All About The Chinese Aircraft Carrier Thread

[BLUEJACKET]

The best way to enforce some thing is by sea and all ships travelling to the Indian Ocean must traverse the Malacca Straights. The straight Indian ocean opening is guarded by the Andaman Islands, which India routinely stations flankers. Any Chinese convoy needs major military assets to break through the choke point.
How about Indonesian straits? It may take longer, but they were used for a long time by submarines and Australian/USN carrriers.

Jeff Head says:This article is seven + years old and written from a USAF standpoint, which historically will downplay the effetiveness of carriers and their airwing strike capabilities for obvious reasons...they compete for the same type of defense dollars.
Of course USN aircraft use US Air Force tankers when available...that's what Joint Task Force Operations are all about in this regard, and the US military has become very proficient at that doctrine. But to think for a minute that US Navy tanker capabilities are either non-existant or over-rated is mistaken IMHO. In a hostile environemnt at sea, or against hostile shores where USAF tankers are not available, you will see the US Navy getting the job done.
Some of it is still current today. Even if AF tanker support isn't used, a carrier will have to do more UNREPs to replenish jet fuel for its tankers; that will require more time off air ops, more froce protection for CBG, etc. Joint Task Force Operations are done out of necessity, not for defense dollars. And before CBG transits any choke point, the land based P-3s are put to work to make sure there is no threat!

The blue water-equipped U.S. Navy has big problems in the littorals. Conventional threats such as diesel submarines and Silkworm missiles can perhaps be dealt with, but the Navy’s anti-mine warfare capability is wholly inadequate. The USS Princeton and Tripoli both suffered major mine damage during the Gulf War.108 While aircraft carriers can complicate a minelayer’s solution by standing off a greater distance from shore, this very action limits the range of naval aviation (and increases their dependence on in-flight refueling, frequently by USAF tankers.) If an adversary manages to deploy even a few deep-sea mines, the prudent captain of an aircraft carrier would be compelled to recognize this threat and adjust his operations accordingly.
The Navy makes the assumption that the war will start when and where the Navy says it will start; when the carrier is positioned in blue water, with its complement of escorts fully arrayed. Despite the public embrace of littoral warfare, the Navy’s programmatic and procedural disregard for littoral threats such as diesel submarines, mines, and force protection measures belie an institution still bruising for a fight with Admiral Gorshkov’s Soviet Navy.
This outlook presents a ripe vulnerability. Operators of mortars, machine-guns, and rockets used against airfields would have a simple solution firing at a slow-moving carrier in the Suez Canal, and hundreds of square miles of territory from which to launch their attack.113 Mortar impacts on the flight deck would be particularly disastrous given the high density of parked aircraft. The Navy is no stranger to aircraft carrier fires. In 0ctober 1966 the USS Oriskany, steaming off North Vietnam on “Yankee Station,” suffered a fire which claimed 44 lives and required her to return to the United States for refitting.114 Nine months later, the USS Forrestal underwent the same fate losing 134 men, 21 aircraft destroyed, and 43 damaged. She too left Yankee Station for repairs in CONUS.115In both cases, the North Vietnamese were handed no-cost operational victories. A conflagration of this magnitude today would provide an enemy with operational and political returns. A major fire—or worse, a sinking—on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier would constitute a propaganda windfall for an enemy in addition to possibly closing the Suez Canal. Domestic consensus in limited wars is difficult to attain. A successful attack of this sort could sink an operation in the pre-hostilities phase.116 Suez stands out as a critical chokepoint, but there are others. Clearing the canal, a Persian Gulf-bound carrier must also negotiate the Bab El Mandeb, and the Strait of Hormuz (the latter, by all accounts, being a particularly tense and alert passage.)
The Navy routinely steams through the Malacca and Lomback Straits, Gibraltar, and other narrow passages while enroute to port visits. Deception All war is deception. —Sun Tzu Deception has been defined as “a purposeful attempt by the deceiver to manipulate the perceptions of the target’s decision makers in order to gain a competitive advantage.”117 In laymen’s terms, deception distorts perceived reality by professing the false in the face of the real. However it is defined, “deception has been addressed by almost every philosopher and political or military commentator in history.”118The reason is simple—it works. Deception is often thought of in terms of an attacker’s technique to achieve surprise.119As a counter to airpower, this study takes a different view. At the operational level, U.S. adversaries can use deception to drain sorties and munitions away from legitimate target sets, preserving them or providing the margin of survivability needed to accomplish their objectives.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/saas/ohalloran.pdf#search=%22Deception%20is%20often%20t hought%20of%20in%20terms%20carrier%20suez%20%22

[Jeff Head]

Some of it is still current today. Even if AF tanker support isn't used, a carrier will have to do more UNREPs to replenish jet fuel for its tankers; that will require more time off air ops, more froce protection for CBG, etc.Nothing new here. In war time, that's what you do. As to the other...the US Navy has been gathering experience and planning for decades and they have most contingencies already covered. Can they be surprised? You bet (see World War II) ...but, as in those times, God have mercy on whomever surprised them when they come back with the bit in their mouth.

Joint Task Force Operations are done out of necessity, not for defense dollars. And before CBG transits any choke point, the land based P-3s are put to work to make sure there is no threat!As I said, the US does joint operations better than anyone...so that is fine...but the US Navy is also very capable and trained in operating their own carrier groups and task forces autonomously at sea, which in war time they will be expected, and out of neccessity will have to do.

As to all that other...of course a war directed at the US Navy is probably going to start at a time and place in a surprise fashion for the forseeable future...that is because at this time any other navy would be foolish to try and take on the US Navy when her vessels were forwarned and prepared. But once the US gets over that and is prepared, whomever took a bite at it will pay heavily for that surprise.

Certainly not unassailable, and certainly not incapable of mistakes (for example I personally feel it has been foolish to take the S-3 out of ASW service and off the carriers precisely for one of the reasons you state regarding the P-3s), but still the most lethal, best equiped and among the (if not the) best trained out there. The money, the vessels, and the will are all there within the Navy and the will is amongst the US citizenry to pay for it, and that's why it stays that way.

[IDonT]

How about Indonesian straits? It may take longer, but they were used for a long time by submarines and Australian/USN carrriers.


It doesn't matter. You do not have command of the sea. That makes resupplying naval bases in the Indian Ocean rim very difficult. You can do it by aircraft or subs, but they will be just a trickle. Look at how Truk, Rabaul, and other bypassed Japanese naval base were starve by the US command of the sea. Yes, some of them received some reinforcement, but those were not enough to make those bases in full operation.

[BLUEJACKET]

It doesn't matter. You do not have command of the sea.
And China is working to fix that!

[IDonT]

And China is working to fix that!

Then the Peoples Liberation ARMY Navy has a lot of work for it.

First it has to fixed its inter-organizational rivalry. A Naval arm that is subordinate to the army will never be a good navy. How do I know that? The name is a dead give away.

As I said, it has its work cut out for them.

[crobato]

True. This explains why at 2004, the PLAAF and the PLAN finally got their own representing seats in the CMC (Central Military Commission). This is a watershed moment for both, since it is politically symbolic of becoming independent from the PLA. Note that the 2nd Artillery, the rocket forces, traditionally have their own seat in the CMC. I think this has a lot to do with Hu Jin Tao, trying to shake off Jiang Zhemin's legacy hold on the PLA, although fundamentally, this is a long time coming.

With more independence, the PLAN is expanding its own Marine corps.

[bd popeye]

BLUEJACKET states in a earlier post;
I was in the USN much later (1993-2002), on CVN-71 & CV-63 under orders, and visited CVN-73 & CV-62. later he posted I was in the AIMD on both: generator shop on CVN-71 and in the avionics shop + TAD in security & engineering departments on CV-63.

And in reference to the PLAN controlling the sea he says:
And China is working to fix that!

Based on your experience in the USN and your observation of how the USN operates just when do you think the PLAN be the equal of the 7th fleet? 5 years? 10 years? What time frame do you put on that evolution?

How long do you think it will take the PLAN to train the CSG to be a viable force in the Pacific and not just a green water navy? And how they might go about doing it? I'm sure you will base your answers on your USN experience. Thanks.

[BLUEJACKET]

Based on your experience in the USN and your observation of how the USN operates just when do you think the PLAN be the equal of the 7th fleet? 5 years? 10 years? What time frame do you put on that evolution?
How long do you think it will take the PLAN to train the CSG to be a viable force in the Pacific and not just a green water navy? And how they might go about doing it? I'm sure you will base your answers on your USN experience. Thanks.
You are asking a very good question, thanks! First, let me clarify 1 thing: I wasn't in the OS or IS ratings, so can't really expertly reflect on how PLAN operates.
But I do think, based on what is available and my own service experience, that the PLAN or whatever it may be called in the future would have to spend a long time-on the order of perhaps at least 15-18Y, if not more, -provided nothing intervenes from within/without) to assemble something similar to the current US 7th fleet, both in quality & quantity.
But this is not the yardstick I would use to compare the capability of both. Owing to many factors, PRC doesn't really need to replicate anything the other navies have. Even the Soviets weren't trying to mach the USN 1:1.(i.e.-they had more submarines of all kinds and heavy bombers to deal with CBGs.) The Chinese would be foolish if they set out on a goal to make that happen. Unless they want to keep tabs on all US CVNs/SSNs anywhere in the Pacific at all times there is no use for huge blue water armada.
As for training, I tend to think of maybe 2-3 years once thy have their own CV commissioned.

[bd popeye]

You are asking a very good question, thanks! First, let me clarify 1 thing: I wasn't in the OS or IS ratings, so can't really expertly reflect on how PLAN operates.
But I do think, based on what is available and my own service experience, that the PLAN or whatever it may be called in the future would have to spend a long time-on the order of perhaps at least 15-18Y, if not more, -provided nothing intervenes from within/without) to assemble something similar to the current US 7th fleet, both in quality & quantity.
But this is not the yardstick I would use to compare the capability of both. Owing to many factors, PRC doesn't really need to replicate anything the other navies have. Even the Soviets weren't trying to mach the USN 1:1.(i.e.-they had more submarines of all kinds and heavy bombers to deal with CBGs.) The Chinese would be foolish if they set out on a goal to make that happen. Unless they want to keep tabs on all US CVNs/SSNs anywhere in the Pacific at all times there is no use for huge blue water armada.
As for training, I tend to think of maybe 2-3 years once thy have their own CV commissioned.

Thanks BLUEJACKET 15-18 years is a long time to get to the level of the 7th fleet. If that is indeed the PLAN goal.

Myself I have posted that once the PLAN did have a CV/LPH type ship it would take 3-5 years or more to train up a crew simply because they do not have any experience. A CV with a air wing with about 30 fighters will take up more time. Because jet ops are inheriently more dangerous because of the faster pace. Rotorwash is not as deadly as jet intakes and exhaust. And of course arrested landings.

[Mr_C]

Hi there everybody i have not been here for a very long time for those of u who might remember me. Actually i didn't post much anyway.

Anyway i agree on that the PLAN will require at least 5 years to train their sailors and naval aviators for carrier operations.
With regards to what the PLAN is going to build.... well as we all know is that nobody outside PLAN and the CMC knows. It all depends on China's strategic directions. I am not a sailor but a soldier and anaylst before, knowing the current Chinese ways of thinking we can expect that they will build a navy capable of doing whatever the USN can do (within the next 10yrs).... this does not mean that they have to match them in power (in this time frame).

However first thing is first for the PLAN, they will build platforms that will be able to deter USN carrier battle groups such as subs and bombers etc as u fine gentlemen have already mentioned.

The PLAN building of a carrier battle group at this moment will be to get their navy acustomed to carrier operations which will pave the way for future carrier battle groups when it serves their strategic interest.
Either way we must remember that the PLAN in terms of man power is rather large and they will be capable of doing several projects at the same time.

Anyway with regards to the name "Peoples Liberation Army Navy".... well in chinese it actually means something different. Yes indeed the Navy was subordinate to the Army before. But the word "Army" in chinese actually means all military assets.

One last very important question since i have not been here for a long time...... What happened to the picture threads??

[Obi Wan Russell]

Mr_C asks: One last very important question since i have not been here for a long time...... What happened to the picture threads??

They are here, Seek and ye shall find!

Try this link!

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=28

[Jackass]

Mr_C asks: One last very important question since i have not been here for a long time...... What happened to the picture threads??

They are here, Seek and ye shall find!

Try this link!

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=28

Anyone know any good sites for Varyag pictures? Thanks.

[bd popeye]

Jackass welcome to our forum!:) Be sure to read the forum rules before posting again!

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1324

And introduce yourself to the rest of us!

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1831&page=22

We have all the latest Varyag pics in this thread and this one. Just search the pages;

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529

Sorry you won't find any "up to the minute" pics of the Varyag anywhere online. Most are several months old.

[BLUEJACKET]

Earlier there were many reports of them training on simulated carrier flight deck(s), so training could be expedited and may not take that long; if they get STOVL fighters the task is even easier. Also, they could send some aviators for training on the Russian carrier Kuznetsov, as was already mentioned on this forum. There is a possibility that at some future time the Russians will opt to sell many of their Pacific Fleet ships/subs to China (especialy if they return the Far East provinces to Chinese rule); in that case they could assemble a CBG even sooner. The flight deck was dismantled and put ashore and PLA navy pilots undertook deck landing practices on the removed deck.
http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_oct00sav01.html

In 1985, the PLAN reportedly built a simulated carrier deck for jet fighter training. Then, in 1997, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) released a photo of a large Chinese carrier model floating on a lake...
The Kuznetsov-class, Gorshkov's major achievement for his surface fleet, is smaller than U.S. aircraft carriers and carries far fewer aircraft. But its mission is not to project power across the globe. It was intended merely to extend the air cover for Soviet Navy ships designed to protect SSBNs, all within the cover of land-based bombers. ...
Now any U.S. carrier admiral will tell you that a credible aircraft carrier capability requires at least three carriers, due to needed maintenance and deployment schedules. But perhaps China's leaders merely require one carrier to occasionally scare their neighbors and the Americans. In its probable configuration, the PLAN's Varyag might also be best suited for protecting the PLAN's new SSBNs that may need only to go as far as the contiguous Yellow Sea to launch their missiles-which would please the PLA's Army-heavy leadership.
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=18&issue_id=646&article_id=4621

[Jeff Head]

Anyone know any good sites for Varyag pictures? Thanks.
Here's another one with as up to date pictures as we have, and with a good explanation of the history and current condition:

World Wide Aircraft Carriers - Varyag page (http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/varyag.htm)

[bd popeye]

While I do believe the PLAN has a simulated flight deck somewhere I do not believe they disassembled the flight deck from the Melbourne and reassembled it. . Why would they when they could just out line one a Tarmac?

They can train all they want ashore but until they are operating a CV/LPH at sea they will not be proficent. they need the stress and strain of being onboard ship for weeks training to get it right. On shore they know they will sleep in the barracks that night. And their work day is probally only 8-10 hours. Sailors were made for ships and ships were made for the sea!

ARRVVV!!!

Then, in 1997, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) released a photo of a large Chinese carrier model floating on a lake...

That turned out to be a amusment area. It's painted lime green. Somewhere in this forum is a pic of it. I can't find it...Check the PLAN pic threads.

[Jeff Head]

Then, in 1997, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) released a photo of a large Chinese carrier model floating on a lakeHave you seen the pic of that? I believe what you are speaking of is a simplistic model of a Nimitz and it is an amusement park/tourist attraction called the Orient Green Boat in Shanghai.

Here is a small pic of the theme park with the carrier mockup in the lake.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7636/dongfangluzhouinshanghaiqingpushanghaicrescenttc3. jpg

Here's a Google earth Image before it was finished as a park:

http://www.jeffhead.com/satpics/ChineseCarrierThemePark.jpg

...and here's a pic after completion:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/oriental-green-boat-03.jpg

[Obi Wan Russell]

Impressive as it is, this 'ship' does raise the obvious question; Why? At least it proves the Chinese are definitely interested in carriers! I wonder if they will do another one for me at the bottom of my garden...
Of course they could donfound us all if it turns out this is actually a full scale engineering mock up of their first indigenous carrier design! In which case the argument between ski jumps and catapults has already been settled.

[Jeff Head]

Impressive as it is, this 'ship' does raise the obvious question; Why? At least it proves the Chinese are definitely interested in carriers! I wonder if they will do another one for me at the bottom of my garden...
Of course they could donfound us all if it turns out this is actually a full scale engineering mock up of their first indigenous carrier design! In which case the argument between ski jumps and catapults has already been settled.My understanding is that at the park in Shanghai it indicates that it is a simple mockup of a US Nimitz carrier. Clearly the deck dimensions and layout are wrong and the Island, it is too far inboard and not positioned correctly. But, I believe ti is a simple mockup for exactly what it pupports...a theme park.

I believe they Varyag will be their first operational carrier as a training and learnig vessel, albeit fully operational. I believe after that we will at some point see them build a pair of new carriers of their own design...and I believe they may well build those first two at the same time. Just my opinion.

[BLUEJACKET]

Thanks for those pictures, I hope that's the one on the lake!
bd popeye
While I do believe the PLAN has a simulated flight deck somewhere I do not believe they disassembled the flight deck from the Melbourne and reassembled it. . Why would they when they could just out line one a Tarmac? They can train all they want ashore but until they are operating a CV/LPH at sea they will not be proficent. they need the stress and strain of being onboard ship for weeks training to get it right. On shore they know they will sleep in the barracks that night. And their work day is probally only 8-10 hours. Sailors were made for ships and ships were made for the sea!

The flight deck from the Melbourne was probably disassembled so they could see how it was fitted to the ship; and/or maybe they wanted to reuse it on their future CV, besides for training on land.
True, the most realistic training is done at sea. But they could take sailors off the other ships who went on long patrols/cruises and/or house them on some moored or anchored ship/barge to simulate the living conditions. The goal is also to save $$$ as much as possible while assembling the blue water navy.

[bd popeye]

The flight deck from the Melbourne was probably disassembled so they could see how it was fitted to the ship; and/or maybe they wanted to reuse it on their future CV, besides for training on land.
True, the most realistic training is done at sea. But they could take sailors off the other ships who went on long patrols/cruises and/or house them on some moored or anchored ship/barge to simulate the living conditions. The goal is also to save $$$ as much as possible while assembling the blue water navy

Trouble is the PLAN does not spend a lot of time at sea as it stands right now. But I'm am sure they are gearing up for blue water operations. I like the idea of simulating an at sea period...But nothing beats the real thing.

[Soliton]

China has no choice but to develop a Blue Water fleet with the capability to project force. Their vulnerable shipping lanes make it necessary.
In order to project force in a meaningful way, this means that they will eventually have to develop carriers along with infrastructure necessary to sustain the complex logistical requirements that are necessary to support Carrier Groups.

[BLUEJACKET]

The same goes for India:
The proposed base on India's east coast is the latest addition to its rapidly growing naval and maritime profile. India's navy is the fifth-largest in the world. It has ambitions of becoming a blue-water navy, and another naval base will contribute to realizing this ambition. .. A second naval base on the east coast, which will contribute to increasing India's naval presence in the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean, is intended to balance China's influence there and to facilitate ongoing Indian naval exercises in the South China Sea with the navies of China-wary countries.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HJ17Df02.html

[Finn McCool]

The same goes for India:


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HJ17Df02.html

I've said the same thing over and over: for China to truly be a superpower it cannot let anyone else totally dominate the Indian Ocean. For India to become a superpower, it must totally dominate the Indian Ocean. Thus to challenge India's dominance, China needs multiple CSGs to give it portable air power. That's why China must have carriers, not because of the USN.

[BLUEJACKET]

I've said the same thing over and over: for China to truly be a superpower it cannot let anyone else totally dominate the Indian Ocean. For India to become a superpower, it must totally dominate the Indian Ocean. Thus to challenge India's dominance, China needs multiple CSGs to give it portable air power. That's why China must have carriers, not because of the USN.
Not only that, but the PRC have to protect the SLOCs and to assert her claims in the S.China Sea first and formost, besides keeping an eye on Taiwan and the USN at bay if need be. Remember that EP-3 incident? And I have to disagree with you about total domination: neither the US nor the USSR totally dominated any ocean, but both were considered superpowers.
I don't think China really wants to be a superpower in the Cold War sense of the word- superpowers tend to spread out too thin depleting their internal energy like a man pumping weights- outwardly he may look strong but his internal organs are only getting weaker as the muscle mass grows. That's why you don't see oriental martial arts stylists look like Arnold Swartzenneger or Mike Tyson! China wants to be treated as equal by current superpowers and to be a regional superpower in E.Asia. Her internal problems are huge and if the global superpower status is pursued they'll only get worse.

[john fryer]

IMO, there is merit in all of the comments above. I would like to add that China may be looking to stake out a position where all the bullies and would be bullies know that it, if pushed too hard or if the wrong button is pushed (Taiwan), has the capability not only to defend the mainland. But also to hurt the would be bully!

Peace,

"To Get Rich 'IN SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE' Is Good!"

John Fryer

[AssassinsMace]

This was posted on CDF:


RusData Dialine - Russian Press Digest
October 23, 2006 Monday

Russia lands on a Chinese aircraft carrier

Konstantin Lantratov; Alexandra Gritskova

Kommersant, No 198/P, p.17

Beijing may buy Russian-made Su-33 jetfighters


Russia's state exporter of weapons, Rosoboronexport is completing
negotiations to ship to China up to 50 Su-33 jet fighters for a total
worth of $2.5 billion. If the deal is ever clinched, it will be the
second biggest contract for export of Russia's armaments.

Till late this year, China will buy in Russia two Su-33 jet fighters
on trial for the aircraft carrier that is currently constructed. The
deal value is around $100 million, sources close to negotiations
said. Bound by the very tough confidential agreements on military
cooperation, Rosoboronexport doesn't comment on the talks.

But the sources say the contract will be sealed in December in
Beijing. The aircraft will be constructed by Komsomolsk-on-Amur
Production Association and tested by China at the ground range and at
Varyag aircraft carrier that was acquired in Ukraine in 1999 and
which construction is being completed now. Russia uses Su-33 only at
Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

China intends to come up with its own aircraft carrier by 2010,
equipping it with foreign jets. But it will probably attempt to
design its own variant of Su-33 by using Russia's technology.

The agreed option provides for delivery of 12 more Su-33 jets. The
consignment may widen to 48, stepping up the budget to $2.5 billion.
Should it happen, it would be the second biggest military and
technological contract of Russia, trailing in size only the
$3-billion agreement for Su-30MKI license assembly in India.

"Theoretically, China can make aircraft. They have mastered license
assembly of J-11, the actual Su-27SK. The question is how much it
will cost and how efficient it will be in operation," said Konstantin
Makienko, an expert of Strategy and Technology Center.

[Jeff Head]

Beijing may buy Russian-made Su-33 jetfighters Russia's state exporter of weapons, Rosoboronexport is completing
negotiations to ship to China up to 50 Su-33 jet fighters for a total
worth of $2.5 billion. If the deal is ever clinched, it will be the
second biggest contract for export of Russia's armaments.

Till late this year, China will buy in Russia two Su-33 jet fighters
on trial for the aircraft carrier that is currently constructed. The
deal value is around $100 million, sources close to negotiations
said.

The agreed option provides for delivery of 12 more Su-33 jets. The
consignment may widen to 48, stepping up the budget to $2.5 billion. Now we are getting somewhere. If this is true (and that's a pretty big "if" until we have some confirmation) then this will settle the issue about the Varyag and the PLAN. All that will be left to be determined is the other components of the air wing, the particulars of the weapons and sensor fit, and the date.

I am still thinking around the Olympics for launching.

[crobato]

It's better to buy the jets rather than to build them, at least at first. Shenyang's production of J-11s are likely to be tied up for PLAAF demands and that's going to take years. And let's not mention the J-10 anymore, priority is again PLAAF.

To give people some perspective, the factory that makes the Su-33s is Komsomolosk un Amur or KnAAPO. They have supplied China with the Su-27SKs, the J-11 kits and the Su-30MKKs. The plant itself is located north of Heliojang or Manchuria as some people better remember it, and the planes when finished, can easily fly down the border to China. Convenient.

As such, one can expect these Su-33s might have equipment similar to the Su-30MK2 or even the proposed Su-30MK3.

Type Su-33 in the search result to get article.

http://www.kommersant.com/search-result.asp

[Sczepan]

thats the article
http://www.kommersant.com/p715509/China_jet_fighters_export/

[tphuang]

I don't think anyone is too surprised by this news, since we have been speculating on this all along, but I'm just waiting to read about what type of su-33s are getting bought.

[Sczepan]

...
I am still thinking around the Olympics for launching. this would be in 2008 - in considering the progress at Varjag I'd like to prefer 2007 for first sea trials and 2008 for delivering, but
if you think the chinese navy looks for such symbolic dates:

What do you think could happen around the Shanghai World Expo in 2010 http://www.expo2010china.com/expo/expoenglish/index.html ?
2010 would be excellent to present indegenious chinese naval technology

[Jeff Head]

this would be in 2008 - in considering the progress at Varjag I'd like to prefer 2007 for first sea trials and 2008 for delivering, but
if you think the chinese navy looks for such symbolic dates:

What do you think could happen around the Shanghai World Expo in 2010 http://www.expo2010china.com/expo/expoenglish/index.html ?
2010 would be excellent to present indegenious chinese naval technologyMy own guess is that 2010 is more likely when the Varyag will be commissioned as fully opertional...and shown off as such. By that date, I believe they will already be well along in the building of their own indigenous carrier...but not be finished with it yet.

[Obi Wan Russell]

The number of aircraft in the order is sufficient for a training sqn and a full air group for Varyag plus attrition spares, but at this stage there is no need to order the aircraft needed for the second (and third) carrier air groups just yet. It will be interesting to see if the chinese switch to indigenous production after this order, if only to be self sufficient in carrier aircraft.

[bd popeye]

The news of the purchase of the S--33 is great new for PLAN CV fans..myself included. :china: I did speculate for some time that the PLAN would purchase Mig-29's..Hey they still may....

Now in a couple of years we will see the furition of all our speculation. We will see how many rumours are true. then ultimatley we will see a CV bearing the colors of the PLAN put to sea. And that will bring the house down.

Imangine how many post we will have that day?? Jeez...

:china:

[Gollevainen]

well you need to rememember that Kuznetsov begun intial trials in 1989...and we could say that it is only now when the ship is fully commision (the first nigth air operations took place in last year). Ofcourse it would be different for china, but I would expect 3-5 years of operational trial period after the completion before the ship will enter the fleet and begun its lengthy journey of forging chinese carrier expertice.

[Jeff Head]

well you need to rememember that Kuznetsov begun intial trials in 1989...and we could say that it is only now when the ship is fully commision (the first nigth air operations took place in last year). Ofcourse it would be different for china, but I would expect 3-5 years of operational trial period after the completion before the ship will enter the fleet and begun its lengthy journey of forging chinese carrier expertice.I agree. I would say 2008 for launch, late 2010 for commissioning and then 2015 for any sort of proficiency in air operations. By that time there may well be another one or two Cinese carriers plowing the waves.

As it is, this news, once confirmed, is really bringing the Varyag's future into focus.

[Intrepid]

In the article You can read "... and which construction is being completed now". That is not a very good inquiry by the author, because the ship is still under construction. What about the remaining of the article, when there is such an error in it?

[Jeff Head]

In the article You can read "... and which construction is being completed now". That is not a very good inquiry by the author, because the ship is still under construction. What about the remaining of the article, when there is such an error in it?I believe in Russian it would translate more correctly into "under construction". Just a guess.

[BLUEJACKET]

China intends to design its own variant of Su-33 based on technology acquired in Russia. (picture caption)

China intends to come up with its own aircraft carrier by 2010, equipping it with foreign jets. But it will probably attempt to design its own variant of Su-33 by using Russia's technology.

The agreed option provides for delivery of 12 more Su-33 jets. The consignment may widen to 48, stepping up the budget to $2.5 billion. Should it happen, it would be the second biggest military and technological contract of Russia, trailing in size only the $3-billion agreement for Su-30MKI license assembly in India.

“Theoretically, China can make aircraft. They have mastered license assembly of J-11, the actual Su-27SK. The question is how much it will cost and how efficient it will be in operation,” said Konstantin Makienko, an expert of Strategy and Technology Center.

http://www.kommersant.com/p715509/Ch...ghters_export/

[Sczepan]

a russian source in german told:
http://de.rian.ru/business/20061023/55055338.html
... Wie eine den Verhandlungen nahe stehende Quelle mitteilte, will China bis zum Jahresende zwei bordgestützte Su-33-Jagdflugzeuge im Wert von rund 100 Millionen Dollar für einen Flugzeugträger kaufen, der sich noch in Bau befindet. Dabei werden die flugtechnischen Eigenschaften der Maschinen getestet. Der Vertrag soll im Dezember in Peking unterzeichnet werden. ....

Der erste chinesische Flugzeugträger soll 2010 fertiggestellt werden. In Zukunft will China eine eigene Version der Su-33-Maschine entwickeln, in der in Russland erworbenes Know-how für die Technologie genutzt werden soll.

Bis 2016 will China drei Flugzeugträger bauen. Sollte Peking Probleme mit der Entwicklung eines eigenen bordgestützten Jagdflugzeugs haben, könnte Russland mit einer Erweiterung des Liefervertrags rechnen...... summary translation:

China will order 2 SU-33 in Dec. 2006 for 100 Mio. $ to test the planes for a carrier, which is in construction today

the first chinese carrier should be finished in 2010, in the future china wants to construct there own version of SU-33

Up to 2016 China will build three carriers, if Bejing have problems to construct there own ship based fighters, russia could expect enlarged order ....

[Jeff Head]

a russian source in german told:
http://de.rian.ru/business/20061023/55055338.html
summary translation:

China will order 2 SU-33 in Dec. 2006 for 100 Mio. $ to test the planes for a carrier, which is in construction today

the first chinese carrier should be finished in 2010, in the future china wants to construct there own version of SU-33

Up to 2016 China will build three carriers, if Bejing have problems to construct there own ship based fighters, russia could expect enlarged order ....

der sich noch in Bau befindet

The proper english translation for this would in fact be, "which is currently under construction". it's a small point I know. I believe they are clearly speaking of the Varyag here...unless there is a full carrier under construction somewhere else that noone knows about...which is highly doubtful.

[planeman]

Are we talking 1980s Su-33 with minor updates or a fully blown Su-35 style package to allow both air-air and air-ground?

[tphuang]

Are we talking 1980s Su-33 with minor updates or a fully blown Su-35 style package to allow both air-air and air-ground?

if I were to venture a guess, it would be the latter. At the very least, it should be using Zhuk-MSE as its radar along with upgraded avionics. We might see one with Zhuk-MSF and AL-31FM1 engine. But that's to be seen. I'm personally a big fan of su-27kub, but obviously, I would still rank it below super hornet, jsf and rafale.

[Vlad Plasmius]

I believe they are clearly speaking of the Varyag here...unless there is a full carrier under construction somewhere else that noone knows about...which is highly doubtful.

Well Vayrag isn't technically under construction is it? It's already been built, it just needs to fit with the systems it needs. I doubt that alone would take four more years.

Also they're ordering 50 of these. From what I understand the Varyag should only be able to carry at most 26 such fighters, and usually only carrries 12. It does mention plans to build three aircraft carriers by 2016.

[Jeff Head]

Well Vayrag isn't technically under construction is it? It's already been built, it just needs to fit with the systems it needs. I doubt that alone would take four more years.

Also they're ordering 50 of these. From what I understand the Varyag should only be able to carry at most 26 such fighters, and usually only carrries 12. It does mention plans to build three aircraft carriers by 2016.Varyag is under construction...it was never completed even by the Russians. Only 70% or so at the time of purchase, and then the engines, sensors, weapons, etc. were all removed. Perhaps we can agree that it is the final stages of construction...but construction nonetheless IMHO.

In addition, the fifty is reported as a very iffy thing. Two are pretty sure, followed by twelve I believe. Then potentially fifty later. The Varyag is capable of carrying upwards of forty if it were fully utilized.

I believe the Varyag could be launched in 2008, and then fully commissioned and operational by 2010. The PLAN has no experience with carriers so it is going to take some time. But what they learn from the Varyag will be invaluable to them for future builds and operations.

[Croq]

The crucial part is to recknognize and separate the aircraft earmarked for Varyag with other modern aircrafts that the PLANAF is currently developing or buying. The problem is that PLAN's aircraft carrier program has launched some serious effort to modernize PLANAF.
Is the supposed naval variant of the J-10 to be designed so that it can operate on the Varyag? Is it built to compliment the Su-33?

[BLUEJACKET]

Is the supposed naval variant of the J-10 to be designed so that it can operate on the Varyag? Is it built to compliment the Su-33?
I doubt they would navalize current J-10, but it's possible. See this tread-
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1546

They may design and build a 2 engine naval derivative, but most likely the SU-33 will be localy produced along with other Suchoy jets.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Varyag is under construction...it was never completed even by the Russians. Only 70% or so at the time of purchase, and then the engines, sensors, weapons, etc. were all removed. Perhaps we can agree that it is the final stages of construction...but construction nonetheless IMHO.

Well, they had been working on it for some time. I would think they'd have it done. Also

In addition, the fifty is reported as a very iffy thing. Two are pretty sure, followed by twelve I believe. Then potentially fifty later. The Varyag is capable of carrying upwards of forty if it were fully utilized.

So is it that the Russians are not using their Kuznetsov to its fullest?

I believe the Varyag could be launched in 2008, and then fully commissioned and operational by 2010. The PLAN has no experience with carriers so it is going to take some time. But what they learn from the Varyag will be invaluable to them for future builds and operations.

Well, it says this carrier's construction would be finished by 2010. It would seems more likely that Varyag will be completely finished with all the necessary refits and modifications by 2008, maybe 2007, and a new carrier possibly being launched in 2010. Then again, like you said there's no knowledge of such a carrier being built.

[Jeff Head]

So is it that the Russians are not using their Kuznetsov to its fullest?They could carry more SU-33s then they do. The US Navy could carry over 90 aircraft on their carriers (and regularly did in the 70s and 80s) and they only embark aircrft numbering in the 60s or even less. So, yes, to a certain extent now they are being under-utilized based on what the current threat environment is perceived to be, and what they can afford at the present time.

[Obi Wan Russell]

The Kuznetzov's deck is normally untroubled by aircraft, unlike western carriers! There is a good reason for this, the Russian Navy ran out of money when the Soviet Union collapsed and the production lines for SU-33s closed due to lack of funds, so they don't have enough aircraft for a full air group, which also explains the presence of the five SU-25 Frogfoots (Frogfeet?) that normally accompany the Flankers. They need to make up numbers so the pilots have something to fly when at sea! The Frogfoots production was also curtailed after 91, and this also explains why the Mig 29K never made it into service with the Russian Navy, they simply hadn't started production when the money ran out.
As a general rule of thumb, a carrier can carry one aircraft for every 1,000tons of displacement, unless the aircraft are larger than average or the carrier gives over a significant internal volume to non aircraft related systems (eg missile silos, troop accomodation, floodable well deck etc).

[bd popeye]

They could carry more SU-33s then they do. The US Navy could carry over 90 aircraft on their carriers (and regularly did in the 70s and 80s) and they only embark aircrft numbering in the 60s or even less. So, yes, to a certain extent now they are being under-utilized based on what the current threat environment is perceived to be, and what they can afford at the present time.

One reason the USN CVN's have reduced air wings is because of Precison Guided Munitions. JDAM's specfically. Less stories are needed to destroy a target. Another reason is the decomissioning of S-3 squadrons and Tomcat squadrons.

As for the Russians like Obi Wan sez they just don't have the money.

[snake65]

Kuznecov's designed airwing was 55 aircraft, consisting of a mix of Su-27, Yak-41(later switched to MiG-29) and Ka-27.

[Jeff Head]

One reason the USN CVN's have reduced air wings is because of Precison Guided Munitions. JDAM's specfically. Less stories are needed to destroy a target. Another reason is the decomissioning of S-3 squadrons and Tomcat squadrons.

As for the Russians like Obi Wan sez they just don't have the money.Exactly popeye, thanks for adding that reasoning...but my point is that the US carriers are still capable of carying many more...and I bet if any major hostilities ever broke out, it wouldn;t be very long at all before we would see them do so.

Kuznecov's designed airwing was 55 aircraft, consisting of a mix of Su-27, Yak-41(later switched to MiG-29) and Ka-27.That's the number I had heard as well, a total of fifty-five. As Obi Wan said, I believe that the Russians just can't afford to carry any more than what they do now. I believe the Chinese will ultimately embark more aircraft than what the Russians do, simply because they can afford it and the ships were designed to do so.

[Obi Wan Russell]

The Russians may be able to acquire more SU-33s on the back of the Chinese order. Reopening the production lines may have been beyond the Russian Navy's budget on their own, but if the PLANAF is paying for production to restart they may be able to add a supplementary order on the end for themselves...

[Jeff Head]

The Russians may be able to acquire more SU-33s on the back of the Chinese order. Reopening the production lines may have been beyond the Russian Navy's budget on their own, but if the PLANAF is paying for production to restart they may be able to add a supplementary order on the end for themselves...Great point Obi Wan...and you know they would like to have some more. Training, replacement aircraft, and of course, a larger air wing for their carrier all represent real needs the Russians have in this regard, and I bet you end up being right should the PLAN get that production line started in ernest.

[oringo]

I have heard on many accounts that Su-27 exported and licensed to China have quality problems, lower fuel efficiency, short life cycles that are notorious of Russian airplanes. Is the Su-33 any better? Has the Russians crashed any of their Su-33s yet?

[bd popeye]

I have heard on many accounts that Su-27 exported and licensed to China have quality problems, lower fuel efficiency, short life cycles that are notorious of Russian airplanes. Is the Su-33 any better? Has the Russians crashed any of their Su-33s yet?

I don't know about the quality of PRC produced Su-27. maybe someone like tphuang would.

The Russians have crashed at least one Su-33.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050905/41307430.html

UPDATE 2: Su-33 aircraft crashes, sinks in north Atlantic
21:27 | 05/ 09/ 2005

MOSCOW, September 5 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian Su-33 naval military aircraft crashed and sunk in the North Atlantic Monday, the Russian Navy press service said.

The accident happened at 4:27pm Moscow time (12:27pm GMT) during a scheduled flight from the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

Captain First Class of the Russian Navy Igor Dygalo said the Su-33 aircraft piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Yuri Korneyev was attempting to land. After the aircraft touched down on the deck of the ship, it snapped the ship's break cable, slid off the deck, fell into the sea and sank to a depth of 1,100 meters.

The pilot bailed out of the aircraft and was rescued in the water by a Ka-27 PS rescue helicopter five minutes later, uninjured.

There were no weapons or ammunition aboard the aircraft, the press service said.

The black box was automatically released from the aircraft, floated to the surface independently and retrieved, Dygalo said.

----------------------------------------------------------
Here's another article on the same mishap

http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2005-34-7

Su-33 Fighter Crashes in North Atlantic
By Oleg Liakhovich The Moscow News
A Su-33 plane crashed into the sea while making a routine flight from the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov on Monday.

Captain First Class Igor Dygalo, head of the press center of the Main Staff of the Russian Navy, said the Su-33 aircraft piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Yuri Korneyev landed on the aircraft carrier in a standard manner and began deceleration. After the aircraft touched down on the deck of the ship, it snapped the ship's break cable, slid off the deck, fell into the sea and sank to a depth of 1,100 meters. The pilot bailed out of the aircraft and was rescued in the water by a Ka-27 PS rescue helicopter five minutes later, uninjured. There were no arms or ammunition aboard the plane. The Northern Fleet command and experts are probing the incident, Dygalo said.
The newly appointed Russian Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Masorin said the flight recorders of the Su-33 were automatically released from the aircraft, floated to the surface independently, retrieved and brought back to the Admiral Kuznetsov.

"Su-33 fighters have survival systems for pilots, as well as flight recorders that rise to the surface, so we didn't have to get them from a depth of 1,100 meters," Masorin said.

According to a preliminary decision announced by the Main Staff of the Russian Navy, after finding the exact location of the Su-33, it will be bombed with depth charges, as the drowned plane contains secret military equipment including a recognition system. Then, the submersible vehicle Tiger will go down and determine if the aircraft was damaged enough.

The Su-33 is the first Russian carrier-borne fighter plane based on the previous version, Su-27. It is considered to be the best fighter in the world in terms of performance in its class

[oringo]

Captain First Class of the Russian Navy Igor Dygalo said the Su-33 aircraft piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Yuri Korneyev was attempting to land. After the aircraft touched down on the deck of the ship, it snapped the ship's break cable, slid off the deck, fell into the sea and sank to a depth of 1,100 meters.


Interesting... could this be the break cable's quality problem or the plane not decelerating enough?

[bd popeye]

Interesting... could this be the break cable's quality problem or the plane not decelerating enough?

Could be..but I have to tell you those things happen. Machinery breaks. I was on 5 USN CV's. While it never happend on any ship I was aboard. I do know it has happened on USN CV's. Here is an account of an accident that occuried ob the USS Kitty hawk last year..I think.:o

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2881063&nav=23iiVo6L

A serious accident onboard a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier injured six sailors and resulted in the loss of a Super Hornet last Friday night.

Officials tell WAVY News 10 an arresting wire on the flight deck of the USS Kitty Hawk broke while the jet was landing, sending the thick steel cable shooting through the air, and right through one sailor's leg.

The Kitty Hawk, was on a training mission 100 miles off the coast of Japan when the accident occurred.

When the Super Hornet landed on the flight deck, it caught the third arresting wire - but the wire broke.

The two pilots ejected safely before the jet plunged into the ocean. They were both pulled from the frigid water by two rescue swimmers.

When the wire snapped back, it injured six crew members. Three had to be airlifted to shore, including one sailor whose leg was severed below the knee.

The accident onboard the Kitty Hawk was similar to the one on the carrier USS George Washington which happened in September of 2003.

Officials determined that accident was caused by poor maintenance, saying sailors fixing the machine that unspools the arresting wire forgot to tighten seven bolts. Investigators said if routine maintenance had been done properly, the mishap on the George Washington would have been averted.

Naval investigators say it's too early to tell what caused the wire to break on the Kitty Hawk. In addition to the lost Super Hornet - costing $57 million - officials say the accident also substantially damaged the tail section of a SH-60F Seahawk helicopter.

The Super Hornet was from VFA-102 - the Diamondbacks. Up until last year, those pilots were based at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach.

[BLUEJACKET]

For what it's worth:
According to Russian intelligence information, China started working on its own carrier since 1999 at Shanghai Shipyard. It would be the first one of purely Chinese design. This carrier, code named "Project 9935," would have a 48,000 ton displacement, capable of carrying 30 - 40 fighter jets, most of which would be multi-functional SU-30MKK jets bought from Russia. It is said that this carrier would have a built-in vertical anti-air and anti-ship missile launching system. According to NATO's categorization, such a ship can only be called a heavy aircraft cruiser, not a true aircraft carrier. China has already started working on its naval bases and harbors in Shanghai, Zanjiang and Dalian to improve docking facilities for this carrier in the future. Started in 1999, this carrier is expected to be completed by 2006, but the proper formation of an experimental ocean fleet centered on such a carrier would take another three to four years to come into shape. According to the past experience of other countries' aircraft carrier fleet formation, it is certain that China will start building 10,000 tonnage cruisers in the near future to be convoy ships. It is also possible that China will purchase such cruisers directly from overseas, most likely the "Ukraine," a missile cruiser from Ukraine, which is now 93% completed, and then build China's own similar cruisers modeled on the "Ukraine."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/chinasnavyroute.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava_class_cruiser

[Jeff Head]

For what it's worth:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/chinasnavyroute.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava_class_cruiserIf China started a full deck indeeginous carrier in 1999 in Shanghai, and if it were to be completed this year or next...it would be obvious. Tourists, satellites, commercial aircraft, all would all see such a large naval construction project.

I believe the only carrier the PLAN has near completion is the Varyag. Another may be in the early stages of construction where it is still possible to mask or hide it...but I seriously doubt that a large deck, indeginous carrier is about to be completed by the PLAN at Shanghai or anywhere else.

Just my read on it.

[BLUEJACKET]

It wont hurt, but it's waste of time...amoung us SDFlingers only Popeye has ever actually been onboard aircraft carriers ...
I was on them too- CV-63, CVN-71, and briefly on CV-62 & CVN-73. Monitoring this forum will give them an some idea of what has leaked to the outside world about their future carrier.
Another good name for the new carrier is SUN YAT SEN - the father of modern China.
http://sunyatsenhawaii.org/images/sunwen.jpg
The name will be less threatening while at the same time unifying the mainland with Taiwan. There are Dr. Sun Yat Sen Memorial Halls in Guangzhou & Taipei.
http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Nat/China/China04.htm

http://www.travelchinatour.com/guangdong-province/sun-yat-sen-memorial-hall.html

http://www.pbase.com/tomsview/image/48312636

[Finn McCool]

Could be..but I have to tell you those things happen. Machinery breaks. I was on 5 USN CV's. While it never happend on any ship I was aboard. I do know it has happened on USN CV's. Here is an account of an accident that occuried ob the USS Kitty hawk last year..I think.:o

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2881063&nav=23iiVo6L

A serious accident onboard a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier injured six sailors and resulted in the loss of a Super Hornet last Friday night.

Officials tell WAVY News 10 an arresting wire on the flight deck of the USS Kitty Hawk broke while the jet was landing, sending the thick steel cable shooting through the air, and right through one sailor's leg.

The Kitty Hawk, was on a training mission 100 miles off the coast of Japan when the accident occurred.

When the Super Hornet landed on the flight deck, it caught the third arresting wire - but the wire broke.

The two pilots ejected safely before the jet plunged into the ocean. They were both pulled from the frigid water by two rescue swimmers.

When the wire snapped back, it injured six crew members. Three had to be airlifted to shore, including one sailor whose leg was severed below the knee.

The accident onboard the Kitty Hawk was similar to the one on the carrier USS George Washington which happened in September of 2003.

Officials determined that accident was caused by poor maintenance, saying sailors fixing the machine that unspools the arresting wire forgot to tighten seven bolts. Investigators said if routine maintenance had been done properly, the mishap on the George Washington would have been averted.

Naval investigators say it's too early to tell what caused the wire to break on the Kitty Hawk. In addition to the lost Super Hornet - costing $57 million - officials say the accident also substantially damaged the tail section of a SH-60F Seahawk helicopter.

The Super Hornet was from VFA-102 - the Diamondbacks. Up until last year, those pilots were based at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach.

This artivle answers the question that I was going to ask: Wouldn't that cable flying around snap people in half and take off legs...it did.

[crobato]

I have heard on many accounts that Su-27 exported and licensed to China have quality problems, lower fuel efficiency, short life cycles that are notorious of Russian airplanes. Is the Su-33 any better? Has the Russians crashed any of their Su-33s yet?


Recently another Russian Su-27 crashed. I suppose the Russian stuff isn't very reputable, even with the Chinese.

I suppose that is why the Chinese prefer the ones they made on their own, since they could control the quality and lengthen the life cycles.

The Chinese woud no doubt won't accept any of the old Su-33s unless they were given free or sold at very low prices.

The Russians on their part, are trying to improve the quality of their exported arms. The Su-33s the Chinese will get are brand new and I don't expect them to be shoddy.

This news now increase the likelihood that the PLAN would complete their Su-30MK2/MK3 purchases. That may be at least 48 aircraft more, for 2 regiments of 24 aircraft each.

In order to get pilots for the Su-33s, the Su-30MKs can provide some training foundation where you can select the pilots from these groups.

[bd popeye]

BLUEJACKET sez;
I was on them too- CV-63, CVN-71, and briefly on CV-62 & CVN-73.

:confused: :eek:

Oh yeah?? I wuz on CVA-67, CVA-41, CVA-19, CV-66 & CVN-68. Got ya beat!:nana:

This artivle answers the question that I was going to ask: Wouldn't that cable flying around snap people in half and take off legs...it did.

Oh yes. I remember seeing a training movie of arresting gear snapping and cutting guys up..grewsome. It does not happen often..but it does happen. The flight deck is a dangerous place.

Started in 1999, this carrier is expected to be completed by 2006, but the proper formation of an experimental ocean fleet centered on such a carrier would take another three to four years to come into shape.

This is an old story. If it is true where is the ship? Is it that stealthy that we can't see it? From the time the first steel is cut it takes the US 7 years total to build a CVN. So where is the PLAN CV??:confused: The only CV the PLAN has is the Varyag..I do believe it will be operational by 2008.

[tphuang]

excuse me if this has been posted before, but this looks like an official recognition that China is ready to build aircraft carrier.

http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/1026/4959498.html


国防科工委高官：中国将逐渐具备制造航母能力

　中新网10月26日电 中国国防科工委副主任、国家航天局局长孙来燕25日在接受中国政府网专访并与网民在线交流时表示，从中国总 体造船工业的发展来看，随着发展，中国将逐渐具备制造航空母舰的能力。

　　在被主持人问到“我国有没有制造航空母舰的打算”时？孙来燕说，我们国家是一个海洋大国，有300万平 方公里的海域。从总体造船工业的发展来看，随着发展，我们将逐渐具备能力。

　　孙来燕表示，中国还是要坚持走和平发展的道路。中国奉行的是独立自主的外交政策和防御性的国防政策。中 国政府有关部门将综合各方面因素，认真研究和考虑有关问题。

basically one of the guys in the defence department said China is slowly getting the capability of building an aircraft carrier as the shipbuilding industry is improving in capability. Someone asked him if China has plan to build a carrier, he said China is a large country and has the need for such or something like that

[snake65]

Here's some information on 9935, although I have build years 2010-2020.
Displacement 44700-48000 tons, 288x71x9 m, hangar144х68х10 m (9800m2);
4 TV-12 turbines (55000 shp each), 28 knots; 30 SU-30 MK3; 6 KA-28;8-16YJ-12; VLS LY-60, CIWS.

[BLUEJACKET]

Oh yeah?? I wuz on CVA-67, CVA-41, CVA-19, CV-66 & CVN-68. Got ya beat!

This is an old story. If it is true where is the ship? Is it that stealthy that we can't see it? From the time the first steel is cut it takes the US 7 years total to build a CVN. So where is the PLAN CV??:confused: The only CV the PLAN has is the Varyag..I do believe it will be operational by 2008.
But I was there long after you retired and I'm no lifer! Let's not turn this into shouting match! As for the alleged carrier under costruction in Shanghai or any other yard except Dalian where the Varyag is, if it's true, then they've done an outstanding job concealing it. Let me guess: camouflage, overhead covers, building by sections, or all of the above!

[bd popeye]

But I was there long after you retired and I'm no lifer!

I wuz just yanking your chain dude!!.:D

As for the alleged carrier under costruction in Shanghai or any other yard except Dalian where the Varyag is, if it's true, then they've done an outstanding job concealing it. Let me guess: camouflage, overhead covers, building by sections, or all of the above!

It would be a monumental undertaking but I agree that it could be done. Both sides during WWII went to great extents to camoflauge factories etc. There is no reason to believe that the PRC could not do the same. BUT..Is there any proof of such activity? I think not.

What would be the reason for consealing such construction? Do the Chinese have some secret method for constructing warships? Nope...What and why would they want to hide the construction of a CV? No other nation does.

[BLUEJACKET]

What would be the reason for consealing such construction? Do the Chinese have some secret method for constructing warships? Nope...What and why would they want to hide the construction of a CV? No other nation does.
So not to alarm their neighbors, particularly Japan & Taiwan. "Men don't beat drums when hunting for tigers". By the way, does anyone know what is happening with Kiev and/or Minsk? I read that one of them was closed for tourists and taken for repairs. Could they be upgrading them for the PLAN?
Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2006

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/dod-2006.pdf

http://mba.001.com.cn/mbamba.files/3301.html

[Kongo]

You can get away with constructing subs under shelter, but constructing a carrier under shelter and in total secrecy is ludicrous! If there was a carrier under construction we will have heard rumours of it a long time ago.

[Gollevainen]

Here's some information on 9935, although I have build years 2010-2020.
Displacement 44700-48000 tons, 288x71x9 m, hangar144х68х10 m (9800m2);
4 TV-12 turbines (55000 shp each), 28 knots; 30 SU-30 MK3; 6 KA-28;8-16YJ-12; VLS LY-60, CIWS.

the illfamous 9935 is just some military fans own proposal, not to be taken seriously. I remember seeing bit different data (the lenght was smaller) but the hangardimensions are the same and even with this "updated" lenght, I still find it bit too overstated and not to be able to execute in reality...

[Sczepan]

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/10/31/Navigation/190/210318/Beijing+lines+up+naval+fighter+deal.html
DATE:31/10/06
SOURCE:Flight International
Beijing lines up naval fighter deal

By Siva Govindasamy

China set to take two Su-33s for evaluation as first step to potential 50-aircraft contract to build carrier capability

China could buy up to 50 Sukhoi Su-33 naval fighters in a $2.5 billion deal with Rosoboronexport, the Russian state-owned arms exporter, as part of the country's ambition to build up a viable aircraft carrier capability in the next 10 years.

Under the deal, which Russian news reports say could be sealed by the end of this year, China will initially buy two fighters for $100 million for evaluation. These will be constructed by the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Production Association.

China has a further 12 aircraft on option and the final number purchased could rise to 50 depending on demand, as well as the progress of China's plans to develop its own naval fighters. Rosoboronexport declines to comment on the reports.

This could be the second largest export contract for Russian arms after a $3 billion deal for 140 Su-30MKI fighters to be assembled in India under licence.

China wants fighter jets to be deployed on the ex-Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, which it bought from Ukraine in 1999 and is being refitted at Dalian shipyard. Although it is believed to be keen to develop its own naval jets, that is unlikely to happen by 2010, when the carrier is expected to enter service.

Beijing aims to have three aircraft carriers in service by 2016 and, if the development of an indigenous aircraft does not meet that deadline, the orders for the Su-33 could total 50.

The single-seat, twin-engined Su-33 is the naval variant of the Su-27 Flanker fighter. China's armed forces, which already have 76 Su-27SK/UBK fighters and 100 Su-30 multi-role aircraft, rely almost solely on Russia for imported military technology because of the US and European arms embargo.

[FuManChu]

So not to alarm their neighbors, particularly Japan & Taiwan.

China has already made it plainly clear it wants aircraft carriers - there is no secret to keep! Besides, if somehow it did keep a building project secret for a while, when it was exposed that would cause an even greater backlash. What do you think the reaction in Japan would be when it was discovered the PRC had been secretly building an additional two carriers? Do you seriously think they'd go, "Aww, how sweet - they kept it secret just so that we wouldn't be worried. Isn't that neighbourly - let's give them a big bag of development loans......"?!?

Hell no, they'd panic, thinking China was up to something - or people would argue that was the case. The call for revising/scrapping Article 9 would gain huge support, and Japan would get building its own carriers ahead of schedule. The defence budget would jump as well.

[Sea Dog]

The fact that people on Internet forums can see the writing on the wall, I think the militaries of Japan, SK, and the USA can all see China's ambitions in building a capable carrier capability. The fact that Russia and China are working a potential Su-33 deal is also a clear indication of work towards this end. Su-33 being specialized for carrier operations. I don't know why there's talk that China's trying to hide this fact. I don't think they are hiding anything. Nor do they need to. Just because PLAN officials aren't announcing anything, doesn't mean they are hiding it.

In terms of hiding a second project, without evidence to point to that, it's hard to say. But a project of such a nature is not easily hidden. I think when China builds a second platform, we'll get indications of it. Just MHO.

[BLUEJACKET]

I don't think they are hiding anything. Nor do they need to. Just because PLAN officials aren't announcing anything, doesn't mean they are hiding it.
In terms of hiding a second project, without evidence to point to that, it's hard to say. But a project of such a nature is not easily hidden. I think when China builds a second platform, we'll get indications of it. Just MHO.
Have you heard the phraze "neither confirm nor deny"? The US maintains ambiguity with regards to Taiwan, etc. and the PRC does the same with regards to her naval programs. More than likely their new CVs will be multimission platforms (SLOCs defense, ASW, AD, LHA, C&C) and not just carriers to project power ashore. By keeping averyone guessing, they lenghten the lead time before Japan decides to start, quoting FuManChubuilding its own carriers ahead of schedule.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1312&page=5

[piechap]

Actually I dont have anything to add at this stage Just to say Hi Chaps I am new to this just sort of interested in all sorts of CVs.

[bd popeye]

piechap..welcome to our forum. feel free to read our other CV threads

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2255

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2438

[FuManChu]

By keeping averyone guessing, they lenghten the lead time before Japan decides to start, quoting FuManChu......

But in the scenario you mention, Japan would build more aircraft carriers much quicker than it would if China just launched Varyag and then thought about more.

China and Japan are not at war, so getting a head-start is only useful if you're going to do something with it - the PRC could not afford to maintain loads of CVs. So when it had its "maximum" number, it would be waiting for Japan to catch-up.

It is currently not sure when Japan will be building its own aircraft carriers, though it is generally accepted as being inevitable it will at some point. I think that Japan would accept, for the immediate future, the PLAN having an active (as opposed to training) aircraft carrier, and not feel the need to starting churning them out too. A second some time later would probably force serious discussions, though not necessarily an immediate response. But suddenly having two, maybe three, carriers appearing out of nowhere would result in work being greatly expedited. It's not as if Japan couldn't get designs - I'm sure we would be more than happy to flog them our CVF plans and help them customise it to their needs, even give them help with construction if necessary (even build them in the UK?). Although there's obviously the matter of training, etc. Still we could help out there too, as could the US.

So, going back to my original point, what would China do with the sudden advantage? I can't see much, really. All that expenditure (from rushed, hidden production) would be a bit of a waste in my opinion.

[Sczepan]

....

China and Japan are not at war, so getting a head-start is only useful if you're going to do something with it - the PRC could not afford to maintain loads of CVs. So when it had its "maximum" number, it would be waiting for Japan to catch-up.

It is currently not sure when Japan will be building its own aircraft carriers, though it is generally accepted as being inevitable it will at some point. I think that Japan would accept, for the immediate future, the PLAN having an active (as opposed to training) aircraft carrier, and not feel the need to starting churning them out too. A second some time later would probably force serious discussions, though not necessarily an immediate response. But suddenly having two, maybe three, carriers appearing out of nowhere would result in work being greatly expedited. ..... Japan, as I know, have three LDs in service (Oosumi type, 11000 ts, 22 kn, 178 m).
Also SKorea is working to use two LDs (19000 ts, 22 kn, 200 m).
I'm pretty sure, they would accept maxim. the same number of corresponding PLAN LDs or even (amphibious) Carriers. By considering the Varjag (as opposed to training) carrier, China could construct up to two amphibious Carriers (LDs) with 20000 ts without alarming those neighbours ....

[BLUEJACKET]

[QUOTE=Sczepan;47900]Japan, as I know, have three LDs in service (Oosumi type, 11000 ts, 22 kn, 178 m).
Also SKorea is working to use two LDs (19000 ts, 22 kn, 200 m).
QUOTE]
I agree. The US could even transfer 1 or 2 of decom'd CV to Japan as well as a stop-gap measure. And I don't think Japan will have to match China 1-1 at this point since she's still under the wing of USN 7th fleet and STRATCOM.

[bd popeye]

BLUEJACKET sez;

I agree. The US could even transfer 1 or 2 of decom'd CV to Japan as well as a stop-gap measure. And I don't think Japan will have to match China 1-1 at this point since she's still under the wing of USN 7th fleet and STRATCOM.

The second part of your statement is correct. Japan has the 7th fleet to help the JMSDF protect Japan in a real conflict.

The US would never transfer a CV to Japan. First off I think Japan's consitution forbids them from having offensive weapons. a CV is an offensive weapon. Secondly the USN has stricken all the CV's it decomissioned. That means they are no longer maintained. Zero maintance. None, zip, zilch nadda. Those ships are just sitting around waiting to be disposed. Ain't never gonna happen. The only type CV's the US has ever transfered to another nation were 'light" CV's and escort CV's. And that was in the 50's and early 60's. Not going to happen.

[Obi Wan Russell]

BLUEJACKET sez;
The USN has stricken all the CV's it decomissioned. That means they are no longer maintained. Zero maintance. None, zip, zilch nadda. Those ships are just sitting around waiting to be disposed. Ain't never gonna happen. The only type CV's the US has ever transfered to another nation were 'light" CV's and escort CV's. And that was in the 50's and early 60's. Not going to happen.

Which is a pity. Of the recently decommissioned USN CVs I would pick the Constellation as the best of the bunch, better flightdeck layout than the Forrestals and not quite as old (though not by much). Japan and the UK are probably the only two countries that the USA would transfer a CV to if asked (Japan has the aforementioned constitutional problems, which are not insurmountable, and the UK is still on course for the CVFs which are more modern and economical to operate). JFK will soon be joining the list but by all accounts is in a somewhat decrepit condition and the cost of refitting her at this point is not far off the price of a new CV (though not a CVN). Such a transfer of any former USN CV would not produce an instant carrier capability for Japan of course, as they would require at least two years to refit them for service, time which could be well spent training aircrew, deck crew etc, then another two years (possibly longer, but the Japanese are nothing if not efficient, and fast learners to boot) to 'shakedown' the ship and air wing in order to reach IOC. Thus we looking at about five years before such a move produces a Japanese Carrier Strike group, which is not much less than it would take to build their own ship (@7 years?) so urgency would be the prime motivating factor. As the USN provides the Japanese with a CSG effectively the need for Japan to have their own carrier is harder to justify politically, no matter how much provocation a PLAN CSG may be.

On the subject of transferring carriers to other navies, it is a pity that the USN disposed of the Iwo Jima class LPHs with such indecent haste as they would have been attractive to smaller navies looking to join the carrier club. Refitted with either gas turbine or diesels (or both), ski jump forward, and they would have made very effective dual purpose carriers/amphibs. Just what Australia is looking for, and a much better deal than the clapped out LSTs they bought a few years ago, and are already trying to replace!

[FuManChu]

The US would never transfer a CV to Japan. First off I think Japan's consitution forbids them from having offensive weapons. a CV is an offensive weapon. Secondly the USN has stricken all the CV's it decomissioned. That means they are no longer maintained. Zero maintance. None, zip, zilch nadda. Those ships are just sitting around waiting to be disposed. Ain't never gonna happen. The only type CV's the US has ever transfered to another nation were 'light" CV's and escort CV's. And that was in the 50's and early 60's. Not going to happen.

Popeye, there are relatively few things which are not offensive weapons. Tanks are offensive, as are attack helicopters, jets and even guns. The Japanese Constitution has to be bypassed in many respects because it's far too restrictive. Although in its current state aircraft carriers would be very difficult to justify - maybe they would be accepted if "collective self-defence" was allowed.

There's one other point you missed - the US' carriers are nuclear-powered. I'm not sure that Japan would want the expense/bother of having to use that. They'll be looking for conventionally-powered ships.

[bd popeye]

Fu sez
There's one other point you missed - the US' carriers are nuclear-powered. I'm not sure that Japan would want the expense/bother of having to use that. They'll be looking for conventionally-powered ships.



The CV's that are decomissioned are all conventional powered ships.

Popeye, there are relatively few things which are not offensive weapons. Tanks are offensive, as are attack helicopters, jets and even guns. The Japanese Constitution has to be bypassed in many respects because it's far too restrictive. Although in its current state aircraft carriers would be very difficult to justify - maybe they would be accepted if "collective self-defence" was allowed.


I realize that. I was refering to the wording of the Japanese consitution. And the Japanese consitution is vey restrictive reguarding military hardware. But the Japanese have found ways around the wording over the years.

Obi Wan sez;
Which is a pity. Of the recently decommissioned USN CVs I would pick the Constellation as the best of the bunch, better flightdeck layout than the Forrestals and not quite as old (though not by much). Japan and the UK are probably the only two countries that the USA would transfer a CV to if asked

The "Connie" does have the superior deck layout..but it's powerplant was not in the condition of the Forrestal. The Connie was operating on only three screws it's last few years of comission.

On the subject of transferring carriers to other navies, it is a pity that the USN disposed of the Iwo Jima class LPHs with such indecent haste as they would have been attractive to smaller navies looking to join the carrier club.

Agreed. Not to mention the Belleau Wood....The drawback with the Iwo Jima class is the fact they had only one screw to power a 20,000 ton ship. But they would have provided a "econo CV" for some nation.

[Sczepan]

found some (to me new) pix of Varyag at CMF
I'm still waiting for antennas and other equipment at the island (source and two pix more at http://www.centurychina.com/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi/plaboard/?cmd=get&cG=33735383736343&zu=33373538373634&v=2&gV=0&p=)

[bd popeye]

Sczepan, Thanks for that link.:)

I saw that same pic in another thread and thought it was PS'ed. I still do. It's just airbrushed to make it look cleaner. But someone added golden anchors. The USN does that on certian ships that re-enlist the most sailors.

The other pictures look real enough. I compared them to the other Varyag pictures. And those pictures are certianly "new" to me also.

The Flight deck on the Varyag looks very clean. Almost finished except for the markings...Those retangle holes are probally for the Jet blast deflectors as of yet to be installed.. Of course on the island we still see no radars etc...:(

Looks like the missile silos have been closed off. Smart move by the PLAN.

[green beret]

Well, one problem I can see right now is that there is no deep water port in China. And the Chinese lacks immediate access to deep water.

If you look at the map, China is surrounded by shallow waters. And that is not a good thing in general for a navy.

On top of that, China is practically blocked by their neighbors.

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3732/geographical20mapnb0.jpg

[bd popeye]

green beret sez;
Well, one problem I can see right now is that there is no deep water port in China. And the Chinese lacks immediate access to deep water.

If you look at the map, China is surrounded by shallow waters. And that is not a good thing in general for a navy

Actually the PRC builds deep draft ships at it's numerous shipyards. Besides ports can and are dregged out world wide to permit passage of deep draft ships.

There are deep water ports in the PRC & "world class ports;

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/GL22Cb04.html

[FuManChu]

Popeye, I was just going to say. How on earth can China have no deep-water ports if it can operate all those big merchant ships? The Emma Maersk called in at Yantian before it went on to Felixstone - it's supposedly the largest container ship in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6118032.stm

[Jeff Head]

Sczepan, Thanks for that link.:)
The Flight deck on the Varyag looks very clean. Almost finished except for the markings...Those retangle holes are probally for the Jet blast deflectors as of yet to be installed.. Of course on the island we still see no radars etc.Popeye, I thought the same thing. This picture of the full flight deck is new to me and shows continuing progress. Earlier we saw the non-skid primer coat put on, now the deck is looking like it is almost complete.

http://centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/Varyag_best_3.jpg

[guitarjeff]

Sczepan, Thanks for that link.:)


The Flight deck on the Varyag looks very clean. Almost finished except for the markings...Those retangle holes are probally for the Jet blast deflectors as of yet to be installed.. Of course on the island we still see no radars etc...:(

Looks like the missile silos have been closed off. Smart move by the PLAN.

On the US carriers, the blast deflectors are juxtaposed to the steam catapults. It seems that on the Varyag, the blast deflectors are found at the same positions. Could that be an indication that steam catapults may be installed?

I am no naval expert, but the draft of the ship seems shallow at this stage. I wonder what would be the current displacement of the Varyag. Rumor has it that the engine has been removed prior to the ship's sales. It makes me wonder if the shallow draft of the ship is due to the absence of the engine?

[planeman]

Awesome ship. Any info on the projected weapons fit? ...Russian or Chinese

[swimmerXC]

Awesome ship. Any info on the projected weapons fit? ...Russian or Chinese

From that Chinese post it says...
瓦良格航母最新进展曝光

“瓦良格”号在05年早些时候进入了干船坞进行了外壳维护工程, 是否还有其它现在还不清楚, 如舰首声呐的安装, 减摇鳍, 尾部螺旋桨, 方向舵. 一段时间后她又停泊在栖装码头, 这时舰体已油漆一新, 舰桥也做了防锈处理. 而又在短时间内甲板的番新工作也完成了. 经过一年多时间的设备安装, 内部的设施基本完成. 从近期的图片可见舰桥已搭好橫架, 并在近期进行舰上设备栖装.

该舰命名尚未公开, 全舰长304.5米, 水线长280米, 总宽70米, 水线宽37米, 吃水10.5米. 飞行甲板长304.5米, 宽70米. 8台锅炉4台蒸汽轮机, 采用两套现代级相同的动力, 总功率200000马力, 航速30节. 主搜索雷达采用了052C的有源相控阵雷达, 备用雷达为顶板, 安装在主桅顶端. 其下面是飞机战术导航指挥通讯系统天线, 与库兹涅佐夫上的相同. 舰桥前后两端各装备一部短程对空/对海搜索雷达, 与052C主桅顶的雷达相同, 其它电子设备与系统都是由052C舰移植过来.

舰体四角装备有HHQ16防空导弹4X8垂直发射井, 全舰共128枚导弹. 由舰桥中部四个角的四部与船身中部的两部前罩雷达控制. 另外舰体的四角各装备有2部CADS-N-1弹炮合一防空系统, 尾部装备两座AK630M1速射炮, 四座金属风暴24管多用途火箭发射器.

原型舰装有SS-N-19舰毁导弹的发射井, 中国没有该型号导弹, 只能将发射井拆除, 改为机库. 苏-33M的最大载机数由18架增加到24架. 战时将载有16架苏33M, 8架苏33UBM, 4架雅克44E预警机, 2架雅克44M空中加油机, 8架卡28M反潜直升机, 2架卡29多用途直升机. 共40架载机, 其中机库能容下70%的战机. L15超音速战斗/教练机也可上舰, 平时担任训练任务. 在研的歼13为舰载机, 可望在后续舰上装备, 以增加载机数量与执行任务时的灵活调配.
HHQ-16 4x8, same radar as 052C, 8 boilers 4 steam turbines with 200,000 horsepowers producing 30 knots, and maybe L-15's...

I have no idea why it mentioned AK-630 and Kashstan.... when you got the Type 730

[bd popeye]

On the US carriers, the blast deflectors are juxtaposed to the steam catapults. It seems that on the Varyag, the blast deflectors are found at the same positions. Could that be an indication that steam catapults may be installed?

I am no naval expert, but the draft of the ship seems shallow at this stage. I wonder what would be the current displacement of the Varyag. Rumor has it that the engine has been removed prior to the ship's sales. It makes me wonder if the shallow draft of the ship is due to the absence of the engine?

Catpults could be installed later. But I think you will see the ship go to sea without them. It still has a ski jump and the flight deck has been resurfaced. Those future JBD's are in the same general position of the ADM "K". Scrool down to the bottom of the following link for the deck layout.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1143_5-pics.htm

All CV's sit high in the water when empty. Empty= No weapons, no aircraft, no munitions, no crew, no fuel. Empty water and sewage tanks. Trust me all that weight adds up. But we had that argument in this forum some time ago. Of course I'm correct because I actually served on 5 USN CV's. :D

Check pages 10,11,12 & 13 of the old Varyag pic thread for arguments pro and con about why the ship sits so high.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529

[Sczepan]

some rumors by Richard Fisher jr. http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.126/pub_detail.asp
PLA Navy Carrier Update and Euro-Naval Notes

emailEmail this article
printPrint this article

by Richard Fisher, Jr.
Published on November 7th, 2006
ARMS SHOW REPORTS

Yes, China is dead serious about aircraft carriers.

The most important news to emerge from the Euronaval weapons show at Le Bourget field near Paris, October 23-27, was word that Russia had agreed to sell China two Sukhoi Su-33 carrier-based fighters, with the possibility of selling up to 48 or 50 of these fighters. These would arm the three carrier battle groups that, according to Chinese press reports, are on track to be ready in a little more than a decade.

Should these fighters receive a maximum Russian upgrade, then the PLA Navy could possess fighters that in important respects would be superior the U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F, the dominant U.S. Navy combat aircraft for the foreseeable future.

In addition, China would have more carriers available for operations within a thousand miles of her shores than would the U.S. plus her allies. Carriers, with their ability to create local air superiority and sea denial, may be particularly effective in attacks on island territories belonging to such states as Korea (Socotra island) or Japan (the Senkakus) or the Philippines (who already have a Chinese presence on Mischief Reef) or Indonesia (the Natuna group) or even Taiwan --Taiping island, the most important strategic position in the South China Sea.

The best response will be submarines, which Japan has in limited numbers and Korea is building, but which are otherwise not widely possessed by American allies, as well as advanced anti-ship missiles and air power of a sort that, absent some improvements, will be no match for the Sukhois.

But the Sukhois may represent the limit of what Russia can do; they have a 5th generation fighter program but with uncertain prospects for success. Moscow lacks the most advanced technologies, the sorts that have the greatest potential to destabilize the region, such as stealth. So Beijing is now looking to Europe for that next input of know-how.

Euronaval heard new calls by the French government on October 25, 2006 to lift the 1989 European Union (EU) arms embargo on China. New European naval platform and weapons technologies revealed at Euronaval ensure that once the EU embargo is lifted, the People�s Liberation Army (PLA) will seek to move quickly to gain access and cement industrial relationships. China clearly is looking to the EU to provide "next-generation" military technologies increasingly unavailable from Russia�s weapons combine, which is still struggling to recover from the demise of their well-funded Soviet customer

Sukhoi Su-33 Sale To PLA

Russian press reports about the sale of Suhkoi Su-33 naval fighters to China offer further confirmation of China�s ambition to develop carrier aviation. At the 2005 Moscow Airshow Russian sources had initially disclosed that China was interested in the Su-33, a much-modified carrier compatible version of the basic Su-27 heavy fighter.[1] At Moscow the Russian also demonstrated the larger twin-seat Su-33UB training and attack fighter for a PLA delegation. But in late October 2006 Russian reports in Kommersant and elsewhere revealed that China has made an initial purchase of two Su-33 fighters for evaluation, likely to be followed by an order for 12, and the possibility of additional sales that could lead to a total of 48 to 50 of these fighters, for about $2.5 billion.[2] If acquired, such numbers might outfit two regiments of the PLA Naval Air Force.



Sukhoi Su-33 Naval Fighter: On display at the 2005 Moscow Airshow, China may buy 2 and then up to 50 of these fighters to equip PLA Naval Air Force regiments to operate from new aircraft carriers. Credit: RD Fisher

A regiment of 24 to 25 would also be enough to outfit a Russian style carrier like the Varyag, which is now undergoing refurbishment in Dalian harbor. In Moscow one Russian source noted that purchased fighters would not equip the Varyag, but a carrier to be built in the future, so the purchase of two regiments might be an indication that China intends to build two more carriers about the same size as the Varyag. However, such can only be speculation; Russia is now developing a new class of aircraft carrier that it hopes to launch later in the next decade. While little is known about their new carrier design, concepts from the mid-1990s suggest Russian consideration of a much larger hull incorporating catapults for the first time, which would also support heavier aircraft like naval AWACS. As the PLA is also known to be developing at least one carrier AWACS aircraft design, it stands to reason that it would also be very interested in Russia�s new carrier design.




Russian Carrier Designs: China is consulting with Russia regarding future carrier designs, though these are previous designs from the 1980s and 1990s that could be guiding China-Russia consultations. Credit: Russian Internet

As for the Varyag itself, some in the U.S. Intelligence Community and others view it as a possible "transitional" ship to develop PLA carrier aviation, but with potential military applications as well.[3] The purchase of 2 to 12 Su-33s to start would be consistent with the more limited goal of assessing the aircraft and obtaining initial experience with carrier aircraft operations. Also, a Varyag with 12 Su-33s, a small number of Su-33UBs and supporting helicopters, would pose a formidable political symbol of Chinese strategic ascendance to Asian allies of the United States already wary of its declining influence vis-�-vis China. A Varyag so equipped would also allow the PLA to more quickly develop difficult combined-arms operations between PLA Navy, Air Force, Second Artillery and space forces to better combat U.S. aircraft carrier groups.



Sukhoi Su-30UB: Demonstrated to PLA visitors to the 2005 Moscow Airshow, this unique Russian fighter could be developed into an electronic warfare version capable of electronic attack, information attack and jamming missions. Credit: RD Fisher

But the purchase of just a small number of Su-33s may convey other intentions when considering another Russian revelation from the Russian press that China had managed to acquire from the Ukraine one of the T-10K prototypes for the Su-33.[4] This may indicate that while purchasing some Su-33s, the PLA�s real intention is to obtain the ability to produce their own version of the Su-33, to be based on the Su-27/J-11 now under co-production at the Shenyang Aircraft Company. Shenyang and KnAAPO, the maker of the PLA�s Su-27 and Su-30 fighters, have been at loggerheads since 2004 over the Shenyang�s desire to build a much-modified J-11 that would vastly reduce Russian content and potentially allow China to market their own version of yet another Russian fighter. KnAAPO and its parent company Sukhoi would like maximize their profits from future upgrade or modifications Shenyang may make to its J-11s. KnAAPO has also produced all of the Russian Navy�s Su-33s and would likely want to retain this business.

At Moscow in 2005 a Russian source was rather confident that China could not master all of the necessary modifications to turn their J-11s into carrier capable fighters like the Su-33. Compared to the basic Su-27, the Su-33 has a strengthened airframe covered with corrosion-resistant materials, much strengthened landing gear, the addition of "canard" lift devices and larger wing flaps to lower landing speed, folding wings, an aerial refueling probe, and a landing system that automatically controls the aircraft to land on the carrier deck.[5] The Su-33UB contains further aerodynamic refinements, uses more stealthy composite materials, and can carry a larger radar for attack missions. The Su-33UB has also been proposed for AWACS missions with the addition of a phased arrary radar atop the dorsal spine or under the fuselage. The Su-33UB demonstrated for the PLA in 2005 had also been modified with thrust-vectoring engines which greatly improve maneuverability.

But a year later it is possible to conclude that perhaps as far back as the late 1990s the PLA has been trying to develop an indigenous carrier capable J-11. Such a fighter may also benefit from Shenyang�s indigenized land-based J-11 program, which will likely incorporate new 13,200 to 13,600kg thrust WS-10A "Taishan" turbofan engines, new advanced PLA-developed radar and PLA-developed PL-12 advanced air-to-air missiles and new precision-guided ground attack weapons. A navalized J-11 based on this program would be decidedly superior to the Su-33 now in service with the Russian Navy.



Shenyang�s J-11 Ambitions: It is possible that for a number of years that Shenyang has been developing a carrier capable version of it J-11, benefiting from its program to create a new multi-role version of the J-11. Credit: Chinese Internet

To head off this program, and to appeal for future Russian Navy orders, Sukhoi is promoting upgrades for the Su-33. These will likely benefit from an upgraded version of the Su-35 that was marketed at the recent 2006 Zhuhai Airshow.[6] One major upgrade will be replacing the 12,500kg thrust AL-31F engines with 13,500kg thrust AL-31-F-M1 engines, which will allow for more rapid take-offs and larger weapons carriage. And while funding constraints have prevented radar and weapon upgrades, it is now possible to envision new Su-33s being equipped with new active electronic scanning array (AESA) radar like the Phazotron Zhuk-MFSE revealed in 2005. This radar can simultaneously track 30 aerial targets, two ground targets simultaneously, and locate naval targets out to 300km. Russian radar maker NIIP is also working on AESA radar. With additional development such phased array radar can themselves become weapons for delivering a range of electromagnetic attacks into enemy electronics. The Su-33UB�s ability to carry a much larger active array makes more attractive for such electronic weapons. The Su-33 can also be expected to carry the full range of Russian weapons, such as the Vympel R-77 active-guided BVR AAM, the 300km range Novator KS-172, the Kh-31 supersonic anti-radar/anti-ship, the Raduga 300km Kh-59MK anti-ship missile, and soon, air launched version of the unique 200km range Novator 3M-54E anti-ship missile and the 300km range 3M-14E land-attack cruise missile.



Phazotron AESA Radar: Revealed at the 2005 Moscow Airshow, the Phazotron Zhuk MFE is now undergoing testing. Credit: RD Fisher

Should China instead opt to fund a maximum Russian upgrade for the Su-33 instead of developing their own version, the PLA Navy could begin limited carrier operations by the middle of the next decade with a fighter competitive to, if not superior in some respects, to the U.S. Navy Boeing F/A-18E/F fighter bomber. In terms of range and maneuverability, it appears that the larger Su-33 with lower wing loading and higher thrust engines, will dominate the F/A-18E/F.[7] This advantage will multiply should the new Su-33 use thrust-vectoring engines. Such platform advantages may be regarded as obsolete considering the U.S. use of long-range off-board sensors like AWACS, UAVs and even satellites, plus the ability of new Helmet Mounted Displays for reducing the advantages of platform maneuverability. However, the Russian and Chinese investment in counter AWACS and anti-satellite systems could revive requirements for platform superiority, especially when both sides have Helmet Display systems.




Boeing F/A-18E/F and the Raytheon AN/APG-79 ASEA radar: The U.S. Navy is betting this combination will sustain the superiority of its carrier combat fighters, but an upgraded Su-33 could radically alter this projection. Credit: RD Fisher

In terms of electronic systems, the U.S. Navy is leading by fitting current and future F/A-18E/Fs with the Raytheon AN/APG-79 active electronic array radar (AESA), but Russian AESA radar may soon be available for the Su-33. Regarding weapons there may be rough parity, with the Su-33 having access to more and longer-range anti-ship missiles than the F/A-18E/F. While it is due to be supplemented by the stealthy attack mission oriented Lockheed-Martin F-35C in the next decade, the F/A-18E/F will remain the numerically dominant U.S. Navy combat aircraft for the foreseeable future. Although the U.S. would retain a commendable advantage accrued from generations of professional carrier operations and development, it would be an unwelcome development for PLA to begin its carrier aviation era with a combat aircraft competitive to superior to the F/A-18E/F.



Severnoye and the Type 054 Frigate

Russian sources noted that in contrast to other firms, the Severnoye ship design and construction company played a consulting role in the development of the PLAN Type 054A JIANKAI frigate. These sources noted Severnoye�s role was confined to assisting the integration of Russian systems on to the ship. These sources noted that the Type 054�s design was largely a product of indigenous Chinese design bureau. However, the Type 054A also uses a full suite of Russian weapon systems, including the Shtil-1 vertical launched SAM, the MINERAL-E passive radar and data link system, and the FREGAT long-range search radar. The helicopter hanger is large enough to support a Kamov Ka-28 size helicopter. Two Type 054A frigates were under construction as of late 2006.



Type 054A Frigate Under Construction: Now beginning series production, the Type 054A provides the PLA Navy with a less expensive stealthy ship armed with capable Russian anti-air weapons and surveillance systems. Credit: Chinese Internet

Possible Almaz ZUBR Hovercraft Sale to China

In July 2006 Russian press reports quoted sources from the Almaz ship design bureau that it was close to completing a sale to China of six of its unique 550 ton ZUBR heavy amphibious assault hovercraft, with discussions also exploring possible co-production in China. At Euronaval Russian sources noted that China had not yet signed such a contract, but negotiations were still underway. These sources also noted that it took a little over two years to build a ZUBR assuming full funding. For a large order of the hovercraft, it was noted that Almaz would likely distribute construction among multiple shipyards. The ZUBR can carry up to four heavy main battle tanks or up to 20 lighter wheeled APC class vehicles. Being a hovercraft, the ZUBR can also much more easily penetrate Taiwan�s difficult west coast, giving the PLA many more options for amphibious attack routes. China itself has invested in the development of large hovercraft, but not as large as the ZUBR. Co-production of the ZUBR would likely enable China to more rapidly prefect very large hovercraft.



Almaz ZUBR hovercraft: The sale of even a small number of ZUBR to the PLA would greatly increase PLA Army invasion options for Taiwan. Credit: RD Fisher

Air Launched CLUBS

The Novator company, designer and manufacturer of the unique CLUB family of ship and submarine launched anti-ship, land-attack and anti-submarine cruise missiles, stated that at the 2007 Moscow Airshow they would display new air-launched version of their 3M anti-ship missile and their 3M56E land attack cruise missiles. The unique two-stage 220km range 9M launches as a subsonic missile