The Chinese Cruiser, forget the carrier...
- Thread starter iceHawk
- Start date
CVWs are evolving must faster than surface combatants.
F-35 will be a stealthy aircraft, and it will be operational around 2010. Even those LHDs will become true carriers using Marine Corps aviation.
Next, Boeing is developing the X-45 UAV. This programme is close to go-ahead for production. The software is FAR beyond USAFs requests. They could start next Monday. It's only a question of time to get this plane carrier-capable.
Surface ships are getting more stealthier, but they are not armed significantly better than 20 years before.
The idea of Cruise missiles sounds great. They are good at destroying immobile objects. But in an environment jammed by various ECM-systems, hitting a mobile target like a ship is very difficult for them. I've never heard of fighter-pilots who gets jammed by ECM.
Btw, regarding the size of missiles PLAN posseses (and this weird circular VLS it operates), how big will such a ship be? It must be 30000 ts to operate significant weaponry.
@bd_popeye:
Sinking an US carrier is IMHO only possible with those supercavitating torpedoes. But only, if you have 50. Only, if there is no countermeasure. Only if the launching subs will get in range to fire them. Extremely unlikely, you can mind. Apart from the fact, that no such torpedo has left the experimental stage.
Maybe some Kamikaze-attacks by ramming Ming-subs
.
F-35 will be a stealthy aircraft, and it will be operational around 2010. Even those LHDs will become true carriers using Marine Corps aviation.
Next, Boeing is developing the X-45 UAV. This programme is close to go-ahead for production. The software is FAR beyond USAFs requests. They could start next Monday. It's only a question of time to get this plane carrier-capable.
Surface ships are getting more stealthier, but they are not armed significantly better than 20 years before.
The idea of Cruise missiles sounds great. They are good at destroying immobile objects. But in an environment jammed by various ECM-systems, hitting a mobile target like a ship is very difficult for them. I've never heard of fighter-pilots who gets jammed by ECM.
Btw, regarding the size of missiles PLAN posseses (and this weird circular VLS it operates), how big will such a ship be? It must be 30000 ts to operate significant weaponry.
@bd_popeye:
Sinking an US carrier is IMHO only possible with those supercavitating torpedoes. But only, if you have 50. Only, if there is no countermeasure. Only if the launching subs will get in range to fire them. Extremely unlikely, you can mind. Apart from the fact, that no such torpedo has left the experimental stage.
Maybe some Kamikaze-attacks by ramming Ming-subs
.
First off remember there are two reactors on a Nimitz class.as for a reactor leak
...No worry there. It won't happen. There are too many safe guards and backup systems for that to happen. There are several hundred nuclear power plant trained technicians on a CVN. They would lock down the reactor and repair it. The Nuke techs train for this everyday. Several drills daily 365 days a year.It would take a catostropic failure to abandon ship. As for the planes. They could be deck launched. That is without a catapult.
Having served on a Nimitz class, I do not forsee any situation like this arising. never..ain't gonna happen....
Last edited:
Shkval is operational since 1977. But it's unguided, designed to carry a nuclear warhead. Tactically, unguided torpedoes are almost useless. I would call that "experimental".
A more advanced version is believed to exist. But is it guided? It has flaps but no cable. Torpedoes are guided by wire. Even if so, it's highly risky for the launching sub itself to start such a weapon. Kursk is believed to be destroyed while testing that weapon. I would call that "experimental", too.
Here in Germany, we are developing the Barracuda, 500 knots fast and guided (don't ask me how, but no wire). It's in the late prototype phase. But always same problem: very fast is very short-ranged.
Anyway, back to topic.
A cruiser like the one described in this thread is not worth building instead of better ASW-destroyers or more and better AD-destroyers. It would be a prestige-project. If you want prestige, buy it by being very loud (aircraft carrier) or very silent (SSBN) ships.
To put it into operations against Taiwan or Japan is equally useless.
- What can that ship do, what land-based missiles cannot?
- PLAN has to face 4 japanese DDHs + 4 Osumi-class LPHs operational around 2012, maybe operating JSFs. How should such a cruiser help against that?
A more advanced version is believed to exist. But is it guided? It has flaps but no cable. Torpedoes are guided by wire. Even if so, it's highly risky for the launching sub itself to start such a weapon. Kursk is believed to be destroyed while testing that weapon. I would call that "experimental", too.
Here in Germany, we are developing the Barracuda, 500 knots fast and guided (don't ask me how, but no wire). It's in the late prototype phase. But always same problem: very fast is very short-ranged.
Anyway, back to topic.
A cruiser like the one described in this thread is not worth building instead of better ASW-destroyers or more and better AD-destroyers. It would be a prestige-project. If you want prestige, buy it by being very loud (aircraft carrier) or very silent (SSBN) ships.
To put it into operations against Taiwan or Japan is equally useless.
- What can that ship do, what land-based missiles cannot?
- PLAN has to face 4 japanese DDHs + 4 Osumi-class LPHs operational around 2012, maybe operating JSFs. How should such a cruiser help against that?
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
why does everyone the carrier will be used convetianally? it xan be a part od an infiltartion fleet, or a bigger task group. what else does it give? bragging rights. by 2010, china will have 13 modern destroyers, 14 modern frigates, at least 25 modern subs, and countless other ships full of upgrade potential. a carrier will alow china to finally project its new forces, and claim the blue water navy it wanted for so long.
I think China could have quite much use of a cruiser, they pack a lot of punch in a single ship. However, a carrier is for sure more usefull in providing support for a blue water navy, since they have to operate outside their land-based fighters effective range. If the PLAN has enough money a mix of just a few carriers and cruisers, coupled with a number of destroyers and frigates can challenge and (if properly tarined) beat more or less any surface task force encountered.
My point is that PLAN should get cruisers, but only after they have a carrier or two.
My point is that PLAN should get cruisers, but only after they have a carrier or two.
Crusiers are needed for a power projection fleet. You can't just escort a carrier with a destroye in the ocean, the gap is big, the destroyers need replenishment way often. Most destroyers don't have LACM capability (and definitely not PLAN ones.) and also C4ISTAR.
I am glad that China are building the crusiers first. After all, you can have a fleet w/o a CV but with a CG, but if you have a fleet w/ a CV but not a CG, it's much more vunlerable.
Small ships are good for littoral issues, but you need big ships w/ long endurance for projection.
PS-CVs still have many days. As others say, it is flexible, reloadable and consistent, even though it may take more maintence.
I doubt rail guns last too long on the sea. They need some pretty big maintence and I doubt they can stay at sea for too long. It might happen in the future though.
I am glad that China are building the crusiers first. After all, you can have a fleet w/o a CV but with a CG, but if you have a fleet w/ a CV but not a CG, it's much more vunlerable.
Small ships are good for littoral issues, but you need big ships w/ long endurance for projection.
PS-CVs still have many days. As others say, it is flexible, reloadable and consistent, even though it may take more maintence.
I doubt rail guns last too long on the sea. They need some pretty big maintence and I doubt they can stay at sea for too long. It might happen in the future though.
Wingman
Junior Member
I don't know if this has already been talked about but, isn't it more advantageous and cost effective to build cruisers with long range missiles instead of carriers?
Essentially, carriers hold aircraft which carry weapons a long distance and fire them.
Isn't this the same as a cruiser with long range missiles? Not only that, but missiles generally fly faster than aircraft. Missiles that aircraft fire generally have a weaker warhead and slower speed than ship-launched missiles.
So in the end, which is cheaper and more effective?
To design and build a high speed, super long range SAM and a SSM and a ship capable of firing it, or
To design and build a carrier, aircraft capable of taking off from the carrier, missiles for the aircraft, and spend lots of money maintaining the aircraft?
Essentially, carriers hold aircraft which carry weapons a long distance and fire them.
Isn't this the same as a cruiser with long range missiles? Not only that, but missiles generally fly faster than aircraft. Missiles that aircraft fire generally have a weaker warhead and slower speed than ship-launched missiles.
So in the end, which is cheaper and more effective?
To design and build a high speed, super long range SAM and a SSM and a ship capable of firing it, or
To design and build a carrier, aircraft capable of taking off from the carrier, missiles for the aircraft, and spend lots of money maintaining the aircraft?