Should china have a Amphibious helocarrier??

[lazzydigger]

http://img.news.tom.com/img/assets/200509/liangqi93.jpg

http://img.news.tom.com/img/assets/200509/050903093714liangqi932.jpg
http://ulinkdir.tom.com/newulink/ulink_06/army126_20050903110728.html (http://)

I think it could be what chinese Navy need before the real CV. It is cheap, versitile, highly deployeable with 365 day readiness.

What do you boy'gals think?
BTW, do we have any gals here? :D

[Gollevainen]

Actually we have now a separete world armed forces forum so i transfer this to there...

[lazzydigger]

I want to discuss the need and possibility of chinese navy to build something similar. Not to show case french army... shall we move it back to chinese navy or leave it here?

[Gollevainen]

Ok, but lets change the title, shall we...?

[MIGleader]

minsk+kiev=a perfect helicarrier...stocked up with missles!

[Gollevainen]

not even close to be adequate....
And the requirment calls for amphibious capapility (read: docking well)

[bd popeye]

I have always felt that the PLAN should start off with an LPH type ship. But an LHA/Lhd ship would be the best bet. If Korea can build one I know the PLAN can!

I think the FS Mistral design offers the best bet for the PLAN. Excellent ship with excellent capablities.

You fellows know about the S.Korean design?...Another excellent design. The ship was launched a couple of months ago. It will be fitted out in 2007.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/lp-x.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/images/lpx02.jpg

[lazzydigger]

minsk and kiev are out dated desgin and don't operate well in shallow water like taiwan strait. Cost to find power plant is another issue.

I agree with popeye, build a new one will not be difficult for china. It will offer a good test bed for Navy Aviation. A Command center and disembarktion point for landing operation. Maybe some a slight lager displacement than the french and similar flight deck of the S.Korean desgin. It is not a direct combat ship, so loads of Civil standard can be used too.

what did the Russions do with their Yaks? maybe navy can some some for cheap to carry out attacking role just like the seaharriers.

My 2 cents.

Lazzy digger

[Gollevainen]

what did the Russions do with their Yaks? maybe navy can some some for cheap to carry out attacking role just like the seaharriers.

Maybe if the yaks would have been capaple to do so in the first place but unfortunetly those birds were born completely useles as a warplanes rigth from the start.

The layout of the VSTOL mechanism in Yak-38 wasent the most sucsesfull one as the most playload were made by the lift engines thus limiting the weapons to few air-to-air missiles. But as they lacked any airdefence radar those missiles didnt make the plane as interceptor. Adding the lack of range and the unacceptable accident rate, those planes proven to be total nigthmere to Soviet Navy...

I have sometimes wondered why the Yakolev didnt came up whit the Yak-36 arrangment whit the VSTOL systems in the yak-38....it migth have proven more compact one...also shame that Yak-41 didnt catch any foreing 'salvators' back in the early 90's :confused:

[ger_mark]

whats going on with south korean navy?
so many helo carriers and frigates
in 2000 they just get 3 u209 class
and in 2 years they get another 3 u214

[Sczepan]

I want to discuss the need and possibility of chinese navy to build something similar. Not to show case french army... shall we move it back to chinese navy or leave it here?

well, let me repetit some old postings in the old forum; I postet:

1)
Chinese amphibious fleet ned air-superiority in landing operations, also to attack the enemy army; this only could be made by WZ (attack helos) and ground attack planes;
the amphibious fleet is defenceless, when the enemy use ground-attack fighters and/or attack-helos, so the fleet need to be protecded - min. by own (friendly) attack helos, which can fight
- air to air and
- air to ground

so min. attack-helos ar needed - now, pretty soon, urgent - as soon as possible and the helos, which could be transported by LSTs and LPDs first ar need to transport - not to fight;

as soon as possible means:
whenever China have there own attack-helos, they should use them to protect the amphibious fleet

in beaching operations a big ground-attack capacitiy and also air-to-air capacity (to fight against enemy-choppers like Cobra or Apache) additional is need urgly;

without wing planes - who had to use aircraft-carriers (minim. dimensions like the Varjag) - only helos could be used to do this job (and they ar better in helo dogfight), Helos have VSTOL and could start by small carriers; so lets additional to amphibious fleet use small helo carriers with arround 15- to 16.000 ts
Length 630 feet - 190 m
Beam arround 80 feet - 24 m
Draught 25 feet - 7,5 m
Flight Deck length 690 feet - 200 m
2 Lifts and Hangar down of Flight Deck
-> would be very useful ...

Yust for telling a number:
additional to 10 - 20 Large Landing Ships http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/amphibious/default.asp
one Helo-Carrier
each of these Helo Carriers carriing

3 Mi-28 HAVOC or WZ-10 when ready
10 Hind
some Z-8A army to support transport helos of landing ships...
and 2-3 small ground attack planes, if a catapult could be installed at the flight deck


2)
"out of aerea" the PLAN need to use helo-carriers to transport attack helos to the battle-field;
("out of aerea" to me means by attack-helos a distance of more than 150 km to next home airfield, if the helos should have enough time in the operational aerea
- the maximum speed of WZ-9 = 315km/h, this means 1/2 hour to run when they are needed
- the maxim. range of WZ 11 = 600 km, by a distance of 150 km half of the flight time is on the way in the operational aerea and back)
So in a landing-operation the helo carrier should stay up and down between 50 km and 150 km near the battle-field.

My 5 cents:
Attack Helos und Helo Carriers should be the next step in chinese amphibious fleet

and next i'd like to talk about the type of amphibious carrier:
design a new one or
redesign an new one by using some "blue prints" ?
Best and not expansive way is to copy a preety good practical design, use it and make it better (lerning by doing) step for step .... so i would say:
3)
Chinese shipbuilders only studied Melbourne, Kiew-/Minsk and the Varjag-Class, so they could copy this kind of ships;
Melbourne was finally broken up at the northern Chinese port of Dalian, but apparently not before close study by PLAN.
On 13 January 2001, the online Australian magazine of Melbourne "The Age.com.au" indicated that China has been using the flight deck of the former Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne to train its pilots ahead of the launch of its first locally-made aircraft carrier.
Source:
www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/08/1015365740258.html
www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/MAJESTIC.html
The Hangar of that ship was height: 17 'ft (5,18 Meter)
the Elevator was 13,7 m x 10,4 m
(diametral lengh = 17 m by forming a "x")
the catapult launched planes in a weight of < 12.000 kg, which is usable by chinese trainers like
- the JL-9, also known as FTC-2000 Mountain Eagle (ShanYing), an tandem two-seat, single-engine advanced jet training aircraft which is capable of carrying 2,000kg weapon payloads such as short-range air-to-air missiles and rocket launders and bombs. Fixed weapon includes a 23mm cannon
- L-15 advanced lead-in-fighter-trainer, max take-off 9,500kg, The aircraft also has six (four under-wing and two wingtip) pylons to carry various air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. If necessary, it can serve for lightweight attack role with little, if any, modification.

4) cralw, walk, run,
the Melbourne Class (or better a derivat of this ship) is
- small enough to start experience without wast of money if the first trainee-ship is useless
- small enough to build 3 or 4 of them, which made an powerful amphibious support fleet- and it's not the big problem, if one of these carriers will be missed in action
- big enough to transport and use a number of attack helos and ground attack planes,
- big enough to be used by JL-9/FTC-2000 ADVANCED JET TRAINER to trainee carrier-pilots and to carry air-to-air and ground attack weapons to perform certain combat missions.
- big enough to start test program (touch and go) by using Jets like the J 10 or FC 1

si I'd like to vote
1) build amphibious carriers to support the amphibius fleet
2) by all landing operations which are distanced more as 150 km to the next home airfield
3) redesign the Melbourne and
4) fit it with catapult to be used by light trainers and attack aircrafts lie the JL-9 or / and L-15 to trainee new pilots on first carrier-steps and to make a local air-shield in the amphibious fleet (which could be also made when the carrier is absence).
By using these Melbourn derivat as trainee-and amphibious carrier, the Varjag is free to do other jobs ....

[bd popeye]

I'll vote..the PLAN should build it's own LPH type ship. Fit out the Varyag and use it . At first for training then for real operations..as an LPH tpye ship or a hybird LPH..It has no docking well :o

lazydigger the Melbourne was scrapped except for the flight deck. Which was removed and adledgely used to practice carrier landings.

[MIGleader]

the chinese can still build a light carrier similar to melborne. but why would you want to train wit catapults if you are going to use the ski-jump in real combat?

[ger_mark]

roday they said they found a compromis in textile import question

[MIGleader]

wrong thread?

[Sczepan]

the chinese can still build a light carrier similar to melborne. but why would you want to train wit catapults if you are going to use the ski-jump in real combat?
The aircraft taking of from the ski-jump needs power-to-weight-ratio to be over 1. Thats limits greatly the suitable planes and their capapilityes. SU-30 wouldn't be able to use it's prominent Air-to-groud ordnance and not able to carry so much fuel that orginal two-seat flanker concept.
The planes cannot use their maxium playload by ski-jump...they are limited in weight (in relations to there engines) and so limited in payload.
The catapult will boost additional start power, and so there could start planes with smaller engines (like Turboprop AWACS - see Skyhawk - or the fighters could use there maximal payload.

[bd popeye]

the chinese can still build a light carrier similar to melborne. but why would you want to train wit catapults if you are going to use the ski-jump in real combat?

MIGleader. The hardest part of carrier operations is making arrested landings. Espically at night. That is the main thinkg the PLAN pilots would need to be profiecent at. Using catapults to launch aircraft is really no be big deal..

[sumdud]

Are we even sure that China is going to use the STOBAR?

But I too think that China should build a LPH first.

As for the Korean one, the picture, why is there a CIWS in the front? :confused:

[Gollevainen]

As for the Korean one, the picture, why is there a CIWS in the front?

to assure skeptic politics that it has nothing to do whit aircrafts :D

[MIGleader]

to defend the ship and not waste space on the main deck.