US is testing a UAV that could make carrier power obsolete.

If that plane can attack any target on the globe within an hour, what need is there for a carrier? It's then just a big, vulnerable and expensive target out at sea.

Obviously, carrier-borne craft will still have more versatility and better on site decison-making flexibility (pilots call this situational-awareness or SA) than UAV platforms. For example, I doubt there will be any electronic survellence UAVs that hit mach 22 for many years. Also, UAVs are always going to be vulnerable to electronic warfare (see how some of our UAV data streams got hacked by radio shack stuff in afghanistan).

SciFi master Robert Heinlen called these type of craft "semi-ballistics" in the 80's. Once we either create UAVs with as much versatility, situational awareness and electronic security as a manned craft, OR we create manned semi-ballistics, the day of the carrier is DONE.


Carriers have a somewhat limited shelf-life, sure. In 100 years you'd have to figure everything will be done far more remotely, whether it's super-long range unmanned vehicles, satellite capability or what have you.

Sounds weird, but 100 years ago they only had the most absolute rudimentary TANKS, there were no jet planes, no helicopters, no remote control anything at all, no kevlar, no nothing except mortar, artillery and guys with machine guns and handguns.

And shovels. Lots of shovels.

JohnnyV13
08-11-2011, 03:55 PM
Carriers have a somewhat limited shelf-life, sure. In 100 years you'd have to figure everything will be done far more remotely, whether it's super-long range unmanned vehicles, satellite capability or what have you.

Sounds weird, but 100 years ago they only had the most absolute rudimentary TANKS, there were no jet planes, no helicopters, no remote control anything at all, no kevlar, no nothing except mortar, artillery and guys with machine guns and handguns.

And shovels. Lots of shovels.

They didn't even have tanks 100 years ago. The first tanks were deployed by the British I believe, in 1916 or 1917.

Hell...in 1911, planes didn't even have GUNS.

As for remote capabilities...i'm not so sure. It's usually easier to interefere with comm links than it is to establish them, so that in 100 years UAV's might not be viable.

Right now, the US arsenal is full of stuff predicated on our military dominance. For example, that big slow cargo plane that they jammed that massive aerial cannon on the side, is simply a non-viable weapon platform if you don't have air superiority.

Radar Chief
08-11-2011, 05:34 PM
They didn't even have tanks 100 years ago. The first tanks were deployed by the British I believe, in 1916 or 1917.


Right, WWI. Its what broke the stalemate of trench warfare.

Right now, the US arsenal is full of stuff predicated on our military dominance. For example, that big slow cargo plane that they jammed that massive aerial cannon on the side, is simply a non-viable weapon platform if you don't have air superiority.

Spectre gunship, correct again.

CrazyPhuD
08-11-2011, 07:28 PM
I just wonder how many of their sailors are going to get lead poising from that ship.

JohnnyV13
08-12-2011, 11:14 AM
What's interesting is that semi-ballistic UAV will be the first major weapons system NOT conceived and tested by the Germans during WW2.

The Germans pioneered:

Jets
Rocket propelled aircraft
ballistic missles
submarine launched ballistic missles
air to air missles
surface to air missles
cruise missles
smart bombs
electronic warfare systems
(used against british night raiders)
surface to surface missles
radar guided AA
mechanized artillery
There is even talk that the German flying wing
test plane would have been "Stealthy" in that era,
with a small radar profile.

The americans invented:

nuclear bomb
aircraft carrier

The british invented:

The modern surface ship (HMS Dreadnought)
Tanks

The French invented:

Abject surrender
The blow job (which was the original meaning of
"French Kiss" during WWI).

Donger
08-12-2011, 11:16 AM
What's interesting is that semi-ballistic UAV will be the first major weapons system NOT conceived and tested by the Germans during WW2.

The Germans pioneered:

Jets
Rocket propelled aircraft
ballistic missles
submarine launched ballistic missles
air to air missles
surface to air missles
cruise missles
smart bombs
electronic warfare systems
(used against british night raiders)
surface to surface missles
radar guided AA
mechanized artillery
There is even talk that the German flying wing
test plane would have been "Stealthy" in that era,
with a small radar profile.

The americans invented:

nuclear bomb
aircraft carrier

The british invented:

The modern surface ship (HMS Dreadnought)
Tanks

The French invented:

Abject surrender
The blow job (which was the original meaning of
"French Kiss" during WWI).

I could spend hours on this post alone....

NO, WON'T DO IT!!!

patteeu
08-12-2011, 01:57 PM
The French invented:

Abject surrender
The blow job (which was the original meaning of
"French Kiss" during WWI).

LMAO

JohnnyV13
08-12-2011, 03:40 PM
Hmmm...

I was wrong about the aircraft carrier.

The british deployed the first one, the HMS Argus in 1918. I think the US deployed the USS Langley in 1919.

THe Americans, however, WERE the first to experiment with aircraft launched from a ship in 1910.

listopencil
08-12-2011, 04:31 PM
Current helo ASW is apparently this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-60_Sea_Hawk

When I was in the Navy (back in the mid-to-late 80's) my ship was primarily ASW. It was a frigate, we used a helo.

listopencil
08-12-2011, 04:37 PM
Did we ever? At least, in the Supercarrier, jet airplane age?


Nevermind -- apparently the S-3 did the job for a while, but has been replaced in the ASW realm by, among others, as you said, the F-18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking


I'm thinking the F-18 probably ain't great at ASW, but I can't say I'm well-versed in it.

Generally speaking, a fixed wing aircraft in the modern American Navy travels at too great a speed to be ideal as an ASW platform. Not to say it can't be done.

2bikemike
08-13-2011, 07:59 PM
When I was in the Navy (back in the mid-to-late 80's) my ship was primarily ASW. It was a frigate, we used a helo.

Listo what Frigate were you on? What was your rating?

listopencil
08-13-2011, 09:51 PM
Listo what Frigate were you on? What was your rating?


I was a deck monkey on the USS Reasoner FF1063.

2bikemike
08-13-2011, 10:12 PM
I was a deck monkey on the USS Reasoner FF1063.

I thought maybe you were on a newer Perry Class. I was a GSM and Plankowner on FFG-30 USS Reid.

In addition to the Helo we had a towed array that we could drag behind the ship for ASW

MIAdragon
08-13-2011, 10:22 PM
Yeah, but we were talking ship-borne ASW. Damn, now I've got to look it up.

We only used helos for Asw even the. They were only used when there was no p3 coverage.

listopencil
08-13-2011, 10:29 PM
I thought maybe you were on a newer Perry Class. I was a GSM and Plankowner on FFG-30 USS Reid.

In addition to the Helo we had a towed array that we could drag behind the ship for ASW

We did have a towed array as well. As I recall we didn't use it all that often.