Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

New Carriers

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 29 Apr 2009, 07:05
Your own article says:

Quote:
He said that the talks with China were all at consultation stage


In other words, they're still trying to figure if a deal is possible. The numbers your article suggests are the same ones that I'm talking about.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 01 May 2009, 03:00
I do not think China will use this carrier if it does use at all for anything more than research for thier own organic carriers. When china does build her carriers they will be something more like fleet carriers. I really cant see china using an ex soviet carrier, I think national pride would get in the way. What works for India doesnt necessarily work for China. The Varyag would be useless in any action against Tiawin, even useless in any action in the contested spartly islands.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 01 May 2009, 06:06
I suspect it will be a training platform.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 02 May 2009, 00:29
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 02 May 2009, 00:44
And two more recent articles one about Future Russian carriers, and another about problems found on the brand new bush.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090428/121349563.html

http://www.dailypress.com/business/dp-b ... 9116.story

Addtionally I saw an article about Vietnam buying six refurbed Kilos. THis is an interesting development the Spartly Islands might see some kind of naval battle in the future.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 02 May 2009, 02:38
The Kilos deal us a rumor. It's claimed to be a 1.8 billion USD deal for 6 project 636 subs.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 02 May 2009, 03:22
Here is some links to vietnam kilo purchase.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/ ... 90429.aspx
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090427/121320414.html

According to the second article the Kilos are to be built, this will give Vietnam a tremendous advantage in the area, from my understanding China's subs are still really noisy. Six Kilos would prove a serious threat to China's future carriers, and other naval vessels, assuming the Kilo crews where trained by cold war warriors.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 May 2009, 12:12
Quote:
The numbers your article suggests are the same ones that I'm talking about.

==That's because your numbers originated from that article I linked to, all rumours regarding to the Su-33 deal originated from Kanwa defence review.

Quote:
Two recent articles about the Shi Lang.

==The name "Shi Lang" is pure speculation, there is no evidence to suggest that the carrier will be named Shi Lang, in fact, Shi Lang is still a controversial figure in Chinese history, it is unlikely that the Chinese will name a ship after him. The rumour is probably the result of the western fixation on Taiwan.

Quote:
from my understanding China's subs are still really noisy.

==And your understanding is 10 years out of date. Clicky and clicky
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 02 May 2009, 12:34
I believe China operates Kilos.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 May 2009, 12:41
Yes, 12.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 02 May 2009, 19:12
I was reffering to nuclear powered subs being noisy. Like the types 91,92,93.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 03 May 2009, 04:39
All nuclear powered submarines are noisy compared to diesel electrics. In the last the last few war games between Australian Collin's class subs (diesel electrics) and American nuclear's, ours kicked arse. Our commanders said it was because the Collin's were quiet enough to avoid detection (usually), and becuase the nuclear's made a lot more noise (easier for us to detect).

The American Navy has been very quiet about the arse woopings we've handed to them (aside from some lame excuses) because it shows that the U.S. sub fleet has a potentially dangerous vulnerability when going up against navies who still go with the much cheaper option of diesel electrics.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 May 2009, 14:01
That's only in coastal areas where it is possible for conventional submarines to turn off their engines and sit at the sea floor, and the complicated hydrographic conditions and marine life can mask the signatures of the smaller conventional submarine. But in open seas, nuclear submarines speed and underwater endurance give them a huge edge over conventional submarines.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 03 May 2009, 14:48
Does a country like Australia need to worry a great deal about deep sea navel battles?
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 04 May 2009, 03:06
Depends. Do you plan to protect your trade routes in case of a global war? Whoever procured those Collins subs certainly thought so.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 04 May 2009, 04:50
Only to a limited extent. We couldn't possibly field a fleet large enough to protect all our trade routes. We mainly need to be concerned about combat in shallower waters, and this is where diesel electrics have proven themselves many time to be superior (not to mention in cost/benefit).

btw, air-independent propulsion systems (which our next class of submarine will have) allow diesel electrics to stay submerged for a lot longer than they could previously. This negates that one critical advantage nuclear subs have. It's also important to note that the higher speed of nuclear subs isn't necessarily an advantage. Their much larger size makes them much louder when traveling at higher speed.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/12/1034222635806.html

Quote:

Collins sub shines in US war game

October 13 2002
By Brendan Nicholson
Political Correspondent

One of Australia's Collins class submarines has hunted down and "killed" a state-of-the-art United States nuclear submarine in a series of mock attacks during an underwater warfare exercise off Hawaii.

Officers in the exercise told The Sunday Age HMAS Sheean had held its own during two rigorous weeks of combat trials with the Los Angeles class attack sub, USS Olympia. The subs had swapped roles as hunter and prey and scored roughly equal numbers of hits.

The role of seeking and destroying an enemy submarine is one of the most difficult faced by Australia's six new Collins class submarines. The success off Hawaii in August has boosted morale dramatically among submarine crews who have had to endure years of hearing their boats condemned as noisy and vulnerable.

A 1999 report by the then CSIRO chief, Malcolm McIntosh, and former BHP managing director John Prescott said the Collins' combat system should be junked, the vessels were noisy and vulnerable to attack, their engines broke down regularly, a badly shaped hull and fin made too much disturbance when they moved at speed under water, the view from the periscope was blurry, the communications system outdated and the propellers were likely to crack.

Commander Steve Davies, chief-of-staff in the navy's submarine force, said that during the past three years those problems had been fixed to the point where the submarines were able to match the best of the US Navy's giant underwater fleet.

During its mock attacks on the Olympia and on two US destroyers, the Sheean fired 28 torpedoes. Commander Davies said "a respectable percentage" of shots Sheean fired at Olympia were hits that would have destroyed the powerful US vessel.

Commodore Davies, Australia's most experienced Collins commander, said the two vessels were very evenly matched. The submarines also practised landing special forces.

The exercises provided a crucial test for the Australian submarine, which has been as much criticised at home as it has been feted abroad.

The Olympia, 110 metres long and 12 metres across the beam, is twice the displacement of the Sheean, at 80 metres by eight metres. The Olympia carries up to 120 crew; the Sheean 45. Many of the Americans are engineers caring for their reactor.

The Collins is powered by diesel and electric motors and its roles include undersea warfare - finding and destroying other submarines - destroying enemy warships and merchant ships, surveillance and intelligence collection, support for special forces and covert transport.

Commander Davies said the US sub's size was not an advantage: "It just means you make more noise when you go faster."

He said cooperation with the US submarine force had increased significantly recently. "That has come about because they're interested in the Collins class and in our submarine force generally."

While the Americans run the world's most powerful submarine arm, they acknowledge that changes in international conditions in the past decade and new priorities have left them with tactics to learn from the small Australian submarine arm.

Commander Davies said Australian submariners were used to operating in shallow water. "That's one of the things the Americans are looking towards us for experience in.

"Ten years ago their submarine force was chasing Russian submarines around the deep ocean. Now, as with all submarine forces, it's more focused on closer inshore operations, intelligence collection or working with special forces. They're looking to us as a submarine force which has a long experience in that sort of thing."

The six Collins' combat systems are to be upgraded further and they will get more modern torpedoes. Those the Sheean used in its clashes with the Olympia were developed in the 1970s; the Americans used a far more sophisticated generation.

While smaller than the US nuclear boats, the Collins is one of the world's biggest conventional submarines. It was designed to cover long distances and the Sheean easily reached Hawaii without refuelling.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 04 May 2009, 07:11
It all depends on who your enemy is. If Australia was interested in nothing more then coastal defense we would see many smaller-sized boats, with lots of ASM patrol ships. Instead we see an expeditionary-oriented Navy with force projection capabilities, heavy lift, and larger more long ranged subs. I have not seen the doctrine, but speculate that force projection and protection (aggressive protection, such as hunting enemy ships rather then convoy duty) of trade routes are doctrinal requirements.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 06 May 2009, 00:56
Yes nuclear subs no matter of Orgin are loud some more than others. Diesel/Electric are quiet when they run off batteries. They have to snorkel to charge them. Yes there have been major advances since world war 2. However they can not stay on electrical power for ever. On electric power means slower speeds. American/ Nato asw assets have alot of training. Combat and war is all about chance, the Nato military machine will find a strategy to overcome this threat posed by diesel subs. They will know when they sail, thell will project there misson, estimate there endurance on electrical power, and find them at there weakest point and send ASW taskforces. Like the Allied powers in world war 2 they will develop a strategy to destroy these forces. Yes they will take loses. Modern ASW uses helos for hunting (although not there only means), and the non-export kilos have that killer air defense capabilities. If there not following the subs of todays naval powers like in the cold war, then they will soon. I hate when I blow Natos horn, but I dont believe Diesel subs can handle a global conflict, or a massive conflict between two warring parties. Logistical reason alone, Diesel subs will not have the endurance that SSNs and SSGNs have, they will require a tender or a stay close in coastal waters. Coastal ports will subject to massive attacks via crusie missiles and conventional bombing. NATO navys have the assets in place to support modern sub operations, Im not sure on the status of Russia's support fleet. China, and will say India, or Iran they are developing there navies, and like combat experince/operational deployments. Granted no navy has engaged in SUB to SUB combat since WW2(cold war conspiracies theories dont count), but subs have sunk ships since then(falklands war, and during one of those Arab Isreali conflicts), and NATO forces have preformed cruise missile strikes. They deploy subs constantly like Russia, and have Naval bases around the world.
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 15 May 2009, 03:10
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 07 Jun 2009, 05:40
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron