Pics via SDF.
+FormationLiaoning+escort+group+4+incl.+subs+Type+052D+Guided+Missile+Destroyer,+Type+052C+,+Peoples+Liberation+Army+Navy+5+Type+052C+Type+052D+destroyers+(5).jpg)
+FormationLiaoning+escort+group+4+incl.+subs+Type+052D+Guided+Missile+Destroyer,+Type+052C+,+Peoples+Liberation+Army+Navy+5+Type+052C+Type+052D+destroyers+(7).jpg)
The guys over at the Sino Defense Forum have been China watchers before being a China watcher was cool. A quick look at the Chinese Carrier Strike Group follows.
A couple of things. The living conditions aboard the aircraft carrier look luxurious. Compared to the conditions aboard a US warship they're beyond luxurious. Once France was the gold standard when it came to fancy living aboard ship with the Italians following close behind. No more. What does this mean? I think its an indication that the Chinese are seeking the best and the brightest for their military...especially their Navy. Not only is it the patriotic thing to do, but you'll also live in relative comfort. This also points to the fact that the Chinese military is seeking to effectively compete for all those college graduates with business.
The next thing that caught my attention was the description of the Type 52C coordinating air defense. I remember seeing the British Daring Class doing the same thing in a joint exercise with the USN. I thought it was a strange way of doing business but the Chinese seem to be following that lead. I don't understand the advantage of operating that way (there must be something useful) and hope to find out more.
The last thing that I found odd was the attachment of an LPD to the strike group. Is this how they plan on operating in the future? In the US it would be considered a hybrid configuration. Part CSG and part amphibious ready group (or expeditionary strike group if you want to be trendy). In this case the advantages are obvious. High performance aircraft are able to protect the Chinese Marines in any action they may be called on to perform without the delay of having to marry up the CSG and ARG. The LPD can make use of all available space for transport helicopters for its Marines without having to make room for jump jets. Of course the problem with this type setup is that it puts Marines in harms way for any sea actions that the carrier might have to fight and the enemy (us) would probably make them a high priority target. I'll have to chew on this one before I buy into it.
Everything considered, a pretty good day for China.
+FormationLiaoning+escort+group+4+incl.+subs+Type+052D+Guided+Missile+Destroyer,+Type+052C+,+Peoples+Liberation+Army+Navy+5+Type+052C+Type+052D+destroyers+(5).jpg)
+FormationLiaoning+escort+group+4+incl.+subs+Type+052D+Guided+Missile+Destroyer,+Type+052C+,+Peoples+Liberation+Army+Navy+5+Type+052C+Type+052D+destroyers+(7).jpg)
The guys over at the Sino Defense Forum have been China watchers before being a China watcher was cool. A quick look at the Chinese Carrier Strike Group follows.
CV-16 Liaoning (50~60,000 tons)There is alot more at their site.
3 x Type 054A Frigate (4000 tons ea.)
2 x Type 051C (7100 tons ea.)
1 x Type 052C (7000 tons ea.)
1 x Type 071 LPD (17,000 tons ea.)
3 x Type 093G SSN (Unknown tonnage)
That's a 103,000 tons minimum CSG. Note (1) the lack of an air wing aboard CV-16 at this time. Once operational the Liaoning is expected to host approx. 24 ~ 36 J-15s. Note (2) the lack of any replenishment vessels. Note (3) only the 052C is AEGIS capable and likely co-ordinates the entire fleet air defense. This in of itself is a weakness as it denotes a single point of failure but also tells us that the battle management software across the fleet is standardized and highly advanced to allow for this type of co-ordination.
At this time, it is unknown what type of mission this formation is designed for. However, we know that this is a real dedicatd CSG and not just cobbled together for a photo op. The PLAN is now able to field a near bluewater CSG in addition to covering all of its home bases.
Check out the living areas of the CV-16. It's like a college dorm FFS.
A couple of things. The living conditions aboard the aircraft carrier look luxurious. Compared to the conditions aboard a US warship they're beyond luxurious. Once France was the gold standard when it came to fancy living aboard ship with the Italians following close behind. No more. What does this mean? I think its an indication that the Chinese are seeking the best and the brightest for their military...especially their Navy. Not only is it the patriotic thing to do, but you'll also live in relative comfort. This also points to the fact that the Chinese military is seeking to effectively compete for all those college graduates with business.
The next thing that caught my attention was the description of the Type 52C coordinating air defense. I remember seeing the British Daring Class doing the same thing in a joint exercise with the USN. I thought it was a strange way of doing business but the Chinese seem to be following that lead. I don't understand the advantage of operating that way (there must be something useful) and hope to find out more.
The last thing that I found odd was the attachment of an LPD to the strike group. Is this how they plan on operating in the future? In the US it would be considered a hybrid configuration. Part CSG and part amphibious ready group (or expeditionary strike group if you want to be trendy). In this case the advantages are obvious. High performance aircraft are able to protect the Chinese Marines in any action they may be called on to perform without the delay of having to marry up the CSG and ARG. The LPD can make use of all available space for transport helicopters for its Marines without having to make room for jump jets. Of course the problem with this type setup is that it puts Marines in harms way for any sea actions that the carrier might have to fight and the enemy (us) would probably make them a high priority target. I'll have to chew on this one before I buy into it.
Everything considered, a pretty good day for China.
This is the reason why the JMSDF officials who toured a Chinese destroyer commented that it was built by someone who never fought a naval war; interior was highly inflamable and wooden doors wouldn't provide water tight compartments.
ReplyDeletedo you build your warships to mercantile or combat standards? is their a hybrid type build that can mix and match survivability with livability? i don't know. we have yet to see any pics of their engine rooms so that might be what they're aiming at, a mix of standards and essential systems will be to combat levels, living quarters to mercantile...i just don't know, but i do know that its a raging debate here in the US.
DeleteSolomon
DeleteWarships are supposed to be built to the military standard for a reason. If built to a mercantile standard, ships could be built at 30~50% of the cost of a military grade warship but wouldn't be survivable in combat. Chinese love to cut corners when no one's looking.
One more consideration is that the Varyarg/Liaoning is a training ship, not a combat ship, so that may explain the additional creature comfort for the new cadets.
look i'm just the messenger. if you look at the french LHDs they're built to commercial specs, not combat. it saves cost and isn't necessarily just a "China" problem. its a raging debate thats going on in naval circles here and in europe. i don't know which is best but i know both sides have their pluses and minuses.
DeleteSolomon
DeleteWell, those countries that do anticipate going into an all out shooting war to depend one's territorial integrity cannot cut corners. European countries that only expect to send out their warships for UN peace keeping missions or humanitarian relief can cut corners and paint cruise ships in military color.
Since the US anticipates a possible shooting war with China in the East China Sea, Taiwan, or the South China Sea, her warships must be built to full military standard, including the interior that replaces fancy decorated walls with hard steel walls. Yes, it won't look pretty as the interior of a Chinese warship whose interior is designed to look like a hotel, but it is the matter of life or death.
The thing is that these US warships must be able to take a supersonic anti-ship missile or two and not go down by fire, so damage control and fire resistance is critical in ship's design.
I wouldn't like to play hing an mighty but remember Brits at Falklands ,country with longest naval tradition has quite a history of designing and building flawed designs ( WWI - WWII battleships with thin deck armor that blew up spectaculary with great loss of life.). Some Brit ships were sunk by duds in Falklands. On the other hand a 300lb drone crashes into US ship causes casualties and easily penetrates hull superstructure luckily drone didnt catch fire so damage was limited.
DeleteMr.T
DeleteIt was the other way in the WW2, where British carriers with armored decks survived kamikaze and normal Japanese bomb runs while the US carriers lacking armored deck didn't, especially whose escort carriers.
Slowman,
DeleteNot argue on mercantile standards, but here's a interesting bit about the armored flight decks. They weren't all they were cracked up to be.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
SlowMan i think you are confusing things . Like i said WWI (jutland HM Invincible, Indefatigable Queen Mary) WWII(Hood) some of the Britains mightiest battleships went bang due to thin deck armor . In the Falklands many British ships were gravely damaged by bombs that didn't even explode (13 hits by dud bombs) and/or sunk by exocet dud with rocket fuel alone. I think many ships are not nearly as survivable as people think and luckily haven't been put to the test .
DeleteThe little decorations may have been just for public consumption. It's like how we've never seen PLAN CICs in the dark, because they always turn the lights on for the cameras.
DeleteOf course you are also right that the USN, being constantly at war, would want their ship to be built to war standards and their crew to be on the highest level of readiness at all times.
Lets keep in mind also that the Liaoning is a new build, as when the Ukrainians sold the only the Varyag hull with everything inside ripped out and bombed to smithereens. So the Chinese had to rebuild everything inside, including all the wiring.
Here's what the Admiral Kuznetsov's bridge looked like:
http://i.imgur.com/P3l3uux.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/AbiYUr2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pilZRFX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jyhL0X0.jpg
And here's what it looks like after the Chinese rebuilt it:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1410/4pjx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/k8Jpmsk.jpg
http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/21/9a/20/00/15.si.jpg
wait one second guys.
Deletefirst thing you're taught is to respect your enemies. with that in mind i believe that the Chinese saw what happened to the Russians when they tried to match the US dollar for dollar in defense spending. building to mercantile standards is probably just being practical. second. lets talk a major naval engagement. a modern fight between two peers will be a bloody affair. think about it and then compare the Falkland islands battles. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. hundreds of missiles will be flying and even a Iowa class battleship would probably be at risk. if a US carrier is hit by 50 anti-ship missiles could it survive? that's out of 300 fired at it. if it can't then does it make sense to build them cheaper and more plentiful or in smaller numbers with exquisite capabilities that are at risk from day one.
DO NOT UNDER ESTIMATE THE CHINESE. you can be 100 percent patriot and recognize that the enemy is doing some impressive things.
@Mr.T
DeleteJutland is not a great example with the angle you're putting on it if you want to remain in context with Sol's post.
Specifically the British losses, in particular with regards Battlecruisers, were due to cordite flashes chain reacting from turret hits all the way to the magazines, not through deck/belt penetration.
Confirmed by recent underwater exploration of the War Graves, impacts that should have left a turret merely knocked out of commission had devastating results to several thousand lives.
This was largely due to the crews leaving various compartment doors open in an attempt to speed up the passing of cordite charges to the turrets. Britain had an obsession with Rate of Fire amongst ship crews dating back to pre-Trafalger days. Cordite charges thus lined the passages and compartments from turret to magazine like a powder trail to a keg.
Second, British armour piercing shells did not perform well at all. Faulty batches that should have been rejected by the Admiralty testing procedures were passed to the Fleets. The explosives in the shells themselves tended to prematurely detonate outside the armour plate of the German ships. Consider Seydlitz's damage in particular. She was battered utterly from the outside with 20+ direct hits, without her internal compartments being tested by a properly penetrating shell.
Had the faulty batches of shells not been accepted by the Admiralty and the majority of striking shells actually penetrated, which the penetrators on the shells themselves were more than capable of achieving, a number of German ships would simply not have survived.
You could even compare the German losses and damage at Jutland to British losses in the Falklands: battered by duds.
Combine working shells with proper controls of cordite/compartments and the losses on the day may very well have been reversed. The problems would have stacked even higher for Germany.
The lessons we should be taking away from Jutland, and that relates to the point Sol is making, is that the smaller number of ships (the battleship focussed German High Seas Fleet) failed to compete in Attrition-stakes with the larger number of ships (the Battlecruiser centric British Grand Fleet).
As it stands, the Battle of Jutland may have indeed been a tactical victory for Germany, but the British achieved a far more significant Strategic victory in keeping the Kaiser's Navy out of the rest of the war, and that's the result that ultimately counted towards the high stakes result.
The lack of supply ships is odd considering China has been testing these with their longer range deployments.
ReplyDeleteI still think the Chinese carrier force is to project air support afar. I don't buy the S China sea were range favors deployed air power but but I am not sure China would really want to fight there putting their carriers in this risky area when they could provide the support from land just at more expense.
I think the Chinese carriers are for projection and to protect the Chinese interest across the 3rd world mainly Africa. It is little reported but China is building enclaves across the 3rd world especially Africa exploiting natural resources. X dictator sells China interest in X resource China comes with Chinese workers and exploits that resource, China doesn't use local labor or allow the resources to be in local control these are like mini colonial possessions of ole setup to feed the homeland. It is just a matter of time before X dictator somewere is knocked out of power and the new X dictator decides to rally the gen pop into taking over the Chinese interest. The US has had their companies rolled like this multiple times and we never had the added risk of huge deployed labor and loss of "national interest". China's state owned companies may not be willing to just let such large interest go just because the "people spoke". Just like European colonization, what starts as economic interest can morph.
China is deep vested in Africa it is just a matter of time before they are forced, or their interest dictate intervention. On that day China will need ability to deploy ground troops to either counter coup or withdraw that enclave of Chinese. You look at the places China has these enclaves and the setup above tagged with supply ships will be just what is needed.
I completely agree.
DeleteWell, China's battleground is only 200 miles away from its shores, so no need to worry about supply ships.
DeleteA couple of things.
ReplyDelete1. AAW command and control farmed out to an escort: does the USN not also do that? I believe the thought is since the destroyer/cruiser has the all-encompassing air defense system (American Aegis, whatever the british have, whatever the Chinese have), they are in a better position to control air defense for the entire group.
2. Marines operating with the carrier, it sure could cause problems in a war-at-sea scenario. But as I've mentioned before, is that really what the Chinese are expecting and training for, sending their carrier out to meet on the USN on the high seas? Seems more likely to me the Chinese are focusing on power projection ashore, police operations, what C-Low is talking about.
i don't know for sure but i thought that the air war was coordinated from the carrier thru airborne E-2's. perhaps in a pure missiles only air defense battle the attached aegis destroyers would play the lead role but in a full scale battle in the air, on surface and under sea it would be waged from the CIC on the carrier.
Deletei mean after all the commander for the battle group always plants his flag on the carrier.
But they have great looking washing machines on their ships.
ReplyDeleteGoogle, chinese laundry royal navy ships
DeleteI have no problem with the LPD. These first generation Chinese carriers are more akin to the RN's incoming QE class and upscaled Americas (but true carriers...). That is to say they are not direct CVN competitors more heavy support for the surface fleet (and indeed land based air in a deep field play.) The UK desperately needs to think along similar lines and start the procurement process for an LPD / LHD in the 25,0000 to 30,000 ton with a sustained speed in the region of 21 to 22 kt. I see in a future naval conflict th RN backing up and supporting USN/USMC amphibious operations with QE and not with the CVN doing the glamourous deep strike area air warfare.
ReplyDeleteIn the RN the farming out of AAW duties to an attending destroyer or frigate was for no other reason than to reduce the work load on the flag staff and Ops room personnel in the carrier. With the use of link 11 and now link 16 and probably enhanced data systems it was considered more effective for the senior captain and his principle warfare officer to call the shots in the air war over any task group and also pre-position his (or her!) AEW assets as they saw fit. In all cases, the flag officer would allow free pratique to his AWWC as long as they held his confidence. As even a cursory glance of their arsenal shows, the Chinese love nothing more than to steal all the best designs/ideas/procedures!
ReplyDeleteHere's the $64,000 question, Where the hell was the SSN or SSK when you needed one At least we should have one trailing behind and getting hull & and Sonar pictures of this.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the USN has all the sonar profile of all of those ships already, just like I would expect the PLAN to have the same for all the USN hulls travelling through the China Seas.
DeleteWell, the USS Cowpens was there keeping an eye on things. I'm just going to presume that there was someone sneaking about under the waves as well. Perhaps the cruiser was a diversion to keep PLAN busy while the sub did the serious observations?
DeleteSol,
ReplyDeleteDon't get your hopes up. These photos are just for PR.
I have learnt, through past experiences, never to trust anything made by PRoC. PRoC electrical goods have very questionable QC. Almost all PRoC-based manufacturers have two "stocks": One to impress the new clients (higher QC) and the "other ones" (QC? What's QC?).
Food? You kidding me? They can't even ensure their food is SAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
Mark Kram
DeleteYea, you hear that Walmart unknowningly sold fox meat as spiced donkey meat in China. Even Walmart gets scammed by local suppliers in China
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/02/news/companies/walmart-china-meat/
Another picture that I'm not sure if real or fake. I am pretty sure the Chinese must be at least thinking about it. For me, the part that somewhat reassures me that these Russian carriers or ex Russian (Chinese and Indian) don't really have that much combat power, simply try to find pictures/videos of Mig29s, Sukoi's or J15s taken off with a full combat load. We know USN can do it with ease of catapults but sure haven't seen a lot of evidence that Russia, China or India can duplicate regular operations at full combat weight.
ReplyDeletehttp://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_7032634_1.html&usg=ALkJrhhdEQ3Fw6ZZjkuqf3EzWKDXBk1oTA
STOBAR carriers can't launch fighters with full load, is common knowledge.
DeleteCATOBAR > STOBAR > STOVL
I recommend that some people stop trying to get data from Japan or China by using google translations when there are well informed opinions in english.
Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter
Sep. 28, 2013 - 03:45AM Defense News By WENDELL MINNICK
"...Despite improvements, Kashin wonders why the Chinese bothered with the Su-33 given the fact that Russia gave up on it. Weight problems and other issues forced the Russians to develop the MiG-29K, which has better power-to-weight ratio and can carry more weapons. “Of course, when the Chinese get their future carriers equipped with catapults, that limitation will not apply and they will be able to fully realize Su-33/J-15 potential — huge range and good payload,” Kashin said.
The Liaoning is the problem. The carrier is small — 53,000 tons — and uses a ski jump. From Russia’s experience, “taking off from the carrier with takeoff weight exceeding some 26 tons is very difficult,” Kashin said.
Roger Cliff, a China defense specialist for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said this is “one of the reasons why sky-jump carriers can’t be considered to be equivalent to full-size carriers with catapults.”..."
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130928/DEFREG/309280009/
Here's my take on the Chinese aircraft carrier vs a US aircraft carrier one (Chinese aircraft carrier) of them is built I like the starship Enterprise pretty nice comfortable get its ass kicked every episodes. The other one (US aircraft carrier) After years of hard to learned lessons , is built for long term all out war like the Battlestar Galactica
ReplyDelete