Talk:Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The name of this article needs to change as it is no longer the Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag but is now the "former Soviet aricraft carrier Varyag, now PLAN vessel of unknown name" The beginning of the article should be current and reflect Chinese military ownership of the vessel. --Devin
Indeed an interesting story! Any reports in what has happened since the beginning of November? --Anders Törlind
- I can't find any, which I find both surprising and frustrating. The hulk should be at the Suez canal by now, transit of which I would guess to be an operation almost as complex as the passage through Istanbul -- but I can't find anything!
One important fact that I didn't know where to put is that just because a tourist company is controlled by the PLAN doesn't mean that it isn't a real tourist company. The PLA ran a whole series of businesses in the 1990's. Most of those have been spun off.
- This fact seems to have been incorporated.
Personally, I think that the people who bought the carrier really do want to turn it into a floating casino. If the PLAN gets to look at it while it gets turned into a casino, so much the better.
- Where do you think they are they going to put it? (I'm not arguing, just wondering what you think.)
Something else that probably deserves mentioning is that in the late-1990's, a Chinese shipping company got a contract to salvage an Australian carrier, and reportedly, PLAN officers were all over the carrier as it was being disassembled.
- Get the details, create another article, add links!
Why is this article called Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag instead of Varyag?
- Because Varyag was to be a Kuznetsov-class multirole aircraft carrier. She was known as Riga when her keel was laid down at Nikolayev South (formerly Shipyard 444) on December 6, 1985, and she was launched on December 4, 1988, but she was renamed Varyag in late 1990.
In keeping with Wiki' naming convention shouldn't this be Varyag (Soviet aircraft carrier)? -- stewacide 07:25, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- No. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ship names. Mikkalai 07:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Cost
The 20 million figure must be wrong it is most likely 200 million or 2 billion because 20 million is less then a rich mans yacht costs Deng 2005-1130 17.25 CET
No, the price tag is correct if strategycenter.net, defense.mil, and globalsecurity.org reported the price tag as $20 million. (Psychoneko 02:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
- No way it's $2bil, Deng. That's much of the way to a brand new Nimitz. Even $200mil seems high. Keep in mind that we're mostly talking about a vehicle capable of doing nothing more but sailing to be scrapped. That rich man's yacht that you refer to would have functioning engines and radar. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 08:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For 20 mil, I think that's pretty darn cheap for a aircraft carrier. Yongke 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, $20 mil pretty much covered the costs of the Varyag's hull without any systems. The Varyag at the time of the sale was literally a floating piece of scrap metal. The other reason for the low price tag also has to do with the fact that the Varyag is considered to be a medium-weight carrier (roughly ~60,000 tons of displacement as opposed to the US Nimitz-class carriers of ~100,000 tons displacement). The tons of displacement refer to full-operational displacement. Fully outfitting the Varyag with propulsions and a full electronic and defensive suite would see an exponential increase on the price tag. (Psychoneko 08:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
[edit] removed operation statement
I left in the statement that the ship was painted grey but took out the statement about it confirming plans to make the ship operational by 2010.
Roadrunner 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citation for Varyag being used by the PLAN
Here is a link from strategycenter.net regarding the confirmation of the Varyag sporting PLAN navy grey colours: http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.97/pub_detail.asp (Psychoneko 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
Here's another strategycenter.net link for citation purposes: http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.87/pub_detail.asp (Psychoneko 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC))