Your own article says:
Quote: 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
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.
I suspect it will be a training platform.
banistansig1
Two recent articles about the Shi Lang.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... 90430.aspx http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/0 ... full-ahead
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.
The Kilos deal us a rumor. It's claimed to be a 1.8 billion USD deal for 6 project 636 subs.
banistansig1
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.
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51 Party Bureaucrat Quote: ==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: ==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 Quote: ==And your understanding is 10 years out of date. Clicky and clicky ![]()
I believe China operates Kilos.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51 Party Bureaucrat
Yes, 12.
![]()
I was reffering to nuclear powered subs being noisy. Like the types 91,92,93.
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
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.
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51 Party Bureaucrat
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.
![]()
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
Does a country like Australia need to worry a great deal about deep sea navel battles?
Depends. Do you plan to protect your trade routes in case of a global war? Whoever procured those Collins subs certainly thought so.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
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:
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
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.
Somemore interesting links
Goodbye Kitty Hawk http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=45202 Another V http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 4-2009.asp Nerpa http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 4-2009.asp GW Bush http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=45176 SSGN Florida http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=45136 Gerald Ford Class http://www.dailypress.com/business/dp-b ... 2122.story
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/06 ... rier/8004/
China is ready, The British being British http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8081969.stm Admiral G http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=15771982 BS about the Bush carrier http://www.wtkr.com/news/dp-local_bush_ ... 8299.story |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||