People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)

The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has continued its unprecedented modernization and buildup, including the possibility of their first carrier coming into service on.................

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2007.htm

 

Any comments?

 

You mean the Varyag?

Much as I like the Kuznetsov class carrier (as with all things Russian ) I can't help but think it suffers from a flawed designed when compared with its USN counterparts...

It seems stuck somewhere between a carrier and a destroyer. No doubt its packed with more formidable point defence systems and AS weaponry than the Nimitz, but what aircraft carrier needs those things? Carriers ideally should operate behind the battlegroup (particularily when you've only got one) and rely upon aircraft and frigates to do the point defence for you, and should stock as many aircraft as possible.

The main role of a carrier is to carry aircraft and the Nimitz has a bigger complement, as well as a bigger crew. The Varyag is smaller and and more heavily armed, but this would seem to detract from its main role as a carrier. I don't know the reason the Russians took this conceptual approach but I suspect is has something to do with the limitations of the Kiev class hull.

 

Is that the design with the ski ramp and the tower that makes it look so unbalanced that I can't believe it doesn't capsize?

 

Hi smeghead!
Yep, Kuznetsov design looks impressive and It's an adventurous design, but not fully successful. Full flight deck, angled landing deck, but a ski-jump is fitted instead of catapults, due to failures in the catapult development program, it's more like a powerfully armed LPH.

A follow-on to the Kuznetsov design, the Ulyanovsk 85,000 tons full load
nuclear powered multirole aircraft carrier was intended to be a fully capable CVN, equivalent to the US CVNs. The program was doomed by the fall of the USSR.

The Chinese are probably just putting their toe in the water, and it may not be fully operational as a carrier, it may serve as a training platform or a helicopter carrier to support ASW or marine operations, before they start to get serious about dedicated carriers.

The Kuznetsov design certainly has a powerful armament.


General Characteristics
Displacement: 43,000 tonnes light
53 000-55 000 tonnes standard
66 600-67 500 tonnes full load
Length: 300 metres overall
270 metres at waterline
Beam: 73 metres overall
38 metres at waterline
Draft: 11 metres
Powerplant Steam turbines, 8 boilers, 4 shafts, 149 MW
2×37MW turbines
9×1500 kW turbogenerators
6×1500 kW diesel generators
Propellers: 4 with fixed pitch
Speed: 32 knots
Endurance: 45 days
7100 km at 32 knots
Complement: 1960 crew
626 air group
40 flag staff
3857 rooms
Armament:
Guns 8 × AK-630 AA guns
(6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)
8 × CADS-1 CIWS
(each 2 × 30 mm gatling AA plus 16 3K87 Kortik SAM)
Kashtan CIWS gun and missile system
(256 missiles, 48,000 rounds; range: 0.5 to 1.5 km)
Missiles 12× P-700 Granit SSM Maximum speed is believed to be around Mach 2.25 Range is estimated at 550 to 625 km.
18× 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 vertical launch missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds)
ASW 2 × RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket launchers (60 rockets)

Aircraft:
Fixed-wing
12× Su-33
5× Su-25UTG/UBP
Helicopters 4× Kamov Ka-27LD32
18× Kamov Ka-27PLO
2× Kamov Ka-27S

Whether the Chinese bring it up to that standard remains to be seen.

 

only 1 ACC, i dont think that is much of a security risk.

 

I agree that the chinese will probably use it as a test bed for planes and crew before designing and building their own custom made CV to opperate in the pacific.

I always believe the russians and US had different naval goals whcih dictated how their ships were designed.

The US opperate out of the eastern and western oceans in what is essesially an infinite space. They also opperate behind a large pre existing surface fleet. This allows them to focus on a platform solely for carrying planes with space and other ships providing anti ship/sub defence.

The Ruskies however were opperating out of essestially coastal waters like the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, North Sea with a limited surface fleet. This meant that there ships had to rely on themselves for defence and had no space to manouver or hide. Which would explain why their CV is so heavily armed.

FNG

 

Hi FNG!
Agree with your points.

The one slightly worrying thing about the PLAN build up is the Type 071 LPD, amphibious assault vessel. Similar to the US San Antonio Landing Platform Dock (LPD), this vessel is a very modern addition to the PLAN Amphibious fleet. It is thought that another vessel of this class may well be constructed in 2007 or 2008. Displacing over 20,000 tons and including a well-deck for smaller amphibious assault craft, the vessel is also armed with 4 CIWS and a dual purpose main gun. The potential for an anti-air missile system, either VLS or cannister mounted is also included. Two to four helicoptors for air assault will aslo be embarked on the large flight deck.

Up until now the Chinese were mainly staying away from large amphibious assault vessels, but now seem to be including big modern ships like the Type 071 LPD in their plans.

Hope they don't have an eye set on a near neighbor.

 

.

From the horse mouth " people daily "

http://english.people.com.cn/200704/25/ ... 69725.html


.

 

I think you're right FNG, that would make alot of sense.

Another doctrinal difference between Russian and USN carriers is the aircraft stocked by the carriers.

Kuznetsov only operates Su-33's and Su-25UTG's, which are used as fleet defenders and carrier landing trainers respectively... AFAIK both have very limited anti-ship capabilities, the Su-33 being a primarily air superiority fighter can only carry one Kh-41, and thats the only AS weapon I know of in use on Su-33's

USN carrier complements, on the other hand, are pure strikecraft fleets since the retirement of the F-14, and better designed for surface delivery... The hornet and the JSF can both carry slightly more kg of ordinance than the Flanker, and more AS weaponry

Or at least thats the impression I get, I might be dead wrong...

 

.

the doctrinal use of the battle fleet is different ,
The U.S. Navy is a force projection around the world with a capability to dominate an area against anyone

the russian fleets are little more than a coast guard , tasked with protecting their strategic subs in the arctic and the sea of Okhosh ,
only under admiral Gorshkov in the late 70ies was there some attempt to have a blue water fleet
The U.S.A. and britain have the Mahon view of control of the seas
, the germans , russians and chineses have a continental view of control of the land

. It's a cliche but is probably more right than wrong

.

 

It should also be ntoed that the US Navy's role has also become more and more to provide air cover for American forces ashore, since the USAF no longer has as many air bases on foreign soil as it used to.

 

back to the red chinks

as i have noted before there's a he** of a lot more to having a serious at sea air force that just the ship. you also need effective aircraft, crews to man them, deck apes to handle them shipboard, maintance crews able to keep them flying out on the skinny end of the logistics tree, support ships to both feed and defend, and the tactics to use them. so far they lack most if not all of the above. someday maybe but not now or in the near future.

 

.

yes indeed , also there cannot be two navy in control of the world seas .
To have supremacy of the oceans is to lay the claim to be the world hegemon
anyone laying the same claim is basically challenging for military supremacy
That is a dangerous course , it make a war well night impossible to avoid ,
also it's incredibly expensive and can only be contemplated if one is willing to forfeit a lot of national infrastructure and social program money ,
I would guess China horizon is basically limited to the yellow sea .
down to the Singapore straights and up to Tsushima's
.

 

Plus the Strait of Formosa, which they keep their eyes on constantly.

 

I"ve always felt that the Taiwan imbroglio was ultimately a question of face , both side trade like hell with each other
the saber rattling is somewhat for show as long as basic rules are followed , no military harassment by China , no proclamation of independence for Taiwan ,
A more unstable situation is in the south china seas and the various territorial claims by the locals , this is a multi dimensional situation
anything could go pear shape from anyone , anytime and lead to the wrong reaction

.

 

Though it was pointed out the other day in an article about the Taiwanese president putting a referendum on the ballot to officially change the country's name to Taiwan that mainland China actually has little to gain and a lot to lose by invading the island, including possible war with the USA. One hopes that Beijing knows that.