SinoDefence Forum

bd popeye · 07-03-2009

The second pic has long been debunked as BS..The first drawing is a nice rendition.

bd popeye · 07-13-2009

More nice renderings etc for YOU!!

Jeff Head · 07-13-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Check out these Fan Boy dreams.. Looks like someone ripped off Jeff Heads X deck CV idea..

Ok, if you are going to mention it, then I have to post it:

Jeff Head · 07-13-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Sea Basing.. Chinese style!

Alright, now that we're at it, I have to also show the submersible LPH, CVN, and the whole task force as envisioned several years ago in the DRAGON'S FURY SERIES:

US Navy SSLPHN submersible Amphibious Assault

US Navy SSCVN submersible Aircraft Carrier

US Navy Complete Submersible Task Force

TerraN_EmpirE · 07-18-2009

those subs ain't got nothing on the look of any of the large number in Japanese Anime.

I loike the Rovak Redress and the Stealth is nice too. you got too love the PS'ed Chinese flag on the Nimitz class ship.

bd popeye · 07-21-2009

This was posted in the PS/artist thread that disappeared..

bd popeye · 07-27-2009

We do have a thread called;

Ideal chinese carrier thread

These pictures are some very good art. Just a couple of mistakes...

This second one is different. I'd like to see the hull. Planeman, if you are around, do you have any idea what the hull may look like??

panzerkom · 08-01-2009

Well. I came up with something semi-original for a change.

A 30,000-ton container ship converted into a LHP, designed to carry a typical PLA light division's air assault battalion/regiment and its associated aviation wing: 6 Z-9WAs and 6 Mi-17s.

Each flight deck module measures 80 ft by 80 ft. The flight deck will be rather crammed when the ship is fulling loaded, and only the two center deck module can be used for flight operation. The main reason being the PLA ground force's helicopters don't have folding rotor blades. Two refueling / rearming stations -- one at the bow and one at the stern are present. Troop modules are located behind the bridge.

The ship will obviously NOT be used for operations beyond a couple hundred nautical miles.

Please feel free to comment on / critique the idea.

bd popeye · 08-01-2009

No hangar bay I assume? How willl the crew work on the helos? They do break down ya' know.

Those containers ships have only one screw. If that were to be disabled during conflict or hi-tempo operations she's dead in the water.

panzerkom · 08-01-2009

Popeye is the master of deck operations as I suspected.

Both are good points:

1. Nope, no hangar for major maintenance work, only a couple of deck vehicles for reloading / re-arming. Of course, if you blew a fuse, I suspect there'd be spares onboard, but no hoisting the engine out to work on it. I guess one could rotate the helos between an ad-hoc LHP like this and a true LHD, so each helicopter can get some maintenance time every other flight.

2. The ship will be part of a larger amphibious operation and operate 40 clicks offshore to minimize the chance of it getting hit. But yeah, it would be a rather vulnerable target.

I believe it's an idea the PLA has considered. China's got a large fleet of container ships, and with relatively cheap conversions like this, they'd be able to field more air assault units than what their meager number of LHDs allow them to. The concept is kind of a step up from the Royal Navy's use of the Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands War:

BTW, what do you think about the deck operation?
2 Mi-17s taking off or landing simultaneously sounds reasonable?

bd popeye · 08-01-2009

Panzerkom you are doing a great job with those drawings.

The first US CV the USS Langley CV-1 was a converted collier(coal ship) and it had a hangar. But first China needs helos with blades that fold.

The first pic is of the ship before her conversion. The second is of course the conversion to a carrier. The third her hangar.

panzerkom · 08-02-2009

Thank you, Popeye.

I dunno how difficult or costly converting the rotor would be, or whether it is possible.

bd popeye · 08-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by panzerkom

Thank you, Popeye.

BTW, what do you think about the deck operation?

2 Mi-17s taking off or landing simultaneously sounds reasonable?

I dunno how difficult or costly converting the rotor would be, or whether it is possible.

If the US did a similar conversion in 1922..China can do it today if need be.

I do not see any problem operating two helos from that ship simultaneously.

panzerkom · 08-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

If the US did a similar conversion in 1922..China can do it today if need be.

I do not see any problem operating two helos from that ship simultaneously.

oh, no no. not the ship itself, that's easy. i was talking about the main rotors on the helos. the Z-9 with its french origin would be easy; but on the Mi-17.. well, let's just say that russian industrial products aren't exactly known for their modular or ergonomic design and ease of access and maintenance.

that post of mine was referring to your "But first China needs helos with blades that fold" comment. obviously, the PLAN and marines have their aviation assets with folding rotor blades, but none of the PLA ground force's helos seem to have that.

bd popeye · 08-02-2009

Thanks for that clarification. Great postings..

SinoDefence Forum

PS and artist renditions

PS and artist renditions

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster