Jump to content


Photo

Second Chinese Carrier


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,164 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0358 AM

 

Yeah, the lack of a cat must be a real restriction for a non STOVL type.

 

An idle thought, I wonder if it would be viable to have a catapult AND a ski ramp?

 

Unfinished Soviet carrier Ulyanovsk would have had both ski jump and catapults: however latter only for Yak-44 AEW aircraft. Su-33's would have operated STOBAR as in Kuznetsov.

 

640px-%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%

 

In theory I suppose it would be possible to have a weaker version of catapult to support STOBAR operations. However, building steam catapult into the ship is such a hassle that for the trouble you might just as well go full monty CTOL and not bother with limitations of ski jump operations at all. With EM catapults it might be slightly more practical.

 

 

I idly wonder if there is any more point to it with drones?


  • 0

#62 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,656 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0454 AM

Russias problem is that it wont admit it has no use for a carrier.
  • 0

#63 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,164 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0502 AM

Well it does, but only  IF it still finds a role with combating US exceptionalism wherever it finds it. You only have to look at what happened in 1962 when it thumbed the nose of the US on its own doorstep. They didnt have the naval structure to call their bluff.

 

Is it worth the money to underwrite that kind of foreign policy? From my perspective, no. But then Putin and most of the Russian General staff clearly dont view the world from my kind of perspective. If they envisage out of area operations like Syria as typical for the future (even the limited operation in Sudan) then they probably want their own portable airfield to backstop it.

 

Even for matters of prestige, a big chunk of steel you can sail anywhere around the world with its own airwing has something to commend it. And the Kremlin as ever is still wedded to its own prestige. I can think of no other reason than the doomsday missiles its embarking on.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 18 September 2019 - 0511 AM.

  • 0

#64 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,129 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0503 AM

If Russia has 2 and China has 6, then they have 8.


  • 0

#65 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,164 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0513 AM

That would require a degree of political cooperation between Russia and China that I do not detect yet has happened. it may come to pass of course. I think Russia needs China an awful lot more than the reverse however.


  • 0

#66 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,129 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0518 AM

That would require a degree of political cooperation between Russia and China that I do not detect yet has happened. it may come to pass of course. I think Russia needs China an awful lot more than the reverse however.

 

The navies on both sides train together quite often. They don't have to be aligned 100% of the time but they each know that they can use cooperation with each other as leverage in diplomatic or geopolitical areas. And cooperation in the naval area doesn't have to be hindered by areas they may compete with each other more often.

 

Russia still has some assets that will play into top level geopolticals such as huge energy reserves, huge nuclear arsenal, UNSC seat, and so on.


Edited by JasonJ, 18 September 2019 - 0519 AM.

  • 0

#67 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,164 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0525 AM

Oh sure, they train together. I remember reading about a Chinese warship on maneuvers in the Mediterranean. I just dont detect, at this moment, a political willingness to cooperate in foreign policy which will make it more formalized. From Russia's perspective, China is as much a potential geopolitical competitor as the US. Probably more so in that it shares a border with it.

 

That might change, certainly, but from my perspective only when Putin has gone.


  • 0

#68 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,129 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0533 AM

Oh sure, they train together. I remember reading about a Chinese warship on maneuvers in the Mediterranean. I just dont detect, at this moment, a political willingness to cooperate in foreign policy which will make it more formalized. From Russia's perspective, China is as much a potential geopolitical competitor as the US. Probably more so in that it shares a border with it.

 

That might change, certainly, but from my perspective only when Putin has gone.

 

Maybe so, although I don't think the level of cooperation needs to be formalized in such a way for for both sides having carriers in position to result in a factor that has to be taken into the calculus of US, etc, defense and strategy thinking. Just my 2 cents on that one.

 

To just add on the previous thought, one other thing Russia has that adds to mutual benefits for a Russia-China relationship is the direct and wide access to the arctic.


  • 0

#69 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,164 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 0635 AM

 

Oh sure, they train together. I remember reading about a Chinese warship on maneuvers in the Mediterranean. I just dont detect, at this moment, a political willingness to cooperate in foreign policy which will make it more formalized. From Russia's perspective, China is as much a potential geopolitical competitor as the US. Probably more so in that it shares a border with it.

 

That might change, certainly, but from my perspective only when Putin has gone.

 

Maybe so, although I don't think the level of cooperation needs to be formalized in such a way for for both sides having carriers in position to result in a factor that has to be taken into the calculus of US, etc, defense and strategy thinking. Just my 2 cents on that one.

 

To just add on the previous thought, one other thing Russia has that adds to mutual benefits for a Russia-China relationship is the direct and wide access to the arctic.

 

 

Yes, absolutely. Although whether its going to want to share that access is another matter. I could see it would be strategically useful to Russia to do so to get the Europeans on the back foot. You then have to ask whether the ability to do that is useful to China, and even if it was, is it in Russia's advantage to see China as a long term fixture in the arctic, when its put so much money into trying to keep competitors out?

 

I dont know, but these are all interesting thoughts to be having. As I say, I dont see anything happening with Putin in harness, but he isnt going to last forever.


  • 0

#70 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,116 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 1140 AM

Well it does, but only  IF it still finds a role with combating US exceptionalism wherever it finds it. You only have to look at what happened in 1962 when it thumbed the nose of the US on its own doorstep. They didnt have the naval structure to call their bluff.

 

Is it worth the money to underwrite that kind of foreign policy? From my perspective, no. But then Putin and most of the Russian General staff clearly dont view the world from my kind of perspective. If they envisage out of area operations like Syria as typical for the future (even the limited operation in Sudan) then they probably want their own portable airfield to backstop it.

 

Even for matters of prestige, a big chunk of steel you can sail anywhere around the world with its own airwing has something to commend it. And the Kremlin as ever is still wedded to its own prestige. I can think of no other reason than the doomsday missiles its embarking on.

 

For better or worse, prestige has historically been a naval mission, particular for major powers in their dealings with others. The nomenclature imposed upon the Japanese Navy for the better part of the last century was based on a recognition of this.

 

Whether it will hold for the better part of this century remains to be seen.

 

As I say, I dont see anything happening with Putin in harness, but he isnt going to last forever.

 

Russia can be stubborn in its rugged political individualism in that way, as Abe's 26 meetings for little tangible result with him have shown, unfortunately.


Edited by Nobu, 18 September 2019 - 1150 AM.

  • 0