JasonW Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 North Vietnam could have been laid waste if the Navy was given the OK. Eh, those USAF B-52's never would have been much use anyhow..... ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fishwelding Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Sounds like the most logical strategy if you want to close a technology gap to me. I'm sure the strategy is not specific to pre-WWII Japanese naval policy. It's a quite common strategy. That's how the U.S. got into the industrial revolution. Steal British textile machinery know-how, start textile mills in New England, improve upon designs, build better mills, branch out skills/techniques/management practice into other industries. In this case, the Chinese bought the ship, and have a legacy of buying Soviet-era equipment. So it's somewhat similar to the quite-common corporate tech strategy of buying patents. Why pay full-time R&D people at high pay rates when you can just offer a big bounty to some schmoe in his basement who develops the Next Big Thing? Or for that matter, buy entire rival companies to get at their patents. It seems to be an American habit to underestimate their real and potential enemies. How's that been working out for you since, say, 1950 or so? Earlier! The U.S. Navy ran its own set-ups for possible aerial attacks on Pearl Harbor, months before the Japanese attack. But they really didn't suspect the Japanese could pull it together. So after the war, we comforted ourselves by alternately complaining it was completely a surprise attack (which it wasn't--look at U.S. Newspapers before December, 1941, and see it was clear Japanese and U.S. relations were deteriorating), or looking for some conspiracy involving Roosevelt's quiet complicity that "allowed" the Japanese to attack Pearl. Edited August 12, 2011 by Fishwelding Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 i hope we get more of these: IIRC the varyag has been slated as a training tool,with the lessons being incorporated into the indigionus carriers under construction. from the armchair penut gallery I dont see how much of a lasting effect this would have on the BOP in the region, say compared to if they can finally develop a t-22/b-1/tu-160 class bomber/cruisemissle platform eitherway, im sure trumpeter will make a model of the carrier, and zactoman can issue the correct canopy for it! :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
edwin123 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 here are some real recent photos of her Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Litvyak Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm curious about the caption (watermark?) on some of the pictures posted there - Shang shan xia...something. Up a mountain, down a... what? Is that some progress slogan in the PRC? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
edwin123 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm curious about the caption (watermark?) on some of the pictures posted there - Shang shan xia...something. Up a mountain, down a... what? Is that some progress slogan in the PRC? its the name of the photographer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dmk0210 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Eh, those USAF B-52's never would have been much use anyhow..... ;) Not to say Buffs and Thuds didn't or wouldn't do their share. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IrishGreek Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Am I looking at the picture wrong, or does the last photo show a definite list to starboard? If so, is that just from the island on her? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
martin_sam_2000 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Am I looking at the picture wrong, or does the last photo show a definite list to starboard? If so, is that just from the island on her? the rear of the flight deck is angled. you can see it in the third pic down, the one of the whole ship. Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites
johnny_7713 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Am I looking at the picture wrong, or does the last photo show a definite list to starboard? If so, is that just from the island on her? If you take a look at the dock just visible on the left side of the picture, or some of the buildings in the background, you'll notice it's the whole picture that has a list. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Antonov Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 I strongly doubt the Chinese will have any similar reservations. When they used their ships' automatic cannons to blow apart that Vietnamese Navy landing party standing in chest-deep water on one of the contested shoals a few years ago they proved that point. If China sent an operational aircraft carrier into the area to push Vietnam around yes, I think Vietnam would push back hard. They may even sink the carrier.If they did, then God help them, because China would open an entire container-ship load of canned whoop-*** on them. The Chinese have tried that before, with decidedly less-than-spectacular results. Yes, the US parked carriers off the coast of Vietnam and ultimately had to withdraw, but they did a heck of a lot of damage in that time. And they would have done a lot worse if they would have been allowed to. The reasons for that not being as effective as it should have been (allow active shipping ports during a war? Safe zones for SAMs?, Political centers untouched?) were purely political. North Vietnam could have been laid waste if the Navy was given the OK. True, but irrelevant. The Vietnamese fight in roughly the Marciano style - you can beat on them hard, but they'll stand there and take the worst you've got. Everyone who's tried to conquer them has eventually given up and gone home, because they just won't stay down on the mat no matter how hard you hit them. I see no reason to believe that our blowing up more of their stuff would have won that war. One way or another they were going to do roughly what they did - sign a treaty they had no intention of keeping to make us go away, and then violate it and sweep through the South as soon as we were gone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 it's the whole picture that has a list. I blame the Earth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dmk0210 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 True, but irrelevant. The Vietnamese fight in roughly the Marciano style - you can beat on them hard, but they'll stand there and take the worst you've got. Everyone who's tried to conquer them has eventually given up and gone home, because they just won't stay down on the mat no matter how hard you hit them. I see no reason to believe that our blowing up more of their stuff would have won that war. One way or another they were going to do roughly what they did - sign a treaty they had no intention of keeping to make us go away, and then violate it and sweep through the South as soon as we were gone. That's a good point. The North really did have their hearts firmly set on communism and their own version of independence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 The Chinese have tried that before, with decidedly less-than-spectacular results. True, but irrelevant. The Vietnamese fight in roughly the Marciano style - you can beat on them hard, but they'll stand there and take the worst you've got. Everyone who's tried to conquer them has eventually given up and gone home, because they just won't stay down on the mat no matter how hard you hit them. I see no reason to believe that our blowing up more of their stuff would have won that war. One way or another they were going to do roughly what they did - sign a treaty they had no intention of keeping to make us go away, and then violate it and sweep through the South as soon as we were gone. Folks, we are not talking about an invasion of Vietnam, we are talking about this carrier used to enforce a territorial dispute over some islands / energy rights well offshore from the Vietnamese mainland. So all those comments about how hard the Vietnamese will fight and how they "beat" us and the Chinese decades ago are irrelevant. A dispute like this would be 100% conventional, no guerrillas, no ground forces. Strictly air and naval forces and having a Chinese carrier in the mix would be a big game changer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
toadwbg Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Folks, we are not talking about an invasion of Vietnam, we are talking about this carrier used to enforce a territorial dispute over some islands / energy rights well offshore from the Vietnamese mainland. So all those comments about how hard the Vietnamese will fight and how they "beat" us and the Chinese decades ago are irrelevant. A dispute like this would be 100% conventional, no guerrillas, no ground forces. Strictly air and naval forces and having a Chinese carrier in the mix would be a big game changer. Good sanity check on what this thread is (was) about. Time to reboot. Stay on target! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) It seems to be an American habit to underestimate their real and potential enemies. a full QUARTER of all US defense spending goes to the Navy, $150 billion every year. "As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners." - Sec Def Gates 2009 How is that underestimating naval threats? What would be an acceptable level of funding/ fleet size to you? Unfortunately, the fact that it was sunk by a cheap submarine was a bit of information about the future of naval warfare that we still haven't taken to heart. You and I are in total agreement here, the US still hasn't taken this to heart which is why the US has ONLY 75 Submarines active... you know, against china's ONE carrier. The US also has TWELVE Super Carriers and when the US gets the F-35B in a few years, even light carriers will have capitol ship firepower, not to mention that US Subs are the finest in the world, and the most modern. Some people are never happy unless the sky is falling every moment. Edited August 18, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 the only good thing that could come up from this carrier is a good PR platform... and make some "courtesy" visits here and there to show their new j-15 (when they'll be ready) can't wait to see something taking-off that deck! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Neo Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 HUmm what are the sprinklers for ?? they think it will make the deck grow :P Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 HUmm what are the sprinklers for ?? Washdown in the event of a chemical weapons attack. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Washdown in the event of a chemical weapons attack. Or a nuclear attack. The old Revell 45 RPM record about the USS Enterprise (send in the box top and $1.49 and you got the record) mentioned it. I was pretty amazed when I was 10 years old :) Also, something else to consider here regarding the Chinese carrier "threat" - the USN has 92+ years of experience in carrier aviation. China has about a year or a little more. Who do you think will come out on top? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Also, something else to consider here regarding the Chinese carrier "threat" - the USN has 92+ years of experience in carrier aviation. China has about a year or a little more. Who do you think will come out on top? That was noted earlier. Any nation with the financial means can easily purchase a shiny new carrier and some aircraft. Unless they plan on using these ships for "photo op" cruises similar to what another navy does (flying a few aircraft off in perfect weather, typically with a near empty flight deck), these guys have a decade or more before they will be anywhere close to the level of the USN. Not to say that the Chinese can't get there, they seem to be pretty good at setting priorities and doing whatever it takes to attain them. Until China / Russia / India, etc take a carrier task force far from home (which also requires a significant level of underway replenishment skills that have yet to be seen by these navies) and can demonstrate the ability to conduct sustained 24/7 flight ops using a complete air wing, under combat conditions, at night and in bad weather, these ships really don't mean much except for national prestige. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
4scourge7 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Concur with what TT said, just check the planned U.S. purchase of Arleigh Burkes alone, then compare it with ANYONE you may care to choose. It is the NATO partner nations that are not pulling their maritime weight, I`m ashamed to say. As for the sprinklers; yes NBC decontamination, but consider also foreign object clearing, fire suppression, and consider that several navies combine such systems to reduce thermal signature on large flat heat-reflective surfaces. Plenty reasons to suddenly want to get the deck wet. Cheers, Ian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rightwinger26 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 That's the flight deck AFFF, we have it as well, it's for fire suppression. I've only ever seen it set off on purpose during work ups, just check the system. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vince14 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 All China needs a carrier for is local force-projection. It doesn't need to be able to go toe-to-toe with the US military, it'll just keep on buying up foreign companies, debt, and countries until it is effectively the new top superpower. It already 'owns' large portions of sub-Saharan Africa (Hey Namibia, here's a squadron of F-7's. You don't really need them, but it'll make you look like a big man! Oh, we'll take all your mining interests as payment...) and is looking increasingly likely to step in and save Europe by buying it's debt. Trust me, in 30-50 years China will be the new Top Dog. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they got a human to Mars before the US do. Vince Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.