All About The Chinese Aircraft Carrier Thread

[Jeff Head]

Absolutely spot on. An actual conflict between the USN an PLAN is unnecessary in this case, just the perceived threat will be enough.One interesting thing will be to see where CVN-78 is stationed when it is commissioned.

Right now, the George H. W. Bush (CZVN-77) is scheduled to come on line when the Kitty Hawk is decommissioned in 2008 (although there is a good possibility that the JFK will go earlier than currently scheduled). Then CVN-78 follows in 2013 when the Old Gray Lady of the Sea, CVN-65, the USS Enterprise is decommissioned (after 52 years service). As I said, the status of the JFK could change what gets decommissioned when).

I would not be surprised to see some shuffling so that the new, most modern and capable carrier, CVN-78, when it comes online, goes to the Pacific for just the reasons we are discussing.

[Obi Wan Russell]

I heard there are moves afoot in Congress to have CVN-78 named USS Gerald Ford, after Nixon's successor. Not the most distinguished of US Presidents, have you run out of distinguished ones already? The debate over warship names has been bubbling away this side of the pond for a while now, as sailors seem to prefer ship names that have a fighting feel to them. I am disappointed with the choices for the RNs new CVFs (HMS Queen Elizabeth, which sounds like a cruise liner, and HMS Prince of Wales, the previous holder of that name being an unlucky ship that was lost after nine months service). I'm in favour of continuing to use names with a proud history, not politically popular-for-a-while names that inspire fear in no one.

[Jeff Head]

I heard there are moves afoot in Congress to have CVN-78 named USS Gerald Ford, after Nixon's successor.I hope not. I would prefer a new USS Enterprise, to replace the one they may be have just decommissioned/stricken, continuing in the rich tradition of that history. Probably have to wait for CVN-79 or CVN-0 for a chance at that though.
I'm in favour of continuing to use names with a proud history, not politically popular-for-a-while names that inspire fear in no one.I believe the USS Ronald Reagan was a good pick. Perhaps the UK should have an HMS Margaret Thatcher?

As it is, and as regards this thread, I will be interested in seeing what the PLAN christens the refurbished Varyag should they launch and commission her, and what they will name their own indiginous carriers one day. Will the Varyag be the 83 Shi Lang?

[Obi Wan Russell]

A new USS Enterprise would get my vote too. There are certain names that manage to 'stand out from the crowd' with regard to ship names, any navy with a proud heritage will have a few names that hold a special place in the nations affections. Enterprise rises to the top of the list for America (although I'm sure we could all think of a dozen or so contenders for second place), on this side of the pond Ark Royal holds similar meaning for us. I would like to see CVF 02 renamed Ark Royal in order to continue the tradition and she will also be the replacement for the current Ark.
I know Maggie was very popular with you guys but half of us would gladly see her hung for treason; her government destroyed more of British Industry than Hitler ever did and remember, prior to the Falklands war her government was poised to practically disband the Royal Navy. A strong leader yes, but far from universally popular.
I would also like to see CVF 01 given a more suitable name, Formidable, Leviathan, Glorious, Valiant, or even Invincible, which will be available again by the time she enters service. Something that embodies the fighting traditions of the RN, not something that makes you think of a caribbean cruise on a Cunarder!
As for the new name of the Varyag, perhaps a chinese name that translates as "See! Told you we could do it!"

[zyun8288]

Absolutely spot on. I would add that the smarter members of the US defence establishment will actually welcome the PLAN build up and the first (probably of several) Chinese carrier strike group(s) as it will be further justification for the retention of US CSGs. The best friend of any military is it's potential adversary, eg the USN can thank North Korea for proving the worth of Naval aviation in the 1950-53 conflict and the Royal Navy has Argentina to thank for saving it from extinction in 1982. An actual conflict between the USN an PLAN is unnecessary in this case, just the perceived threat will be enough. I'm not for a moment suggesting that there is any real possibility of the US disbanding its' carrier force, but force levels have been downsized significantly in the last decade and if you can trust politicians to do anything, bet on stupidity.

:roll: Absolutely correct. It's the same reason why both China and US will make sure that Taiwan (and some other spots) Straight is as hot as it can be without actually exploding. It gets everybody employeed! If it's too cold, US will add some arsenal and China will send some missiles or planes crossing the lines. If it's too hot, US will slap Taiwan's face. Status quo is the best for everyone, except Taiwan.

[Obi Wan Russell]

You Know too much! CIA will be paying you visit in the middle of the night for 'spilling the beans'....
Actually I think it's high time the CIA were renamed the CLIA, Central LACK of Intelligence Agency.

[Jeff Head]

I would like to see CVF 02 renamed Ark Royal in order to continue the tradition and she will also be the replacement for the current Ark. I would also like to see CVF 01 given a more suitable name, Formidable, Leviathan, Glorious, Valiant, or even Invincible, which will be available again by the time she enters service. Something that embodies the fighting traditions of the RN, not something that makes you think of a caribbean cruise on a Cunarder!I would glady see a new HMS Ark Royal and Invinsible and agree with you entirely on that score. I understand the misgivings for Thatcher and you are certainly right in her governments initial plans for the Royal Navy...afterall, it was those pans that put them in such a dire pickle at the outset of the Falklands war...although I believe she ultimately found herself on that score, or perhaps more properly was forced too...I can understand why her earlier actions in that regards would give significant and understandable pause.

Perhaps the Chinese will have a Beijing for their first indiginous carrier...after they launch and learn from whatever they name the Varyag.

[Obi Wan Russell]

I think the Chinese (and everyone else building carriers) should bear in mind when choosing names for carriers that most people will hear these names on the news frequently, so you want to send the right message in that name. Something that conveys conveys national pride of course, but tempered with the wisdom not to use it aggressively (ie we are strong but peaceful) as well as a sense of 'if you provoke us we will respond professionally, competantly and overwhelmingly'. In the American context, names like Nimitz (US commander in the Pacific during WW2) John F Kennedy, Eisenhower, Abe Lincoln, George Washington etc certainly do this, I've covered British names earlier, while the French have the Charles de Gaulle (guy with a big nose and an attitude problem, unquestionably French!)(I liked him, by the way before anyone complains).
The name of CVN 78 will be the most important name in the USN in the last forty years and also over the next fifty as she will be the name ship of the first new class of carriers in four decades, which is why I think we would all agree USS Gerald Ford would not be the best choice. Think about it, twenty years from now, a news report would sound something like this:
"Tensions increased today in the ongoing crisis around the breakaway republic of Hawaii which declared independence from the USA last week in a dispute over re-runs of Magnum P.I.. The Navy is sending the Gerald Ford to deal with the rebels..." oh dear, not very reassuring is it?
Call her Enterprise, you know it makes sense.

[FuManChu]

How about naming them after mountains, much like the JMSDF do in regards to their newest destroyers? That would be a really nice way to name carriers and keeps the politics out of it.

Huang Shan sounds like a really good name for China's first carrier, IMHO.

[yoda9999]

I wonder if China can rent some training time on the Kuznetsov? I mean, the Russian Navy is so strapped for cash, they could turn carrier training into a business. That way China will have some carrier trained pilots and crew ready as soon as their first ships sail.

I think China should have at least 1 carrier if anything for training and research to truly see if it needs it and if it can support it. I think China should mainly use its carrier to protect its oil tankers going to and from the Persian Gulf or South America.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Unless China and Russia have a serious falling out in the next few years, I would say it was very probable that Chinese pilots will qualify for deck ops on the Kuznetzov. They may also rent some training time at the Former Soviet Navy training facility in the Ukraine which has a fully operational dummy deck. Currently the Ukrainians are renting it back to Russia, but may decide to increase the revenue by enlarging their customer base. Moutain ranges as a source of names? I think that's a great idea, large, immovable and majestic.

[adeptitus]

How about naming them after mountains, much like the JMSDF do in regards to their newest destroyers? That would be a really nice way to name carriers and keeps the politics out of it.

Huang Shan sounds like a really good name for China's first carrier, IMHO.

I think, if we look at history of PLAN ship names, it's usually geographic names of regions or cities. I find it funny that the ships are usually named after LAND areas instead of WATER areas (i.e. lake/river names).

[yoda9999]

I think, if we look at history of PLAN ship names, it's usually geographic names of regions or cities. I find it funny that the ships are usually named after LAND areas instead of WATER areas (i.e. lake/river names).

Well, US vessels are often names of places like states and cities. I think names of places can tie the people of that place to the ship. Each region or city has their own adopted ship. If a ship is sunk, its like that place took a hit, too. Makes everyone feel like they're in the war effort. The names unify the civilian population. :)

[Obi Wan Russell]

Well, US vessels are often names of places like states and cities. I think names of places can tie the people of that place to the ship. Each region or city has their own adopted ship. If a ship is sunk, its like that place took a hit, too. Makes everyone feel like they're in the war effort. The names unify the civilian population. :)
Quite so. Royal Navy ships have maintained this tradition for a long time, for example the last three Ark Royals have had a strong association with the city of Leeds, which raised the £9million for the construction of the fourth vessel of that name in 1942, and still grants the freedom of the city (ie the right to march through the city with bayonnets fixed, a great honour) to the current Ark. Ships which are not named after specific places can be adopted by whoever gets there first, so if Varyag is not renamed after a city or town, it will be interesting to see who wins the race to adopt her. Anyone care to place a bet?:china: :confused:

[BrightAsSun]

Good, good. I finally have a great place to stay after a reknown military forum goes to her destiny.

Now lets back to the topic.

I am very worry on PLAN to develop a combat-winged aircraft carrier. I have several reasons to worry on.

1. PLAN Does Not have the sea-geography advantages to operate such a monstrous ship. Here is one of my points for this paragrph. Examine the map. You would immideatly notice there are too many chock-points for PLAN to access the open seas. There is no way for PLAN to pass those chock-points in the war times, except destroying Japanese and ROC Navy. And it will not be enough to destroy the both parties' navies. It is because no ships in this modern time can take one hit of land-based anti-ship missile. So, if PLAN needs to move into the open seas, which are the area the aircraft carriers can exercise their weaponry, PLA will need to defeat Japan, ROC, and Russia as well. And maybe we need to count Vietname and Philipin in as well.

Now we talk about the second point in this paragrph. I can't help notice the Chinese territory waters are too shallow. Shallow waters are for subs and mines. You don't want to run your mothership in any of them.

2. China doesn't have such economy to run a formidable carrier fleet against the USN. I am only saying the exsisting USN surface ships& subs, so I haven't including in its 12 biggest-in-the-world carriers, ok?

I am not saying the bigger the better. I am saying a US carrier carriespprox. +60 combat aircrafts. I am saying the US can overrun PLAN carrier with fighter jets. Once China's carrier-wings got overran, the carrier is an oil tanker. And all the fleet lost air-support immideatly, which was very important in modern naval warfare. All those Chinese beautiful modern warships will be in risks. We are talking about risking 35 years Chinese military budge, and pride. You don't want to sing the songs about 北海軍 again.

3. China doesn't have the technologies and logistic to operate a Carrier fleet. Everybody knows the powers of the World struggle to use their carriers. I mean they learn lessons wars after wars, missions after missions. They investing years and money to keep their carriers safe. They developed all these ships, aircrafts, and equipment to protect the little numbers of their carriers. China can't catch up on that. How many wars you would like to encounter to perfect your Carrier fleet(s)? And lease don't tell something like Great Leap.

Conclusion:

I really think China shouldn't get any combat carrier. I already stated 3 points.

PLAN should still abide with their heritage, which is hit-and-run. I really like the way PLAN fought. You guys never surrender, hit and run, and something is really deciesive, you come with overwhelming numbers like ghosts.

Don't be ashame. Every country on earth fought this way. And until today, the U.S., and English fight a dirty fight like this.

So I say really. Please don't waste money on the carriers. Carriers are soon going to join their former successors -the battleships-.

We don't want to be a superpower, ok? Just everybody gets a seat watching TV on the World blowing around us.

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** *****

BrightASsun those type of inflamatory comments are not allowed in this forum.

bd popeye moderator

We save the resource for a better cause, right comarads?

We only need to devote the carrier-building resources on perfecting 4 SSBNs, which are running by the volunteers, and peace for 150 years should be no problem. And It would cost about less than US $150 millions to maintain and operate 4 best SSBNs for 150 years.

Remeber what our ancestors say about Exercising The Force; - 武以止戈. right?

[Roger604]

The current development of a carrier force is in anticipation of a resolution of the Taiwan problem (most likely peacefully) and a build up of airpower, surface and subsurface combatants that can control the seas around China beyond the first island chain (Okinawa, Ryukyu islands, Spratlys).

Until then, obviously a carrier is useless in wartime. But you have to get started 10 years early.

[Obi Wan Russell]

The arguments given by BrightAsSun against operating carriers are applicable to all types of warship operated by the PLAN. So you are saying that because geography is against you, the PLAN should be immediately disbanded (yes that is what you are saying, destroyers and frigates are even more vulnerable than carriers as they cannot provide their own air cover and thus have a much smaller defensive perimeter).
China doesn't have the economy to operate large ships like this? Excuse me, are we talking about the same China? The worlds second largest superpower? The same country that manufactures a lot of the basic components for everyone elses technologies?
Yes it does take a long time to accumulate the skills and knowledge to operate an aircraft carrier, but most of the hard work has been done. When China bought the Varyag she got most of this know how handed to her on a plate (angled deck, arresting gear, Ski jump, aircraft lifts etc) along with the knowledge that the design does work. Varyag is the second ship of the class, the Russian Kuznetzov has already proved the concept. Logistical support for the Varyag at sea? Pretty much the same requirements as for any warship at sea. If you can't re supply a carrier at sea, you can't do that for destroyers and frigates either.
Once again, to all those who say China won't make the Varyag operational, take a look at the evidence; you don't spend the amount of money they have already spent (purchase price approx $20million, towage costs from Ukraine to China $30+million, plus whatever they are spending on her refit RIGHT NOW) if you are going to just throw the ship away, turn her into an amusement park or a casino. Look at the pictures posted on this forum, the PLAN obviously disagrees with the naysayers and is looking forward to commissioning her in the next couple of years.
Just because you can't match the size of the USN now is no reason not to try, China is playing the long game here. They have described the 21st century as the century of the sea, or words to that effect, so they are in no hurry to complete the build up. Most observers discount Chinese carrier plans because they will not produce a sizeable force in the next five or ten years, but they are on a different timescale to that. Twenty, thirty, even forty years from now is where they are looking to, and so should we.

[Turanian]

I am very worry on PLAN to develop a combat-winged aircraft carrier. I have several reasons to worry on.

Roger and Obi Wan provided good counter arguments but I'd like to add these:

1. PLAN probably wouldn't be going head-on with vulnerable surface fleet against the enemy in the scenario you described. More likely missiles, airpower and subs would be used to counter enemy fleets. But strong enough surface fleet could be useful in such scenario as desribed by Fleet-in-being doctrine.

And as for deep water port with open seas access, I wouldn't be surprised if China is already looking for naval bases abroad, in Pakistan perhaps?

2. and 3. China may have aspirations to match USN in the future but that may take 50 or 100 years. For now and for the unforeseeable future USN continues to rule the seas. I don't believe PLN would try to challenge that dominance in open seas with Varyag or anything coming directly after Varyag.

It is not just about having equal amount of firepower and tonnage at seas, you also need to build a naval military tradition. For that you need to start somewhere and Varyag seems good enough starting point.

I can see two reasons for China to have carrier fleet(s) in the near future:
a) prestige value for a great power
b) the ability to project power to protect and promote Chinese interest abroad (pressure Taiwan, protect strategic resources imports, etc).

[Obi Wan Russell]

If you build your navy around cruisers, destroyers and frigates, there is always the probability that someone else with a similar fleet composition will gamble their fleet can defeat yours. If you have a Carrier based fleet, deterrence plays a much larger part as the fleet on fleet imbalance becomes too great. Having a Carrier based fleet allows you to fight your next war on someone elses doorstep rather than your own. I believe this lesson has been learned by the PLAN, that you can have the biggest army and the biggest air force, but without the ability to project power overseas (Carriers) your army and airforce will fight the next war on your own soil.
Think about it, when was the last time anyone fought a war on American soil? or British for that matter. Carriers allow you to move your nation's defensive perimeter thousands of miles away from your own shores... right up to the edge of someone elses shores. And that will always make them think twice before attacking you.
Just as SSBNs are the ultimate nuclear deterrant, Carriers are the most potent conventional deterrant. If someone starts 'rattling sabres', you just park a carrier strike group off their shores for a 'friendly visit' and this will remind them that actions have consequences. The USN has been doing this for years, and the British used to do it a lot too when we had a CV force in the 50's and 60's. In 1961 HMS Victorious and the commando carrier HMS Bulwark were moved to the Persian gulf to deter the Iraqi regime from invading Kuwait... and war was averted. Funny how history has a habit of repeating itself, but I digress. In 1982, four years after Britain's last conventional CV had been decommissioned the Argentine Junta thought that Britain no longer possessed the required naval forces to retake the Falklands (in those days everyone dismissed the Harrier as a toy) and they had to learn the value of Aircraft Carriers the hard way. China appears to have taken all these lessons on board without firing a shot.

[BrightAsSun]

nah. The carrier fleets just drain too much resources of China at this time being. And it is very inhumane to own them.

Think about the oils you need for them. And the maintaince fees, operational fees for machines(jets, ships, ammos), then you pay crews(highly professionals on career leases). All these money, can China pay? This is just one point about the money matters.

Now we discuss about resources. So far I have learnt China has very few metal mines, and she only has less than 5 oil platforms. 1 of the main platforms(ps. not operational) is in inner China; so good! She has something to depend on. But how is China going to protect 4 others on the outer and disputed seas. So sorry man, a country relys heavly on the import raw materials is never going to match on God-blessed America.

We were talking about the praticle applications. Now we talk about morals.

If China will suspend such Carrier-fleets ambition, all the resources strip from the program can use to benifit the socieities.

Firstly, China can do good to herself, such as building more parks, which are benificial for every age and whoever lives around them. Or providing free education to everybody( You know those free textbooks, lunch, meals for the young people live in dorms and free dorm living). Or free housings, hydro bills, tv cables, internet access, welfare system. And why not on free and better medical care?
(ps. My dream is to transform the deserts in China to grass lands.)

Secondly, China can spread all those funds for Plastineans refuge camps, or Afarican hunger programs, international foster-children programs. And maybe some kids in Amazon Jungle want to get GameboyTM, or eat chinese food instead of eating each others.

Then maybe China one day gets religious, then free Bible and Qurans in tje langfuages for everyone. Perhaps build tons of free YMCA and to fund missionary programs.

Why waste money on useless carriers, when we can just operate a few SSBNs which will surely scare every war monger away? And a SSBN is taking way too less money than a carrier to operate. I think you just need to pay the foods for crews. The Air-condition bills that keep the missiles cool and the crew comfortable, are already on the once-for-all nuclear reactor bills.

And when somebody take the gesture for war on China, China just need to drive a ....hehehe... Romeo sub to the edge of the enemy territorial water, whichever is next to the enemy's capital. I think that will cool a lot of things down. If the dummy sub got stroke, which means you just not going to get away without a war inivitable. There is nothing every intelligent human being can do, but to lauch the real nukes to settle the matter once for all. Unless somebody wants to back down though. It will just take about US$ 100.00 to empty the nuclear arsenal on a SSBN in the matter of 15 minutes, then the cheerful crews can head home in "light-speed" for the New Year. What is the point of wasting $500,000 to mobile 20 surfcae ships thousand miles from home, then fly all those dink-dong jets around a hostile zone? I said &500,000 was for fule&ammos money for those vulunrable jets that flying around enemy's SAMs. I hadn't count in the operation fees for the entire fleet(s). Not to mention, the maintaince fees(shit-cleaning fees) for every combatants that practiced such mission.

So give up building carriers.

[Jeff Head]

So give up building carriers..I will tell you the same thing in response to this that Thomas Paine told people in his day when it was sugested that they all give up their arms to make a more peaceful world.

"The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, we dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."

I believe, for all the reasons discussed here, and particulalry for those reasons so eloquently explained by Obi Wan, that the PLAN will develop a carrier force.

But history will be the final arbitrator of this discussion.

[Obi Wan Russell]

BrightAsSun; You're Arguments concerning resources and morality are not specifically anti carrier arguments, they are arguments against china having any weapons at all. Japan has no natural resources at all but that didn't stop them building one of the most effective Carrier forces in the world prior to WW2, one that came perilously close to defeating the USA at the battle of Midway. It isn't us on this forum you have to convince (and you'll have to do a lot better than that!) it's the leadership of the PLAN; some how I think you'll be even less successful there too. Without a carrier arm the chinese navy would be defenceless beyond its own coastal waters, and sending a sub to someone elses doorstep will not have any deterrant value as that sub will have to remain hidden to be effective. A carrier group will be very visibly 'in your face' and thus achieves deterrance without firing a shot. You don't know the sub is there until it has sunk something, by which time you have a shooting war on your hands. Most of the worlds navies are geared towards Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) but few if any possess adequate forces to repel a Carrier Strike Group.
SSBNs deter nuclear war, nothing else. When opposing forces possess them they effectivley cancel each other out through being too terrible to contemplate using. You can't win a nuclear war, but you can win a conventional one (at a terrible and bloody price, unfortunately) if you have superior forces to your adversaries. A Carrier will soak up the same resources as four or five destroyers, but it will give you firepower far beyond anything those five DDGs could provide and thus the carrier is cost effective as a weapon system. A carrier gives your country political leverage in peacetime, through its sheer presence whereas a sub is only of value once the shooting has started due to it's need to remain invisible.
I'm quite prepared to debate this subject with anyone who puts forward a cohesive and well thought out argument, but if all you have to offer is "I don't like carriers so therefore we shouldn't build them" then perhaps this forum is not for you. The anti-carrier faction worldwide has known for decades that they can't defeat carriers in combat, so they try to sink them with words. That sort of thing has only worked once, when Denis Healy was British Defence minister in 1966 but he was a clown by his own admission and sanity eventually prevailled (too late for the conventional CV force, sadly).
Finally, I agree with Jeff Head; You either have no weapons at all (and leave yourself vulnerable to attack, a situation China has found itself in many times in the past) or you have the best defence you can provide for your self. All the evidence is that China has chosen the latter path.

[BrightAsSun]

As far as I know, a combat-winged aircraft carrier is for high sea engagements. Althought the carrier is the primal combatant in the modern warfare, it still has to remain "invisible" from the enemy detections. If the carrier gets located, the battle is supposedly over. The whole Carrier Battle Group needs to retreat about 500 natical miles, then re-establish the safety perimeters.

But an Armada Fleet is never in this case. The Armada fleet is build for meele. Such a fleet just fights its way in the path of blood and fires and never intents to have a ship goes home. This is what a carrier fleet cannot do. At least the carrier needs to go back unscratched for the next fight. But how is it going to do that when its escorts all sunk?

So I made two points above for PLAN.
1. PLAN has no such geography for operating a carrier. Even though PLAN finally gets its deep-water port by lease and by begging in Pakistan. It is not a permament foothold. And what is one pathetic base going to do? It is a FIXED TARGET! One fixed target to be surrounded and overwhelmed. And what if the enemies comes from the inner land; say mad Pakistains finally found out they are not getting their 72 virgins in the paradise? The good PLAN fleet would be captured.

2. PLAN has no such escorts for carriers. That sums it all.

So don't you tell me about building a naval trandition or taiwan resolution and that sort of things. What is naval tranditions going to do in a fight? I haven't figured out what naval tradtion is going to do in a naval fight. Is it what is suppose to do like the joke below?

PLAN skipper: Admiral! I got a slavo of missiles flying toward my ship. Absoring impacts in 15 seconds. Awaiting to Admiral's order, sir!

PLAN Admiral: We are China-a-Man. We don't run from attacks. Steady the course and absord the impacts.

PLAN skipper: Aye sir! China-a-Man runs not from attacks.



I figured that is so far a tradition going to do.

Now this is going to ramblings. So I will just post all I get here.

[bd popeye]

BrightasSun sez;
Why waste money on useless carriers, when we can just operate a few SSBNs which will surely scare every war monger away? And a SSBN is taking way too less money than a carrier to operate.

Really? I know a sonar tech on active duty that once told me the best place for those nuke boats the PLAN has is in port.

It will just take about US$ 100.00 to empty the nuclear arsenal on a SSBN in the matter of 15 minutes, then the cheerful crews can head home in "light-speed" for the New Year

How is that boat going to get that close to say the US west coast without being detecded? Once the PLAN puts to sea a SSBN it will be tracked every step of the way.

I agree with Obi wan that a CV is the best way to project power. Many of his points I have already made in my many post in the last year.

Imagine the good will the PRC would have built if after the Tsnami in Dec 2004 they had a CV/LPH they could have sent for the relief effort loaded with helos and humanitarian aid. But they could only sit back and watch other nations provide the airlift need during that time of disaster.

[Jeff Head]

But an Armada Fleet is never in this case. The Armada fleet is build for meele. Such a fleet just fights its way in the path of blood and fires and never intents to have a ship goes home. This is what a carrier fleet cannot do. At least the carrier needs to go back unscratched for the next fight. But how is it going to do that when its escorts all sunk?.You are basically proposing a tactic that calls for everyone in the "Armada Fleet", which I take to mean a Surface Action Group, perhaps with some subs thrown in, to sacrifice themselves and get themsleves all killed in an attempt to get at the Carrier Strike Group, or other SAG, and destroy it. The Soviets tended towards this doctrine.

Problem is, as the Japanes found out in World War II, it does not work. A carrier strike group is much more capable of either avoiding such a confrontation if it so chooses,, defending itself against such an attempt, or engaging such an attempt and defeating it because of its naval air arm which can reach further, and see futher than the Armada Fleet's detection device or weapons. A carrier is only out of the fight if it is located when the enemy has something that can reach to where the carrier is (or was when they last saw it) and then defeat the carrier strike groups ample and very effective anti-surface, anti-submarine, and anti-air defensive systems in depth.

That is a nut people have been wanting and trying to crack for the last 64+ years...and noone has done so yet. The result reamins that a nation with multiple carrier strike groups has the ability to project its power and defend its interests globally better than any nation that does not.

Again, because of this, I expect the Chinese to develop a carrier capability, and probably, before it is all said and done, they will have the resource to develop a capability that is second only to the US in the regard in the next 20 years.

[Obi Wan Russell]

China has plenty of deep water ports, otherwise they wouldn't be able to dock anything bigger than a corvette or a fishing boat. In times of tension, if you think an attack is likely you start sending your fleet to sea; the Kriegsmarine did this in 1939 in the weeks before war broke out. Their geography was arguably even worse than China's as all their exits to the open ocean were guarded by the Royal Navy. You ask what good building a naval tradition is in a fight? Build the right one and you avoid a fight in the first place, which is the ultimate objective of any countries' armed forces.
As for the lack of Carrier escorts, I could have sworn I'd seen pictures on this forum and elsewhere of the PLANs very modern destroyers and frigates, the sovremnys, the type 051s, 052As, Bs and Cs etc. In any Carrier based Navy these vessels would be ideally suited to the Carrier escort role, what do you think a carrier escort is exactly? Something other than a DDG or an FFG? All such vessels are capable of independant ops or fleet ops just like their western counterparts, and your prediction of a PLAN admirals behaviour whist under missile attack is frankly insulting to sailors everywhere.
All land bases are fixed targets, so all land based forces should be disbanded according to your argument. Fine, you can save money by not having to pay for the PLA or the PLAAF.
We are talking about building a strong defence posture so that China will not have to get involved in a shooting war, and will be able to take it's rightful place amongst the great powers of the UN when natural disasters (eg the aforementioned Tsunami) strike.

[jackbh]

Here is a picture of a Chinese carrier I found on sina.com
http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/upload/120/5170/20060804/2388/477724/477724.jpg
http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/upload/120/5170/20060804/2388/477724/477725.jpg
The twin hall design looks interesting.

[Obi Wan Russell]

It's a fascinating design... I'm sure I saw something similar in an episode of Thunderbirds when I was a kid! I think it'll be a couple of decades before something like this will be seen patrolling the worlds oceans, but in this case I'd love to be proved wrong.

[bd popeye]

That's a new one...:confused:

Interesting design...The double hull is for stablity...But that ship is so huge in it's appearence. Must be over 100 meters wide. I would like to know the proposed demensions. And could you post a link?

Obi -Wan..The Thunderbirds? Oh my! You mean those marionettes? I loved the models they used in that show...

Dinner time!

[jackbh]

It says on the rendering that it's 350 meters long, so by the dimension of the rendering it's probably not 100 meters wide. Also it says it's abount 68000 tons with nuclear power plants that carries around 70 planes including jets, awacs, and helos.

[bd popeye]

Thanks Jack!

100 meters wide? That's wider than a USN CVN by about 17 meters...

Well now I have a collection of drawings of possible PLAN CV's. Are any of them anything but someones wet dream? Only the future will tell....

My Chinese CV drawings collection.....I'm sure you have seen most of them!

[BrightAsSun]

Of course China has standby deep-water ports. The problem is really not on building ports according to China's labour power. The problems are to operate and maintain the ships. Take it this way. Building ships is a matter, but mobilizing the ships is another matter. Be patient with me, I'll explain.

I oppose China to have military carriers are based on 2 major reasons. The first reason is on economy basis. China is not filthy rich, therefore it cannot recover itself when the carrier-draw-backs come to the surface. The carrier-draw-backs could be no aduquent money to train and pay the professional carrier-wings, no sufficient money to maintain the carrier hardwares & structures, no money at all to dispatch the carrier from the port, etc.

no aduqent money to train the professional carrier-wings:
Which means inexperient pilots crash on the deck, don't know the sepecific techniques on using naval-versioned aircraft arsenal. Those in fact are good signs, because these are pariotic young people joining in with little wages offered to them. And the government couldn't afford to give them enough real high-sea exercises, and let them launch real weapons on the expensive targets such as drones and dummy ship

Now the next is the bad case. The government is not able to pay the pilots with "reasonable" wages, then nobody is willing to take such dangerous job with little money. The only ones who takes such jobs are geeky virgin fly-sim lovers. Or the people couldn't find a job in the civilian society. Or their parents want them to join, because it brings big honour to the family. These people defect to the enemies easily, or behave irregulaly. They are not pariotic. They just do this job to survive. And only the armed force will take them in, since no elites of the society will join the armed force.

no sufficient money to maintain the carrier hardwares & structures:
The carrier is not a water dam. This steel-floating-airport gets all these electronic wires and computers. And there is the internal hull and external hull to look after. The military carrier is not your automobile in the garage. It's a warship which determines the outcome of a war. You want this babe in good conditions all the time.

no money at all to dispatch the carrier from the port
Why Russians don't sail the carriers to protect their SSBNs as usual?



My second major argument to oppose China to pursue the Carrier Ambition. The argument is based on the moral high ground. ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** *****************

WARNING ISSUED TO BrightAssun. I told you previously that remarks that are insulting to any group or country are not permitted. You have been warned! You also need to tone down the political retoric. Read the forum rules.

bd popeye moderator

Conclusion:
I would like to see China turns out to be a swiss-like nation instead the so-called the world's major power. If it is possible, China could just give up its status of the Permanment Member of the United Nation Security Council. Why takes the crown of thorn, when the people who cast it away are living better than you?

[Finn McCool]

Carriers are indeed expensive, but are necessary for a Navy that serves a nation as large as China. By taking on those expenses, China proves it is indeed a naval power.

About carrier names-I would suggest something from China's imperial past. A good one would be the Koxinga. He fought against foreign invaders and was primarily sea-based. However, he also created the original Taiwan issue, back in the 1600s. :D Another one would be the Zheng He, or the Sun Zi. Each ship could be named after a dynasty. The PLAN could even name it the Great Wall. Or it could just be named the Mao!

[netspider]

Conclusion:
I would like to see China turns out to be a swiss-like nation instead the so-called the world's major power. If it is possible, China could just give up its status of the Permanment Member of the United Nation Security Council. Why takes the crown of thorn, when the people who cast it away are living better than you?

This is really absurd. Countries like India, Germany and Japan are dreaming of becoming the permanment menber of the UN Security Council, and we have a man here want China to give up its membership.

These days, countries like US, Russia and China they all have their global interests, and their army should not only protect their homeland security but also their global interests. You seems to still think in an old way in which countries as big as China were basically isolated from outside world and all its people and economy do not depend on the trade and the stability of the world.

To protect China's global interests, an ability to project military power is much needed. There are basically two ways to achieve this, one is to have a "fixed" base oversea to station your army and air force, which even US has found it is hard to do that since the end of cold war. US has lost many of its oversea military bases in the 90's including the one in Phillipine. Unless China can have true allies like UK, Germany, Korea and Japan to United States, a military base oversea would remain as a dream.

Another way is to have a carrier centered navy which can "float" around the world. Why it must be carrier, instead of other fleet warship or submarine? Read previous posts, they are all valid and strong reasons.

[netspider]

P.S.: Zheng He would be cool name for the first PLAN CV since a muslim eunuch would be a symbol for friendship in a region which will be very important in coming years. :D

Zheng He would be a good name, but unforunately, it is already assigned to a support ship in PLAN.

There are rumors floating around Chinese military forum saything that the name for Varyaga will be Shi Liang, a general who retaked Taiwan in Qing dynasty.

[Gollevainen]

OK little remainder to you all:

This thread is about chinese carrier. As it continues the traditions of our most popular topic ever, I think I need to highligth one of the important offtopic issue in this particular thread. ITS ABOUT ALL POSSIPLE CHINESE CARRIER, NOT WHETER THERE SHOULD BE CARRIER OR NOT!!! To argue over those matters should be done in other topics. Also I would strongly recomentate the one doing this arguing to check the seccond word in our forums name....Its Defence, therefore meening military. And If one wants to hazzle about wheter country like china shouldn't have military att all, He can do it in other place, other forum perhaps. BUT NOT IN Chinese military forums carrier fantasy thread!!! So BrigthAsSun, take your arguments else where or face the consequences.:off :off :off :off :off

Gollevainen, Super Moderator

[Finn McCool]

There are rumors floating around Chinese military forum saything that the name for Varyaga will be Shi Liang, a general who retaked Taiwan in Qing dynasty.

Well that's a barely disguised threat. I think it would be better, if your going to name it after a person, to name it after someone a little better known and accomplished. It's sort of like kow they're going to name the first CVN of the new class "Gerald Ford."

[bd popeye]

Finn sez;
I think it would be better, if your going to name it after a person, to name it after someone a little better known and accomplished. It's sort of like kow they're going to name the first CVN of the new class "Gerald Ford."

I agree. The name of the new class of USN CVN may be Gerald Ford...Stupid.
I have no idea what the name of the possible PLAN CV should be. None. Except for naming it after Chairman Mao.

At this point in time the name of the ship is unimportant. What we PLAN CV watchers want to know is;
1). When will the ship go to sea?
2) What sort of airwing will be on board?
3) Will the ship be inationally for training then an active carrier?
I'm sure you fellows can think of many more questions.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I just wish the PLA would publish some offical news about the Varyag. Just the basics. You know, that's why these aircraft carrier threads are drying up. No news. Somebody that knows something may even be reading this forum daily. Someone in the PRC. So I implore that person to just post a little tidbit about the Varyag.

[maozedong]

:china: china will make a brandnew carriier,not the varyag.
the new carrier sall be nuclear generator power,some stealthy design.
it carried 50 air combats,includ 35 J10-B fighters.
5 escorts come with the carrier,include 2 of 052d, 2 of 054b,one of 093 sub.
the Varyag is only used to be reserch,after painted,it pulled back to display.

[bd popeye]

:china: china will make a brandnew carriier,not the varyag.
the new carrier sall be nuclear generator power,some stealthy design.
it carried 50 air combats,includ 35 J10-B fighters.
5 escorts come with the carrier,include 2 of 052d, 2 of 054b,one of 093 sub.
the Varyag is only used to be reserch,after painted,it pulled back to display.

maozedong..Humm?:confused: Which shipyard in the PRC is capable of building a nuclear CV(CVN)? I know in the US there is only one shipyard capble of building CVN's. Also by "stealty design" do you mean something on a larger scale of the new FFG's, FAC's & corvetts being built worlwide? Because of the tremendous size of a CVN it would be very difficult to make it "stealthy".

Do you have any knowledge of a navalized version of a J-10 being manufactured or planned? If so could you please post a link or an article stating so.

In our forum in order to maintain a level of accuracy it is normal proceedure for members to back up statements such as this. Thank you.

[Jeff Head]

china will make a brandnew carriier...the new carrier sall be nuclear...stealthy design.They may well do this, build their own indigenous carrier. But I believe it will be a long time before they build a nuclear one.
:it carried 50 air combats,includ 35 J10-B fighters. I believe it is more likely that the principle aircraft will be aome kind of SU-33 derivitave. Much longer range, much larger weapon capacilty, and a more effective multi-role aircraft. If they do navalize the J-10...and I am waiting to see indications of this...then the carrier will probably embark a smaller number of these as a part of the airwing.
5 escorts come with the carrier,include 2 of 052d, 2 of 054b,one of 093 sub.I believe it is likely that there will be at least one of the new 115 area air defense DDGs in the mix too.
not the varyagI disagree here. Too much national treasure has already been spent in getting her purchased, towed to China, and then spending several years in the Chinese naval shipyards, including significant dry dock time. I do not believe they spent all of that money, including spending money painting her in standard PLAN colors, for nothing. But that is just my own opinion. Time will tell, and I would not be surprised to see her shown off during the 2008 Olympics.

[crobato]

What China spent on the Varyag is chump change.

[Jeff Head]

What China spent on the Varyag is chump change.Perhaps to purchase it that is true...but since then they have spent many, many times over that amount.

[Sea Dog]

What China spent on the Varyag is chump change.

Maybe the initial purchase was chump change. But everyday that the ship sits in port, it costs money in basic upkeep. Especially if they intend for it to be in service at some point. Ships that sit in water like that deteriorate if not properly cared for. And there have been added activities which have costs associated with them. I'm sure they have paid some good money in the total costs. I think that's what Jeff is referring to.

Edited to add: Jeff, you beat me to the punchline. :)

[maozedong]

:o The new carrier is not the kind of C.V.N, please note I said it is some stealthy design,many shipyard can do this,like 052b and 052c,054.
china signed a agreement that VARYAG shall not be use at military afair.
china seems more likelly to use J10b than Su33.wait,I would post about it later, but I declear that J10B is not fininsh yet,all is speculating.
however,my speculating about the new carreir and the escorts that is reasonable.

[Tassadar]

Zheng He would be a good name, but unforunately, it is already assigned to a support ship in PLAN.

There are rumors floating around Chinese military forum saything that the name for Varyaga will be Shi Liang, a general who retaked Taiwan in Qing dynasty.


well, I think the name could be reused. China should creat some generic name on the same line as "enterprise". I would like Zheng He be one of them. Also, some generals from Tang and Han dynasty, like Wei qing, Huo qubing, and etc, although majorly signs of land power, could serve as the name of some ships.

I would also like the flag ship called something like "Da Tang". much better than having a city as the name sake.

[jacob]

:china: china will make a brandnew carriier,not the varyag.
the new carrier sall be nuclear generator power,some stealthy design.
it carried 50 air combats,includ 35 J10-B fighters.
5 escorts come with the carrier,include 2 of 052d, 2 of 054b,one of 093 sub.
the Varyag is only used to be reserch,after painted,it pulled back to display.

Mr. Mao. Is this only your speculation or are you telling us a military secrete?

[Sczepan]

well, I think the name could be reused. China should creat some generic name on the same line as "enterprise". I would like Zheng He be one of them. Also, some generals from Tang and Han dynasty, like Wei qing, Huo qubing, and etc, although majorly signs of land power, could serve as the name of some ships.

I would also like the flag ship called something like "Da Tang". much better than having a city as the name sake.
Zheng He - the name of the heroic mariner of the Ming-Dynastie -
http://www.chinapage.com/zhenghe.html is an existend chinese trainee ship (Nr. 81).
According to the german "MARINEFORUM" after Zheng He and Shichang (Nr. 82) the Varjag will be named SHI LANG (Nr. 83)

[maozedong]

:o that is instresting, some chinese magazine reported that J10B is deffint,unlike the U.S F16B (single engine double sit),J10B is a project of improve J10 to be double engine single sit and double sit.we don't know what exactly name for the project,but it already desplayed in zhuhai inter air show(the model),lets call the project is Jxx.
if Jxx sucessfully service in P.L.A,that Jxx suppose to be progress to naval type and multi-role type fighters.just like French Rafale F1 and Rafale F2.
Su33 is not the very good naval type fighter, Rafale F1 is better than Su33, compare Rafale F1 with Su33, Rafale F1 is lighter but carry more weapon,they both are excellent airfigthers , but Rrafale F1 is more capable of air to ground ,air to sea attack.
if china is capable to progress J10 to naval type airfighter,that is the good choice for P.L.A. I think no longer than 2010, Jxx will appear in the sky of china.

[bd popeye]

maozedong sez;

I think no longer than 2010, Jxx will appear in the sky of china.


In my opinion the PLAN's best bet is to buy navalized air craft from Russia while at the same time developing their own.

I think that 2010 is a poor estimation for your "mystic" navalized J10 or "Jxx". It took China years to develp the J10. How many more years will it take to have something like these models in the thumbnails below?? Nice models but only a dream. I have no doubt that the PLA has some sort of navalized aircraft in development. But in the skies by 2010? Hard to imangine.

[Finn McCool]

Zheng He would be the best name, considering his fleets circumnavigated the world, rounded the cape of good hope, discovered the America's and crossed the Pacific before the Europeans, or anyone else for that matter!:D :china:

I'm sure that if the naval wing of the future Varyag (or Zheng He) will be dominated by Su-33. However, the PLAN/PLA doesn't really have any aircraft to furill other roles. It doesn't really have a clear canidate for ASW and the sort of multipurpose role that was fufilled the S-3 Viking on US carriers until recently. The SU-33 can fufill a strike and air to air role. But still, the PLAN is going to need to fill in the gaps. Is there a possibility that China will negotiate a deal similar to the the Su-30 MKK deal in India, giving the Su-33 more strike capability?

[jackbh]

Here is a picture of a model of what a carrier base J10 will look like.http://cache.orion.sina.com.cn/fansjczs_d/upload/10/226/1045269490/4010.jpg
I think they already have a J10B that's the double seat single engine trainer plane. I think the carrier version of the J10 is the J-10C.

[Gollevainen]

Eerrr...that's just a MiG 1.42 model painted in PLAAF colours...

[renmin]

J-10 shouldnt be hard to navalize. for one thing, the aircraft is medium weight class so their shouldnt be much trouble taking of from a carrier. If a E2 can take off, why not a J-10? The j-10 and a exported naval plane may be the first planes on china's carrier. As for custom designed naval planes, we might not see those for a while.

[bd popeye]

J-10 shouldnt be hard to navalize. for one thing, the aircraft is medium weight class so their shouldnt be much trouble taking of from a carrier. If a E2 can take off, why not a J-10?

Launching is not a problem . It's the stress of arrested lndings that require a speical reinforced airframe...As I have stated before you just can't put a arresting hook and a launch bar on aan aircraft to navalize it. I'm sure the PLAN has some sort of navalized aircraft in the R&D phase. It may be a J-10.

The E-2 was designed as a sea-going aircraft over 40 years ago.. In fact it's tremendous wingspan makes it easier to launch simply because it has more lift...

[Sea Dog]

In addition to what Popeye is saying, an E-2 type AEW aircraft cannot be used from a carrrier like Varyag. E-2 type aircraft can only be launched from carriers using steam catapults or similar. This is why Russia never operated anything like an E-2 from it's own carriers with the ski jump.

Also, aircraft operating from such carriers lack depth as an offensive strike platform because the aircraft can't lift heavy strike loads. But carriers like Varyag have excellent counter-naval capabilities. And Su-33 is well suited to carry adequate loads of A/A missiles and fuel to conduct a sufficient defensive counter-air ops. I'm not so sure a navalized J-10 will be sought after by PLAN because of this. PLAN will likely see the benefits of using SU-33 if they put Varyag in service.

[Jeff Head]

In addition to what Popeye is saying, an E-2 type AEW aircraft cannot be used from a carrrier like Varyag. E-2 type aircraft can only be launched from carriers using steam catapults or similar. This is why Russia never operated anything like an E-2 from it's own carriers with the ski jump.I think the real answer to AEW capabilities for these type of carriers, or LPDs, LHAs, etc., or Sea Control carriers is the VTOL solution. I have thought for a long time, and written about it, that the Opsrey could be developed into both an excellent AEW aircraft as well as an excellent ASW aircraft, even for the CVNs to replace the S3s.

[Sea Dog]

I think the real answer to AEW capabilities for these type of carriers, or LPDs, LHAs, etc., or Sea Control carriers is the VTOL solution. I have thought for a long time, and written about it, that the Opsrey could be developed into both an excellent AEW aircraft as well as an excellent ASW aircraft, even for the CVNs to replace the S3s.


Very intriguing idea. A VTOL type aircraft might prove to be valuable in this role. Maybe for a carrier like Kuznetzov. But this wouldn't work for USN in the AEW role. I don't know if it could lift the AN/APS-145 and the other 12,000 pounds of equipment needed. at any rate, USN has steam catapulted carriers, so it's not needed. But I do agree with your point about a potential for it to cover some ASW work that the S-3 did for USN.

As far as China, they could potentially go this way, but that aircraft wouldn't be as effective as an E-2C as it wouldn't carry the amount of electronics needed to cover as much area, and probably wouldn't do as much in the AEW role. Does China have any projects in the works for VTOL aircraft? If not, they may do as Russia did with their carrier and just settle with helo's.

[Jeff Head]

Very intriguing idea. A VTOL type aircraft might prove to be valuable in this role. Maybe for a carrier like Kuznetzov. As far as China, they could potentially go this way, but that aircraft wouldn't be as effective as an E-2C as it wouldn't carry the amount of electronics needed to cover as much area, and probably wouldn't do as much in the AEW role. Does China have any projects in the works for VTOL aircraft? If not, they may do as Russia did with their carrier and just settle with helo's.I believe either a dome, or apeture radar could be mounted on an Opsrey that would give it a very significant AEW role...much better than what the UK uses with the Sea Kings. Such a platform could do real wonders for the USN Wasp class, for the QE class, the Kuznetsov/Varyag, etc., or any VTOL, or STOAL platform. No, not as capable as the Hawkeye on a CVN, but still much, much better than a helo in terms of range, altitude and amount of equipment that could be carried on the other vessels. I will work on coming up with a pic.

[Sea Dog]

I agree with all you post about it above. I thought you meant as a primary carrier AEW asset for USN. Yeah, it would be alot better than the helo's. Like I said, it would be no E-2C, but China may make good use of it for their own carrier.

BTW, do you know if China has anything like this type of aircraft in the works?

[Jeff Head]

Very intriguing idea. A VTOL type aircraft might prove to be valuable in this role.Here are some quick PS'ed pics, as promised.

http://www.jeffhead.com/images/E22C Osprey.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/images/E22C Osprey 2.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/images/E22C Osprey 3.jpg

[isthvan]

Hi Jeff
IIRC there was concept of V-22Erieye AEW version during the 1990s... That sounds like perfect solution for light carriers...

[zyun8288]

As far as I know:

J10 has lost the bid to become PLAN's carrier based fighter. Unless something dramatic happens or CAC come up with a dramatic variant of J10 (which would be technically hard to be called a J10), it's game over for J10's carrier dream.

The name "ZhengHe" has been used already, which is 081. 082 is ShiChang. And 083 is ......?.

And that old green bird model is not J10, as pointed out by popeye already.

[Sea Dog]

zyun8288, do you have an idea what PLAN envisions for a future naval fighter if not a navalized J-10? I'm still sticking by my thinking that China will probably want Su-33's if they field Varyag as an active carrier. What do you think?

[Sczepan]

....
The name "ZhengHe" has been used already, which is 081. 082 is ShiChang. And 083 is ......?.
...SHI LANG (Nr. 83), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Lang
ex Varjag

[maozedong]

:) Re: Bd Popeye
depend on the P.L.A needs,if they want quick,then just put the J10a on the carrier,it's empty weight,speed close to Rafale,J10a' s loading looks not very bad,but it only sigle engine.we don't know how it's performance than Rafale yet,even J10A is single engine, but Al31fn engine the military thrust is close to Rafale's engines.
the magazines from china reported some P.L.A senior officer told to media that many kind of airfighter aleardy trained to carrier aircarft for long times,they have base in china to do so.
the Jxx project is for the future,new carrier project is for the future too.
do you think china would just stayed at Varyag? even India is not satisfy this,they will have a new carrier in about 2015.
china may use Su33 in the old carrier,but that is not the purpose.
Russia also design a new carrier.
France will have a new carrier-60,000 ton,stealthy design,you can find it at Jane's internet.
china had the plan since 80's century.
the important consideration is: should we spend so much mony or not

[Obi Wan Russell]

Here's a few pics of a proposed Osprey AEW variant from a few years ago, a possible contender for the RNs MASC (Maritime Airborne Surveillance craft) requirement:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5553/v22jsfvj8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7904/osprey2aewsh6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5061/v221hv7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/6671/v222zb0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Jeff Head]

Here's a few pics of a proposed Osprey AEW variant from a few years ago, a possible contender for the RNs MASC (Maritime Airborne Surveillance craft) requirementGREAT! Obi Wan. I had been looking for those pics and that proposal and configuration and couldn't find it. This is exactly what the UK could and should use (IMHO) for the QE, and is exactly the type of thing that would VASTLY improve air operatins, sea control, and the ability for autonomous operations for the Wasp and Tarawa class vessels...and for that matter, any VTOL, STOAL, or other sea control vessel.

[bd popeye]

:) Re: Bd Popeye
depend on the P.L.A needs,if they want quick,then just put the J10a on the carrier,it's empty weight,speed close to Rafale,J10a' s loading looks not very bad,but it only sigle engine.we don't know how it's performance than Rafale yet,even J10A is single engine, but Al31fn engine the military thrust is close to Rafale's engines.
the magazines from china reported some P.L.A senior officer told to media that many kind of airfighter aleardy trained to carrier aircarft for long times,they have base in china to do so.
the Jxx project is for the future,new carrier project is for the future too.
do you think china would just stayed at Varyag? even India is not satisfy this,they will have a new carrier in about 2015.
china may use Su33 in the old carrier,but that is not the purpose.
Russia also design a new carrier.
France will have a new carrier-60,000 ton,stealthy design,you can find it at Jane's internet.
china had the plan since 80's century.
the important consideration is: should we spend so much mony or not

I know all about the future designs of CV's worldwide. Many nations are improving their CV design. Including the US. I'm sure sometime in the future the PRC will put to sea it's own indiginous Cv design. Until then all we can do is speculate.

Not being a areonautical engineer It would be very difficult for me to explain the stresses of an arrested landing on a CV and why a speical airframe is needed. Trust me it is. This takes years of development. That's why I feel that the PRC will probally have Su-27's or Mig-29's when they do finally send a CV to sea. Should the PRC spend so much money on a carrier? Only if they want feel it necessary to operate a blue water navy. Or just simply for power projection.

I still say there is no such thing as a stealthy carrier. They are just simply to large. Excellent escorts will keep a carrier protected.

[Obi Wan Russell]

China wants a Blue water Navy. CVs are a must have item. Starting from scratch is too big a hill to climb. Solution? Buy the Know how, buy the ship to get you started (anyone seen a big grey lop sided flat top hanging around a chinese port for the last few years? You have? Great!) and by extension buying the other part of this sea going weapons system, the SU-33 is the next logical step. China and Russia may have their ups and downs politically from time to time, but Sukoi will be only too happy to reopen the SU-33 production line (they are a commercial operation after all), and perhaps the Russians would like to have China as a partner to help them develop the stalled Kuznetzov program. Russia has done most of the work, but they don't have the resources to complete the air goup (eg AEW aircraft, the Helicopters used currently are probably a stop gap measure) so in return for Russian assistance in completing the Varyag and/or training the airgroup as well as supplying the fighter bomber element, China could reciprocate by concentrating on developing an AEW platform in the short term (not an easy proposition, something with performance at least approaching the E-2 Hawkeye would be required) that would be supplied to the Russian Navy and development of second generation naval fighter bombers could then be undertaken collaboratively between the two countries. Russia has stated it is planning two further carriers in the next decade (when resources allow) and perhaps some pooling of resources may become attractive to both nations.
Well it's a possible scenario anyway.

[maozedong]

introduced by some magazine,French Charles de Gaulle carrier has some stealth design,but people not easy to find out in the picture.
it hard to say that,depend how many percent of stealthy design in the hull.
uselly,there is no any 100% of steathy ship yet.uselly 50% in the hull.

[su-27]

Varyag isn’t an aircraft carrier as the western designs but an air defence ship.
The Tblisi carriers are ships fitted with SU-27 or MIG-29 to give air coverage to the fleet, many helicopters for asw role and YAK-141 for interoperate with Kiev class carriers.
Chinese have to adapt the carrier for air power projection role. I think they remove the holes for basalt missiles to expand hangar area. Then they use SU-33 with engines like AL-37FU for carrying heavier armament and a naval version of J-10 with similar engines instead the YAK-141 and MIG-29. The Kuznetsov’s SU-25s aren’t armed but they have only a training role for SU-33’s pilots.

The SU-33 may have a role similar to F-14 and J-10 similar to F/A-18.

I think that they not install catapults on angled deck of carrier because they already have made the coating of the flying deck.

For second carrier I think that Chinese look at the Indian carrier program with the Vikramaditya in service by 2008 and an indigenous carrier by 2012.

I think Chinese first indigenous carrier will be similar to Ulyanovsk soviet carrier with sky-jump for fighters and steam catapults on the angled deck for aew planes like YAK-44 and fighter-bombers armed for ground-attack.


It’s possible that Chinese have a program of LHA ship parallel to CV program. If China develop a program of fifth generation STOVL fighter like JSF or LFI they will have a fighter that can interoperate with air force, carriers and LHA ships as English do with RAF harriers that can operate with Invincible class carriers and LHD Ocean.

LHA can also operate with WZ-10 attack helicopter as Ocean operates with Apaches, French Mistral with Tigers and Italians A-129 Mangusta can operate from the deck of carrier G. Garibaldi.

Also Italian air force will buy F-35B to interoperate with new carrier Cavour.

PS
Sorry for my bad English

introduced by some magazine,French Charles de Gaulle carrier has some stealth design,but people not easy to find out in the picture.
it hard to say that,depend how many percent of stealthy design in the hull.
uselly,there is no any 100% of steathy ship yet.uselly 50% in the hull.

I read in a Tom Clancy's book about carriers that "hiding" the carrier's island is possible reduce the radar signature of ship by 60%.
You can see stealty elements in islands of all new carriers and LHAs: Reagan, Cavour, De Gaulle, Ocean, Mistral and even Naruebet.

Sorry maozzedong I goofed! bd popeye

[Obi Wan Russell]

Well put; I agree Varyag probably won't commission with steam catapults, but retro-fitting them at a later date remains an option. If the next (indigenously built) Chinese CV does have 'cats', then it would make sense to fit them to Varyag too so that the same aircraft could be operated. Reducing any ships' Radar Cross Section (RCS) isn't difficult if it is done at the design stage, you eliminate all right angles from the hull and superstructure for a start. The aim isn't to make the ship invisible to radar, it's to reduce the size of the radar signature so that detection of the ship by enemy forces is delayed as long as possible. The smaller the RCS, the nearer you have to be before you detect it, by which time you are in range of the ships' own defences (carrier launched fighters).
Some people still seem afraid of the term aircraft carrier, substituting euphemisms such as "Through Deck Cruiser", "Aircraft carrying cruiser", "Tactical Aviation Ship", "Landing Platform Helicopter" and "Air Defence Ship". Like it or not, they are all Aircraft Carriers, even if they are not copies of Nimitz class CVNs. The Carrier is a very adaptable breed, and whether it's a small 12,000ton vessel like the Thai Chakri Narubet, the British Invincible class, the French Charles de Gaulle, the new Japanese "DDH", the South Korean Dokdo class LHD, the American CVNs or the Russian Kuznetzov design, they are all Aircraft Carriers, albeit tailored to their owners needs and budget.
So what criteria should be used to identify a CV? Keep it simple. A warship whose primary purpose is to deploy and operate aircraft (including helicopters), usually fitted with a full length ( or nearly full length) flight deck, superstructure moved over to starboard, a hangar beneath the flight deck and lifts to move aircraft between the two. Numbers and types of missile systems fitted to the ship do not change this classification (A Kuznetzov type ship will never be included in a task force because of its' missile battery, they are 'added extras').
On this basis, Varyag is an Aircraft Carrier, designed to carry a significant missile battery yes, but still a CV, or possibly a CVG (Carrier Vessel, Guided missile).

[su-27]

I agree Obi Wan. I don't say that Varyag isn't a carrier but that isn't projected to anti-ship and ground attack operations. It's possible that a catapult on the angled deck will be installed in a second moment, for exemple during a mid-life upgrade.
How many planes (a mix of J-10 and SU-33) could operate on Varyag removing the battery of Granit missiles?

That's a picture of a model of Ulyanovsk with air group: I think that first indigenous chinese carrier will be similar this

[Obi Wan Russell]

Sorry for any mix up, we're singing from the same song sheet here I think, it's just an argument I've had before with people splitting hairs about wether a carrier is a carrier or something else; I hope my last post helped clarify the situation for any pedantic souls out there.
I've said previously in this thread that the first indigenous Chinese CV will probably be similar to the Ulyanovsk design as it was a natural progression from the Kuznetzov design, although I don't think it will be nuclear powered simply for reasons of cost. Later units may be CVNs though. The increase in hangar deck capacity may not be that large, but is still a worthwhile modification as space on a carrier is always at a premium and if the granit missiles are not to be carried by the Varyag it would be wasteful to leave the empty launch silos in place. A parallel example would be when the British Invincible class had their Sea Dart SAM systems removed a few years ago to increase both flight deck parking space and hangar space. The Kuznetzov design was intended to operate about 50 aircraft (depending on size of aircraft) and a good 'rule of thumb' with carriers is one aircraft to every 1000tons of displacement, although not all are necessarily accomodated in the hangar. American CV/CVNs are designed to keep half their aircraft on deck and half in the hangar and the Russian design is probably similar, so an increase in hangar deck space may be useful and welcome but may not actually lead to more aircraft being carried, just more being 'struck down' after flying ops.
As to the projected role of the ship, this can be altered as with any carrier by changing the composition of the air group (embarked aircraft), so a CV can change roles to become a LPH literally overnight with no structural alterations and back again simply by exchanging one set of aircraft for another; the Invincible class do this regularly, even the USS Kitty Hawk did this during the invasion of Iraq (becoming the worlds largest LPH in the process) and there is no reason why the Varyag couldn't do this too, especially as she will be the only operational Chinese carrier for several years. Thus the arguments about wether she will be commissioned as a CV or a LPH are somewhat redundant; she will be both.
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/606/kuznetzovmissilehatchesnr6.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kuznetzovmissilehatchesnr6.jpg)http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1622/45139821hc4.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=45139821hc4.jpg)
Just to illustrate the point, here is a shot of HMS Hermes (now INS Viraat) operating as an LPH, switching back to the CV role could be done at very short notice simply by landing the commandos and re embarking her Sea Harriers.

[tphuang]

I doubt the Chinese will do like what was just mentionned. From what has been talked about on Chinese forums, it seems like they would be going for something in the 60k to 70k tonne range. So, basically inline with what UK, France and Russia are operating.

[su-27]

Thank you very much Obi Wan. I have another question: the sky-jump is an obsoleted system or do you think is better than steam catapults to launch fighters with air-to-air armament in a situation of "scramble"?
I would understand if Chinese will made all their future carriers with a mix of sky-jump and catapults or only with catapults.

[bd popeye]

Thank you very much Obi Wan. I have another question: the sky-jump is an obsoleted system or do you think is better than steam catapults to launch fighters with air-to-air armament in a situation of "scramble"?
I would understand if Chinese will made all their future carriers with a mix of sky-jump and catapults or only with catapults.

Su-27, USN CV's can launch much heavier aircraft i.e. more ordanance much faster that any ship with ski-ramps. About one a minute. As far as "scrambling"(alert-5) aircraft a USN CVN can launch 4 aircraft in this situation in 5 minutes or less....

Catapults are ideal for launching fully mission capable aircraft on attack missions or fighter missions. In only 90 meters of lenght a catapult can launch an aircraft from zero to 290 kilometers per hour. Can't do that with a ski ramp.

[snake65]

Su-27, USN CV's can launch much heavier aircraft i.e. more ordanance much faster that any ship with ski-ramps. About one a minute. As far as "scrambling"(alert-5) aircraft a USN CVN can launch 4 aircraft in this situation in 5 minutes or less....

Catapults are ideal for launching fully mission capable aircraft on attack missions or fighter missions. In only 90 meters of lenght a catapult can launch an aircraft from zero to 290 kilometers per hour. Can't do that with a ski ramp.
BTW, Russians claim that launch weight for Su-33 from launch position No.3 on Kuznecov (that's the aft one) is around 32 tons which is not that much less than cats on CVNs provide.

[AssassinsMace]

Got this from a Chinese site. Looks like a Y-8 ready to launch from a test carrier catapult. Do they test catapults in this manner? Looks dangerous if it doesn't work.

[Jeff Head]

Got this from a Chinese site. Looks like a Y-8 ready to launch from a test carrier catapult. Do they test catapults in this manner? Looks dangerous if it doesn't work.The aircraft looks, at least to me, more like a mock-up than a real aircraft. Perhaps it is just the angle of the sat photo...but it looks entirely too white. I would almost bet it is a mock-up, perhaps for testing purposes in terms of size, weight, etc. to establish parameters useful in fuutre actual tests.

[maozedong]

:confused: Mr.Assassins.Mace:
I am very intresting at that photo picture,can you tell us about it?
at the corner dons't say any thing, is this pic taken from china?
do you think that plane is Y8?

[bd popeye]

BTW, Russians claim that launch weight for Su-33 from launch position No.3 on Kuznecov (that's the aft one) is around 32 tons which is not that much less than cats on CVNs provide.


The russians may well claim that. But how long is that #3 launch position away from the bow??..about 600ft(182 meters)? How many aircraft fully loaded in what period of time could they launch if need be? As an added note the Russians do not make arrested landings at night like the USN.

There's was nothing like watching a fully loaded aircraft get launched one right after the other..in minutes by the way.. on an fully operational CV.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Intriguing picture there... The ski jump was invented by a Royal Navy engineering officer Cmdr Doug Taylor who had served aboard HMS Victorious during the sixties and had witnessed an incident in the Indian ocean when the ship was unable to launch her fighters due to the extreme heat and humidity causing the deck to expand and thus contracting the catapult tracks. The situation was remedied in a few minutes by using the ships fire hoses to cool the deck down. This lead him to search for a non mechanical means of launching aircraft from the deck, and ultimately lead to the ski jump. Aircraft using it leave the end of the ramp before they have reached flying speed, but are subject to continued acceleration so achieve wingborn flight before they drop back down to the sea. This gives aircraft the same effect as if making a free (i.e. non catapult assisted) take off from a much longer deck than would be practical to build. There are limitations as to takeoff weights depending on aircraft type (vectored thrust aircraft like the harrier family and the F-35B Lightning benefit more than CTOL types like the SU-33) and propellor driven aircraft would have ground clearance problems as the ramp rises up under them.
If you want to lauch fully laden CTOL aircraft then catapults are the way to go, but if you just need to lauch 'Ready Alert' fighters carrying missiles and a reasonable fuel load then the Ski-Jump is very effective, has no moving parts so it can't break down and is cheap to install. I found the 'Hybrid' Russian Ulyanovsk design a fascinating blend of the two methods, Steam catapults for Strike and AEW types and a ski jump for (presumably) ready alert fighters. Using the Ski jump, Royal Navy carriers can launch one fighter every twenty seconds, but they are limited in the types they can operate. The new CVFs wiil be Ski jump equipped simply because the Government and the Navy Brass consider fitting catapults would drive up the cost and complexity (and crew numbers, hence running costs) of the ships as would installing Arrestor gear. The ships are designed to be fitted with such systems if need be (subject to development of the F-35B) and the French CVF will be so equipped.
I'll declare an interest here, I would prefer to see the CVFs equipped for CTOL operations with Catapults and arrestor gear as it would mean a return to truly joint operations with the USN and the French Navy. STOVL aircraft and ski jump technology saved the FAA from extinction, but now it's time to get back in the saddle and do the job right.

[Gollevainen]

Well I've said several times, propaply in this thread too, that Kuznetsov was fitted ski-jump becouse the ultimate solution prior it launch was to equipt it with the new V/STOL aircraft (Yak-41). THis was mostly due the fact that soviet naval premiers had way too optimistic vision about V/STOL planes in general and added with string lobby from Yakolev OKB, they decided to go the "easy" way. The orginal TTZ of Kuznetsov calls for catabults and it was several times decided and redecided to go either V/STOL planes or conventional planes and the V/STOL option won. At least to my knowlidge there were no intentions to fit conventional planes launched by solely SKi-jump at the desing phase of the ship.

It was only afterwards when soviets realized that the Su-27 orginally inteded for the CTOL version of the ship could actually take off by using the Ski-jump and as the ships flightdeck design was of that of a normal carrier suddenly soviets had a convetional carrier by almoust accidentaly. I strongly belive that the maxium take-off weight of any conventional jet taking of from the ski-jump must be far more limited than the "normal" MTW when taking of from standart distance runways. I would say it needs a T/W ratio at least 1 to take of from the ski-jump, tough I had a bloody fight over this matter in one other forum in the past and guys formaly more knowlidgable in aviation matters than I said that the MTW of SU-33 from kuznetsovs ski-jump is the MTW of SU-33 said in all prochyres becouse...well it says so in the procyres...:confused: :rolleyes: ;)

[AssassinsMace]

:confused: Mr.Assassins.Mace:
I am very intresting at that photo picture,can you tell us about it?
at the corner dons't say any thing, is this pic taken from china?
do you think that plane is Y8?

Sorry, don't know much about it. I just found it in a Chinese site that posts pics from all things military. I can't even say it was a satellite image in China. The only thing that might lean towards that is it looks like a Y-8. In CDF someone said it was a crash test site. But why would you test how well a plane takes a crash? If it is a catapult testing facility, I would imagine it's easier to lose a Y-8 than a jet fighter. But can a Y-8 takeoff from a carrier? Or is it some logic that if you can launch a Y-8, you can launch a jet fighter?

[Obi Wan Russell]

Sorry, don't know much about it. I just found it in a Chinese site that posts pics from all things military. I can't even say it was a satellite image in China. The only thing that might lean towards that is it looks like a Y-8. In CDF someone said it was a crash test site. But why would you test how well a plane takes a crash? If it is a catapult testing facility, I would imagine it's easier to lose a Y-8 than a jet fighter. But can a Y-8 takeoff from a carrier? Or is it some logic that if you can launch a Y-8, you can launch a jet fighter?
The (presumed) Y-8 could be a redundant or damaged airframe being used as a 'dead load' to simulate the weight of a fighter, and/or to gain data on the stresses imposed by catapult launching without risking an operational fighter. The airframe may be fitted with nose tow landing gear (impossible to see from this angle) or may use the old wire bridle method (possibly both, to evaluate the pro's and con's) and a transport airframe would be useful as it could be easily loaded with ballast to test different launch weights. The data gained by such tests would be very useful in the design and development of a shipboard AEW aircraft, so using this type for tests makes a lot of sense.

[adeptitus]

Thank you very much Obi Wan. I have another question: the sky-jump is an obsoleted system or do you think is better than steam catapults to launch fighters with air-to-air armament in a situation of "scramble"?
I would understand if Chinese will made all their future carriers with a mix of sky-jump and catapults or only with catapults.

I don't think it's a fair comparison, because carriers with ski-jump are usually smaller and cheaper types using V/STOL Harriers, vs. steam catapult system is found on larger and much more expensive carriers deploying heavy/larger aircraft.

In a "scramble' situation, it's very possible that a small carrier w/ski-jump could achieve higher launch rate, simply because the Harriers can take off vertically (though not with full war load) and not even bother using the ski-jump system.

One benefit of steam (or electric) catapult is the ability to launch larger aircraft like the E-2 Hawkeye. The Russian version, Yak-44 torboprop AEW aircraft, was also designed to fly from the 85,000 tonne Ulyanovsk, equipped with steam catapults. Yak-44 would prolly not have been able to fly from the Kuznetsov w/ski-jump deck.

[su-27]

I think that it would be a catapult for launch AEW planes as Obi Wan says. It's possible that we will see it on the angle-deck of Varyag or of a Ulyanovsk type carrier.
I think that an Ulyanovsk type "hybrid" carrier would be "ideal" because can operate with all types of naval planes: is possible operate with heavy loaded fighter bombers and AEW planes and, in the same moment, with STOVL fighters for interoperate with LHAs and air force as UK with Harriers and as will do Italy with F-35B.
Also I think STOVL fighters aren't bad planes. In the Falkland's war Harriers won against Mirage, in dogfighting they can "stop" in flight. Finally only STOVL planes can operate by "escort carriers" as in the Falklands war.
Confidentially, Obi Wan, I think that the best for CVF is a steam catapult on the angled deck to interoperate with all types of naval planes, British and not, and to have E-2Cs like US and French navy

I'm going off topic? If it is, sorry!

[AssassinsMace]

The aircraft looks, at least to me, more like a mock-up than a real aircraft. Perhaps it is just the angle of the sat photo...but it looks entirely too white. I would almost bet it is a mock-up, perhaps for testing purposes in terms of size, etc.

Yeah, most likely. There's no sign of a runway for return unless it's somewhere below the bottom of the frame. But it's interesting that China seems to be actually working on catapults if it is in China.

[bd popeye]

Su-27..Did you "paint" that aircraft or is it just a clever "PS"? Anyway whoever did it left the canopy open..;)

I think that an Ulyanovsk type "hybrid" carrier would be "ideal" because can operate with all types of naval planes: is possible operate with heavy loaded fighter bombers and AEW planes and, in the same moment, with STOVL fighters for interoperate with LHAs and air force as UK with Harriers and as will do Italy with F-35B.


The problem is that with that ski jump you really limit the size of your air wing and ordanance loads. But if you are going to operate say 40-50 aircraft on a ship the size of the Varyag the ski jump & one or two catapults is a great solution.

Su-27..Just what size of an air wing do you visualize for a future PLAN CV?

[Seacraft]

Su-27..Did you "paint" that aircraft or is it just a clever "PS"? Anyway whoever did it left the canopy open..;)

Popeye - not sure but I think that is the opening for the air inlet in VTOL operations. I believe I saw a thread / article long ago showing something similar.

BTW - How is the weather there in the Heartland :) ?

[Sczepan]

looks like a google earth pic
if we check ab the coordinates (seen in the pic) we could see the original pic by google earth
- I woud do it by myself, but I am not at my home pc ....

[su-27]

Popeye, for the Varyag, fully operative in PLAN, I visualize an air wing similar to Kusnetsov but with more aircraft than helicopters: a mix of SU-33 and naval J-10 with engines like AL-37FU (mobile afterburners to increment STOL performance), helicopters for AEW and other functions but not for ASW because I think that an escort of 2 052b, 2 052c, 2 or 4 054a and 2 093 SSN with their helicopters is enough for submarine defence. A total of not more than 50 aircraft.

For an Ulyanovsk type carrier I think for an enlarged air wing of Varyag with same aircraft but with AEW planes like YAK-44.

I think a carrier wing as that you can see in this model of Ulyanovsk

[bd popeye]

Su-27 sez,...
For an Ulyanovsk type carrier I think for an enlarged air wing of Varyag with same aircraft but with AEW planes like YAK-44.

I think a carrier wing as that you can see in this model of Ulyanovsk

Excellent idea for an air wing and CVBG. Two SSN's??:eek: You ain't playing around..

Only one thing that could be a stumbling block. According to anything I have ever read and Golly has verfifed this the Yak-44 never got past the "R & D" stage. Any pictures you may have seen of it are just a wooden mock up.

I really do think a navalized J-10 may be in the works....Why not Mig-29's like the Indian Navy? Is their a reason?

[Roger604]

Hey Popeye, can you answer this question. Why can't you just build a ship with a big deck and park some WZ-10's on it. I mean, it's obvious why you need to navalize fixed wing aircraft. But it's not so obvious to me why rotary wing aircraft need to be navalized. Is it just decay from exposure to brine?

[Gollevainen]

You mean why does helicopters need special version for naval usage??

Well first, Water...Salty water is quite nasty towards anyhting made from metals so all naval equipment needs to take this under consideration in design phase.

Seccondly, Water...water isen't as solid as earht (you've propaply noticed this;) ) so all that floats in water tends to move, pitch, vibrate and othervice not remain in stable state. So when you want to land on a ship that is in water you need to have certain special equipment attached to the flight controls (someone more knowlidgable in aviation matters can help you more). For example Ka-50 had it's singlepilot configuration assured due extensive autopiloting systems gained form Kamov's long experience in naval helicopters...

Thirdly, Water...helicopters have to perform their missions over water which usually means eithr rescue, anti-surface warfare or ASW. All these missions needs special equipment, stuff that aren't needed in landbase operations. Sonars and sonybouys aren't much of a use in anti-tank roles but come quite handy in martime conditions...

last but not least...water. If a helicopter brokes down above water it's crash is different than over land. emergy landings are aslo much trickier as you need to ensure that the copter floats. Also as most of naval helicopters aren't amphibious, it's often prefered to have two-engined copters so that if one engine fails, other can still drag you back to homeship...

;)

[bd popeye]

Ahh even though Golly was refering to "Walter"..is he still around:confused: ..he answered your questions very well Roger...

[Sczepan]

Golly - you forgot: water
the ships on sea ar rolling and stamping, so its very hard to start and land compared to non moving grounds
so you need a insensitive suspension (how do you call "Fahrwerk" in english?) :confused: - got it: you need special undercarriage

[su-27]

Thank you for the "excellent idea", popeye!
The YAK-44 is only a mock up but I think that China can build a similar plane with Russian and Israel aid. Also I have seen a photo of a chinese model of this kind of plane. I will research it and, if I found, I will post it.
These are the reasons because I think to a naval J-10 and not to the Mig-33 even if is an excellent fighter:

1)Mig-33 requires another support structure and plan have to operate with three types of fighters: Flankers, J-10s and Fulchrums, is too expensive, J-10 is more easy to manage because operates with PLAAF and PLAN, also pilots have to learn another fighter first than learn to operate on a carrier (IAF already operates with Fulchrums).

2)J-10 is about 20 years younger than Fulchrum and based on the LAVI: an excellent program. I don't think that J-10 is far superior than Fulchrum's last versions but I think is based on a more modern concept.

3)J-10 is indigenous: is a program very important to develop the national industry and research, also I think Chinese are not happy to depend from other's technology. For that also I tought for an hybrid air wing: a russian fighter that's one of the best in the world and an indigenous fighter for develop national industry and research!

It's possible that, in future, China will enter on russian LFI 5th generation medium-light fighter program, that comprise a STOVL naval version, or will buy from Russia the blueprints of YAK-141 and (basing on them) will develop its own STOVL advanced fighter.
It's also possible that, in future, China have enough money to develop a program similar to JSF (but a bit less advanced) for a three variants (land based, carier based and STOVL) 5th generation fighter.

[Sczepan]

there is only one problem by using the J-10:
the fighter only have one engine, and thats very critical by carrier-operations;
if these engine reduce the power in the starting phase (by using catapult and sky-jump) the pilot can't save the aircraft, and (may be) his live to ....
so I prefer the Hongdu L-15 Advanced Trainer, which is said to be powered by two DV-2F or AI-222K-25F turbofan engines with afterburner, for the first carrier-steps,
and than there is a high possibility that China will purchase the Russian Su-33 naval fighter aircraft or its improved variant for its future carrier. The Su-33, developed from the Su-27 fighter which has been serving with the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) for over a decade, is deemed to be more suitable for Varyag since the fighter was originally developed for Kuznetsov class and is 100% compatible with the Russian-designed carrier.

[su-27]

sczepan, I know that dual-engine fighters are better than one-engine for carrier operations, but there are many types of single-engine naval fighters: the old F-8, the advanced F-35C...

I'm also prefer an only dual-engine carrier group (F-14 and F/A-18 is ideal!)

The last Italian advanced trainer MB-346 at first was programmed in two versions: single engine with afterburner and dual engine without afterburner, French have done a dual-engine version of Mirage-2000: the Mirage-4000.
I think is possible than the carrier variant of J-10 could be powered by a single AL-37FU or by 2 engines like the same of latest versions of MIG-33, all engines have mobile afterburners.

I think that could be a bomber on "my" Ulyanovsk type carrier:
the SU-32FN could be deadly but I think that monster is too big for any carrier.
So I think that a catapult-launched-bomber-variant of the trainer SU-33ub (or SU-27kub) could be an interesting advanced carrier-based bomber.

[isthvan]

I may sound stupid but does China really need to develop indigenous naval fighter? I mean if we look at size of any future air wing in PLAN is indigenous development economically justified? For one ore two carriers you can probably buy air wing joust for development costs of indigenous fighter.

In history there were few examples like termination of navel Jaguar because of raising development costs… Instead French started Super Etendar development but in this case order was scaled down because of increased development costs. For money they spend on development French navy could easily buy complete air wings for carriers (IIRC US proposed A-4 ore A-7).

IMHO PLAN should focus on Su-33 as only carrier fighter. They have gain much experience using Su-27 variants and they have maintenance facilities for this type. Why waste money and resources on development of indigenous fighter that will ultimately be bought in symbolic numbers?

I’m not saying that Chinese aren’t able to produce naval J-10; I only don’t understand why when you have better and cheaper solutions at hand?

[tphuang]

I may sound stupid but does China really need to develop indigenous naval fighter? I mean if we look at size of any future air wing in PLAN is indigenous development economically justified? For one ore two carriers you can probably buy air wing joust for development costs of indigenous fighter.

In history there were few examples like termination of navel Jaguar because of raising development costs… Instead French started Super Etendar development but in this case order was scaled down because of increased development costs. For money they spend on development French navy could easily buy complete air wings for carriers (IIRC US proposed A-4 ore A-7).

IMHO PLAN should focus on Su-33 as only carrier fighter. They have gain much experience using Su-27 variants and they have maintenance facilities for this type. Why waste money and resources on development of indigenous fighter that will ultimately be bought in symbolic numbers?

I’m not saying that Chinese aren’t able to produce naval J-10; I only don’t understand why when you have better and cheaper solutions at hand?

China is looking to be totally self-sufficient in terms of its military complex. It's quite possible that domestic naval fighters might not be ready when the first operational carrier sale off. Imo, it's very likely that China will order some su-33. but in the long run, I would expect the carrier fighter to be domestic. And when I say domestic, I don't necessarily mean J-10. SAC could be chosen to develop a Chinese naval flanker (most likely involving some Russian help).

If you think about it, if China relies on the Russians, it will have an upper limit of what the Russians can produce. China is looking to close the gap between itself and USN. If it develops a naval fighter now, that could provide invaluable experience toward developing a stealth naval fighter in the future.

[alexander]

Got this from a Chinese site. Looks like a Y-8 ready to launch from a test carrier catapult. Do they test catapults in this manner? Looks dangerous if it doesn't work.

Yeap, the location is about 3 miles NE from Guan Xian and the pic is from Google Earth.

[alexander]

... and, woh do bring the plane over there. I mean, there there's no airfield nearby. They would have to dismantle every plan they want to test, bring it on site, put it together and test it ... seems quite strange to me. If they realy test the aircraft on ski jump, then they would build such a ramp beside a airfield any where in China, isn't it.

My conclusion: either it's fake or how it has been mentioned the only want to make some testings on size, mass, and so on.

[su-27]

Isthvan, I think that China looks at Indian carrier program development (note that Varyag probably will be commissioned in South Sea Fleet):

2008 commission of Carrier Vikramaditya: 44.000t Kiev class refitted as STOBAR carrier
2010 decommission of old Viraat
2012 commission of new Vikrant: 40.000t STOBAR indigenous carrier based on new Italian carrier Cavour
2016/8 commission of new Vikrant’s sister (new Viraat?)
Others ships could be constructed later…

All these ships will operate with MIG-33 and naval Tejas and someone says that also Harriers, past Viraat, will continue to operate on new carriers (three types of planes!!!).

I think that China has a carrier development program similar to India but with bigger ships (Varyag and 2 modified Ulyanovsk class).

So I think that Chinese carriers will operate with a little number of advanced SU-33 with air superiority as principal role and a bigger number of J-10 as multipurpose fighters.

Simply: SU-33 as F-14’s role and naval J-10 as F/A-18’s role

[bd popeye]

su-27 sez;
I think that China has a carrier development program similar to India but with bigger ships (Varyag and 2 modified Ulyanovsk class).


Ahhhh ...hummm:confused: Gadzooks! Do you have any idea what you are saying? The PRC is going to send to sea 3 CV's...

Personally I see the varvag fitting out as soon as 2008. But where did you get the idea that the PLAN has 2 Ulyanovsk types CV's in development? Do you have some sort of inside source? On what do you base these statements?

[isthvan]

China is looking to be totally self-sufficient in terms of its military complex. It's quite possible that domestic naval fighters might not be ready when the first operational carrier sale off. Imo, it's very likely that China will order some su-33. but in the long run, I would expect the carrier fighter to be domestic. And when I say domestic, I don't necessarily mean J-10. SAC could be chosen to develop a Chinese naval flanker (most likely involving some Russian help).

I understand Chinese need for self-sufficiency… They have pretty much covered that in many areas. I only don’t think that is really necessary to develop fighter that will be produced in very limited numbers. For example French carriers could have much better air wing if they have bought F-18 A/B like US proposed… Instead they wasted founds on S.E. and on modernization of old F-8 fighters thus limiting navy’s capabilities…

Joust like French should have buy F-18 as interim solution until Rafale becomes operational PLAN should joust buy Su-33 until they have 2-3 carriers and then made naval J-XX… Any naval fighter that they could produce in next few years wouldn’t be much better/more capable compared to Su-33 and thus its development simple wouldn’t justify development costs… Naturally that’s only my opinion…

I think that China has a carrier development program similar to India but with bigger ships (Varyag and 2 modified Ulyanovsk class).

So I think that Chinese carriers will operate with a little number of advanced SU-33 with air superiority as principal role and a bigger number of J-10 as multipurpose fighters.

Simply: SU-33 as F-14’s role and naval J-10 as F/A-18’s role

Well I wouldn’t count on Ulyanovsk class in Chinese service… While PLAN has learned much from Melbourne and Varjag I personally think that Chinese shipyards still can’t produce carrier in Ulyanovsk class…

I personally believe that PLAN will have Varjag operational by 2008 – 2010 and then build indigenous carrier. IMHO first PLAN indigenous carrier could be based on Ulyanovsk design but I think that size will be more comparable to US project 27C Essex class; I think that it will be fitted whit conventional propulsion rather then nuclear etc…

While I can see su-33 in F-14 role (ok not completely, Tomcat was bird in its on liege and had more comparable role to MiG-31 then to Su-33) I joust don’t like prospect of using single engine fighter whit ski ramp… I know that some people will disagree but that’s joust my opinion. And I joust don’t see any sense developing two engine J-10 joust for carrier… Like I said before buy Su-33 and take time to develop more capable naval designs when you have larger carrier fleet…

[adeptitus]

Currently the only operational VTOL/STOVL jet fighter avail are from western sources, the soon to be retired Hawker-Siddeley Harrier, and the up-coming F-35 Lightning II. The Yak-38 is long dead and the Yak-41/141 project has been inactive since early 1990s.

Due to the arms export ban, there are only 2 ways for China to acquire STOVL aircraft (assuming if PLAAF even wants any). Either develop one locally, or buy it from the Russians. In the first option, China could follow Lockheed-martin's example and selectively purchase/license some technology from Yakalov to speed up development.

In the second option, the PRC would fund Yakalov for continued development of Yak-41M or Yak-43, perhaps in a 50-50 joint venture. The Russian AF/Navy AF may or may not want to acquire any, but I think it'd make a good export item and alternative to F-35 on the world arms market.

Personally, I'm not big on the carrier and STOVL aircraft development. Given limited budget, I'd opt for the following:

1) For joint projects with Russia, the $$ is better spent on PAK-FA.
2) For the cost of an operational aircraft carrier, the PLAN is better served by providing credible nuclear secondary strike capability, with 4-8 new SSBNs.
3) Fixed-wing aircraft carriers would be seen as an aggressive offensive weapon. It'd be better to acquire "multipurpose" helicopter flat-tops like the Korean LP-X, which is smaller, cheaper, and less threatening in apperance.
A LP-X class ship, painted white and filled with "foreign aid" crates, would make an excellent UN-mission or disaster-relief platform. It's good PR (public relations) and will give the PLAN valuable experience in operating long-distance missions.
4) If the carrier is a must, I'd go with Su-33 as a proven platform, and currently in use by the Russians (not a orphan product).
5) Geographically speaking, China doesn't need carriers to protect its oil-trade route like the US does. Instead of spending billions on carriers, I think it's better to just build pipelines and fund new trade ports in Pakistan, Thailand, Burma, etc. For operations in the South China Sea, longer-range fighters and fighter-bombers will suffice.

[su-27]

Sorry... I run too much!

I don't think that China is building 2 heavy CVN either refitting Varyag now (!!!)

For modified Ulyanovsk I mean a carrier similar but cheaper and more simple: conventional powered, smaller...

I think chinese carriers could enter in service looking at Indian carrier program:

2008 Vikramaditya vs Varyag

2012 new Viraat vs first chinese indigenous carrier