Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The Russians took decades to create the there carrier concept. Even though ironically at the end of world war 2 they were given the incomplete German carrier Graf Zeppelin. But instead of adopting it they scuttled her.

Click to expand...

They were not allowed to keep it - by the treaty all unfinished or damaged (which could not be repaired or completed quickly - Category C ) captured ships were to be dismantled or sunk . Exact reason for this provision in the treaty is not known to me , although it probably has something to do with avoiding arms race .

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

The German carrier concept was unproofed and - I guess - worthless.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Intrepid said:

The German carrier concept was unproofed and - I guess - worthless.

Click to expand...

Actually , Graf Zeppelin was a quite good ship , maybe not as good as Essex class but still solid . It could have served in same role as Liaoning/Varyag , i.e. for learning and training . Unfortunately , Soviets at that time decided not to break the treaty (there would be consequences in other matters ) so things ended as they ended .

Bltizo said:

David Axe has once again written a terrible article.

The only part which is true is that steam boilers are not as good as nuclear reactors (or even gas turbines).
The part about being unable to launch heavy fighters from ski jump, and even the so called "state media" reference are all mis informed.

Click to expand...

Well now..I'm sure some of what is in the article is conjecture..I really don't like what he stated about the J-15. He needs to give the aircfat an oppurtunity to show what it can do.

But still..We all know the problems the Russians have had refurbishing the IN Vikramaditya. What about the Brazilian Sao Paulo? When was the last time she was at sea and operated her A-4 Skyhawks? And Sao Paulo was on fire..



And does anyone really know the condition of the Russian navy Admiral Kuznetsov?

Just asking.

bd popeye said:

Well now..I'm sure some of what is in the article is conjecture..I really don't like what he stated about the J-15. He needs to give the aircfat an oppurtunity to show what it can do.

But still..We all know the problems the Russians have had refurbishing the IN Vikramaditya. What about the Brazilian Sao Paulo? When was the last time she was at sea and operated her A-4 Skyhawks? And Sao Paulo was on fire..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And does anyone really know the condition of the Russian navy Admiral Kuznetsov?

Just asking.

Click to expand...

Liaoning probably stands the best chance of success where others have failed from the old Soviet days. Again we really don;t know how much PLAN gutted the inside and refirbished it or built new but I think it's safe to assume PLAN sailors don't have to worry about having only 25 latrines or frozen pipes!
I think the ex Varyag is akin to one of those stores you read where a kid born into a terrible family got adopted out into a decent one and is now flourishing. There is no doubt in my mind that Liaoning IS now exactly what the Russians had wanted her to be but never could achieve it.
The Vikramaditya I consider a failure because even though she may eventually be a halfway decent carrier in her own right the entire Russian/Indian debacle, technical issues, delays and the cost overruns makes her a bad ROI. With the amount of money India paid russia, they could've gotten a much much better deal including building a brand new carrier!

David Axe also missed out on blasting the CdG. That carrier is also a maintenance nightmare and has not lived up to her expectations.
Admiral Kunetsov is not fairing any better either I presume. Same with the HTMS Chakri Naruebet. She is nothing more than just a luxury 'yacht' for government officials at this time.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

thunderchief said:

Actually , Graf Zeppelin was a quite good ship , maybe not as good as Essex class but still solid . It could have served in same role as Liaoning/Varyag , i.e. for learning and training . Unfortunately , Soviets at that time decided not to break the treaty (there would be consequences in other matters ) so things ended as they ended .

Click to expand...

actually the soviet union did break the treaty. In order to be destroyed any ship of the German navy seized had to come under a category C that demanded that the ship need 15 months or more for repairs to make sail Graf zeppelin had been scuttled already by the Krigsmarine who went even to the trouble of setting off bombs inside her but was still salvageable but it would have taken more then the slated 15 months. Under treaty she should have been destroyed or sunk in deeper water. However the Russians instead floated her and moved her.

Then taken from Wikipedia :

on 19 March 1947 the Council of Ministers decreed the destruction of former German ships. The first ship to be sunk, Lützow, was sunk off Swinemunde on 22 July 1947. On 14 August Graf Zeppelin was towed into the harbor, and two days later to its final resting place. It was subjected to five series of controlled explosions of 180-mm shells and FAB series bombs. The first test imitated a FAB-1000 detonation in the exhaust funnel and lesser bombs below the flight deck. The second in the series was a single FAB-1000 explosion above the flight deck. The third, the fourth and the fifth series imitated penetration of FAB-100, FAB-250 and FAB-500 bombs at flight deck, hangar deck and gun battery deck levels. These bombs were placed in cutouts in their target decks to imitate the effects of dive bombing. Graf Zeppelin remained afloat, and Admiral Yury Rall ordered a torpedo strike. A torpedo fired from an Elco PT boat exploded in the anti-torpedo bulge but did not penetrate the belt armor. A torpedo fired by the destroyer Slavny penetrated the unprotected hull section below the bow elevator; Graf Zeppelin sank 25 minutes later "

Click to expand...

they used her to plan and test sinking of a carrier as Russia's emerging threat were her former allies. Who both used carriers' the USA and UK as well as allies like Australia and Canada who were given surplus carriers. The cold war chill was not a flash freeze it was a slow but deep bitter cold that settled in and kept getting colder. The writing had been on the wall in late 1945 by 1947 it was a wall of ice.

kwaigonegin said:

I think the ex Varyag is akin to one of those stores you read where a kid born into a terrible family got adopted out into a decent one and is now flourishing.

Click to expand...

That's so wrong don't let Mig-29 see this.
ok, let's see.
Sov had similar power plants as the carriers. Russians had a lot of trouble with the Sov boilers, but apparently PLAN didn't have similar problems. The difference could be simply that in the 1990's post-soviet Russian navy didn't have the money for quality fuel and maintenance whereas PLAN did.
which is pretty much what you said, nvm.

bd popeye said:

Well now..I'm sure some of what is in the article is conjecture..I really don't like what he stated about the J-15. He needs to give the aircfat an oppurtunity to show what it can do.

But still..We all know the problems the Russians have had refurbishing the IN Vikramaditya. What about the Brazilian Sao Paulo? When was the last time she was at sea and operated her A-4 Skyhawks? And Sao Paulo was on fire..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And does anyone really know the condition of the Russian navy Admiral Kuznetsov?

Just asking.

Click to expand...

His criticisms regarding capital related mattes -- that is to say maintenance, deployments, etc are all fairly valid especially in regards to the polar bear's kuznetsov.
But immediate damnation of ski jumps and steam boilers and what not are all misguided. It wasn't that long ago that the US had conventionally powered carriers in service anyway.

Bltizo said:

His criticisms regarding capital related mattes -- that is to say maintenance, deployments, etc are all fairly valid especially in regards to the polar bear's kuznetsov.
But immediate damnation of ski jumps and steam boilers and what not are all misguided. It wasn't that long ago that the US had conventionally powered carriers in service anyway.

Click to expand...

And don't anyone think those boiler powered plants did not have major issues..They did. Still the USN CVs met their commitments.

bd popeye said:

And don't anyone think those boiler powered plants did not have major issues..They did. Still the USN CVs met their commitments.

Click to expand...

Yes they did. I have a good friend whose screen name is cva66snipe, so you know what he did for a living for many years. His whole career he worked in those spaces...mainly on US conventional carriers. He was good at it, but boy does he have some stories. LOL!