Varyag update

[yangtomous]

fugly ? you need to see this

it cut many place ,much smaller than this.

 

[BigTree.CN]

I still don't understand, why PLA doesn't build a new one from the scratch? Refurbishing this one and turning it into a combat aircraft carrier should be no easier than building a brand new one.

 

[Bigoren]

MMMMMMMMM very interesting indeed. My posts keep getting deleted. Mr. China men unfortunetly we'r waiting for your open decleration of terrorism support against India.

wait,where did you get those stupid information? TOI??? I think mr indian support al kaedah too.Doesn't it?

 

[SAUD-404]

I still don't understand, why PLA doesn't build a new one from the scratch? Refurbishing this one and turning it into a combat aircraft carrier should be no easier than building a brand new one.

Just get the experience from this AC and then sell it to some other country and then build some thing new. The way i see it for you it will be nothing but for you enemies it will be something to be scared.

 

[lcloo]

That huge island looks fugly as hell, please make it smaller.

Unfortunate this is a coventional powered CV, nearly a third of the island structure ia taken up by the air intake and exhasut system (funnel) for its power plants, also to reduce the island you have to move most of control and operation rooms down the flight deck, this will need heavy modification from the original design and reduce available space for aircraft hangar, machine room, stores etc. And most important this CV is mainly for training and a "warming up" to construction of China's domestic design CV, there is no need to spent too much for large modification.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

fugly ? you need to see this

it cut many place ,much smaller than this.

The Soviet carriers are indeed $hitty compared to the American one.

However, the American Nimitz/Ford class is our benchmark, that's why Varyag will start the intensive training for the whole PLAN.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Unfortunate this is a coventional powered CV, nearly a third of the island structure ia taken up by the air intake and exhasut system (funnel) for its power plants, also to reduce the island you have to move most of control and operation rooms down the flight deck, this will need heavy modification from the original design and reduce available space for aircraft hangar, machine room, stores etc. And most important this CV is mainly for training and a "warming up" to construction of China's domestic design CV, there is no need to spent too much for large modification.

Check the Forrestal class and the Kitty Hawk class. They are still far better looking than any Soviet carrier.

 

[lcloo]

Check the Forrestal class and Kitty Hawk class. They are still far better looking than any Soviet carrier.

I have to agree that the ex-Soviet design is ugly, just cross your fingers and hope the China's domestic design can be better looking.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I have to agree that the ex-Soviet design is ugly, just cross your fingers and hope the China's domestic design can be better looking.

I am sure they are going to be more Americanish, since PLAN is a big fan of the American supercarrier.

 

[gambit]

I still don't understand, why PLA doesn't build a new one from the scratch? Refurbishing this one and turning it into a combat aircraft carrier should be no easier than building a brand new one.

First...Structurally speaking, an aircraft carrier is hardly the same as an oil tanker, despite the superficial similarity of size. However, experience in building oil tankers is an excellent foundation to start designing and building aircraft carriers.

Second...Let us grant China the generous benefit that China's shipbuilders can design and build a nuclear powered class aircraft carrier. That does not mean China should start an aircraft carrier fleet from that point. Could is not the same thing as should. The latter imply non-technical considerations are injected into the discussion. So 'should' China start off with refurbishing an aircraft carrier built by someone else but that has never been commissioned? Absolutely a wise decision.

China is the only permanent UN Security Council member to NOT have an operational naval air force. Non-member India has but not sitting member China. To have an effective global naval presence and therefore an 'at will' global influence, a country should have no less than three aircraft carriers with two on active duty at all or alternating times and one in reserve for training and development purposes. India is on the way to surpass China in this respect. The British would never have defeated Argentina without aircraft carriers. The Falklands were more symbolic than they were strategic interests, some would and did argued, but more often than preferred, symbolic gestures and actions translated to more concrete strategic long term interests for the benefit of the country.

Experience in deployment and maintenance of a bought aircraft carrier would give China valuable insights on how this type of ships operate and how to deal with their idiosyncrasies. Deck operations cannot be 'reverse engineered'. They must be learned the only way: the hard way. The PLAN will suffer many what the US military called 'Class A' mishaps with this experience. Valuable personnel will die and equipments will be lost. Given China's global interests, the time spent on building a first indigenous aircraft carrier can be argued as time wasted. Those global interests may not remain interests by the time that first proud ship make its presence known with inexperience crews trying to manage new arms doctrines. Learning with a foreign built and bought ship is the best technical decision China made.

 

[CardSharp]

First...Structurally speaking, an aircraft carrier is hardly the same as an oil tanker, despite the superficial similarity of size. However, experience in building oil tankers is an excellent foundation to start designing and building aircraft carriers.

Second...Let us grant China the generous benefit that China's shipbuilders can design and build a nuclear powered class aircraft carrier. That does not mean China should start an aircraft carrier fleet from that point. Could is not the same thing as should. The latter imply non-technical considerations are injected into the discussion. So 'should' China start off with refurbishing an aircraft carrier built by someone else but that has never been commissioned? Absolutely a wise decision.

China is the only permanent UN Security Council member to NOT have an operational naval air force. Non-member India has but not sitting member China. To have an effective global naval presence and therefore an 'at will' global influence, a country should have no less than three aircraft carriers with two on active duty at all or alternating times and one in reserve for training and development purposes. India is on the way to surpass China in this respect. The British would never have defeated Argentina without aircraft carriers. The Falklands were more symbolic than they were strategic interests, some would and did argued, but more often than preferred, symbolic gestures and actions translated to more concrete strategic long term interests for the benefit of the country.

Experience in deployment and maintenance of a bought aircraft carrier would give China valuable insights on how this type of ships operate and how to deal with their idiosyncrasies. Deck operations cannot be 'reverse engineered'. They must be learned the only way: the hard way. The PLAN will suffer many what the US military called 'Class A' mishaps with this experience. Valuable personnel will die and equipments will be lost. Given China's global interests, the time spent on building a first indigenous aircraft carrier can be argued as time wasted. Those global interests may not remain interests by the time that first proud ship make its presence known with inexperience crews trying to manage new arms doctrines. Learning with a foreign built and bought ship is the best technical decision China made.

Not sure why you think that China wants global military influence right now, most of its immediate interests are in the near abroad. And though the UK used AC carrier to good effect in the Falkland wars, China has no such far flung remanent colonial interest to protect.


Agree with the part about experience before operations though. Even the countries that do have aircraft carriers seldom are efficient at deck operations. France, UK and the US are probably the only ones right now that are skilled at making the most of an carrier. (photos of their decks are always busy)

 

[gambit]

Not sure why you think that China wants global military influence right now, most of its immediate interests are in the near abroad. And though the UK used AC carrier to good effect in the Falkland wars, China has no such far flung remanent colonial interest to protect.

Quite often, a PERSISTENT presence over a point of potential strategic interest become that strategic interest, regardless of how far away from home that point may be. And once that strategic interest is established, potential adversaries are always on the alert for any signs of weaknesses in the defense of that interest. The US does not have an aircraft carrier at every points of strategic interests in the world, but what our potential adversaries knows is that we can 'at will' send a credible deterrence or responsive force to those points. That knowledge alone is enough of a deterrence factor that our allies and strategic interests can count upon every time they have to face down an adversary. I do not claim to know that China will have global strategic interests like the US does today, but it would be naive to say that an aircraft carrier is not a precursor to such a plan of establishing those allies and interests.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The nuclear supercarrier is indeed very hard to build, even USSR has failed to build one after being tried for 20 years.

However, the shipbuilding capability is still the fundamental basic to build the nuclear supercarrier.

For example, between China and India, which of these two nations would be more accessible to build a CVN?

 

[CardSharp]

The nuclear supercarrier is indeed very hard to build, even USSR has failed to build one after being tried for 20 years.

However, the shipbuilding capability is still the fundamental basic to build the nuclear supercarrier.

For example, between China and India, which of these two nations would be more accessible to build a CVN?

Why even bring India into the comparison?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Why even bring India into the comparison?

Just an example.

There was once the comment from an Indian Navy personnel about India's plan to build the 100,000+ tons nuclear supercarrier, but he replied that India can't even build a 100,000 tons civilian ship right now, so learn how to build a 100,000 tons civilian ship before talking about building a 100,000 tons CVN.

Now, even China's second class shipyard can build a 300,000 tons oil tanker with ease, then imagine the capability of the first class shipyard.

Anyway, China is now perhaps the closest nation to build a 100,000 tons CVN after US.