All About The Chinese Aircraft Carrier Thread

[su-27]

Sorry... I run too much!

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

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

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

2008 Vikramaditya vs Varyag

2012 new Viraat vs first chinese indigenous carrier (2012/2015?)

2016 new Vikrant (?) vs second chinese indigenous carrier (2018/2020?)

About the cost of developing an hybrid air wing with a carrier based J-10, I think is needed by this fleet of carriers.

If China thinks that Varyag is enough either with an indigenous sister ship,
an air-wing with only SU-33s and helos is enough.

But... if China wants to become a superpower and looking at the chinese naval development in last six years, at the naval development of China's "enemies": Japan, Taiwan, India, Australia, South Korea... either at the US Navy, I think that Chinese carrier program will be at least bigger than Indian program.

[maozedong]

Please see the attachment

Mod's edit: Care to give little description????this is some sorces from a chinese magazine (some relation with P.L.A.newapaper edit department).
it describe about J10 as carriea airsupport.

Mr.Su27:
I think India is not able to go that fast at carrier built,it's only their project.
china is also not able to go that fast either.

[OldSquid]

Logical question, what shipyard in China makes nuclear submarines.
Perhaps, if the carrier is to be nuclear, why not look there. Not too
many shipyards with technology, capacity or size. Must be limited to just a
couple, no?

Just wondering.....

[swimmerXC]

Originally Posted by OldSquid

Logical question, what shipyard in China makes nuclear submarines.
Perhaps, if the carrier is to be nuclear, why not look there. Not too
many shipyards with technology, capacity or size. Must be limited to just a
couple, no?

Just wondering.....

Huludao Shipyard in Huludao, Liaoning
Probably too small to fit carrier in there

[maozedong]

I don't think china will make nuclear power for the first carrier,but in the future,nobady knows.
as so far as I know that submarine nuclear technology is not very good for carrier.
even advenced courtry like france,they use submarine nuclear power technology into carrier (Charles De Gaulle), the result is caused the carrier has no enough power.Charles de Gaulle also had other problems that caused it had delayed for five years to be commissioned.
there is only USA has so much resources and complet technology to built carrier so good and so fast.
I think the first chinese new carrier just around 50,000ton,because many chinese experts think china should have mid size carrier better,later(10 or 15 year) may larger.they also suggest the carrier aircarrft better use mid size fighters,unless china is able to make good quality,reliable steam catapult to instead of ski jump,otherwise any of heavy fighters are not able to art the good performance,and other problem is the heavy jets when they full load to take off one by one line up are very slow, then the first one to the last one have to wait for long time, then many fighters will spent lots of oil for waitting in the sky, it may cause the fighting range of the fighters is very short.
like Su33,this monster must work at lease over 80,000 ski jump carrier then can art as a good carrier aircarrft.otherwise it only a air to air fighter.
but I don't think china will make such big carrier.sovet union did'nt make that big either.
and we have to spent so much money to buy russia Su33-this stuff never progress over 13 years, it's problems not only engines,it's needs lots of progress from rader, electronical,arm fire,even missile,kh41 is so heavy,Su33 even has no precision air to surface attack.
we should know Su33 is not "made in china",how to progress it that is russia business,it out of control by china.for a sample, russia refused to sale Su35 to china.
there is only USA can make good catapult,even France carrier still use US made catapult.
as many PLA senior officer admited there is a long way to run,although they claimed that they already know the secred of steam catapult.
the recently Jan'es Defence weekly reported that china CAC being urgenly to wark at the improved J10,which will be the pre carrier aircaft.however,mid size fighter may carrie more weapon and take off quick,russia understand that,they can not but just put the Su33 in Kuznetsov.
a secred source claimed that there is a new carrier ship yard in china - but not in Shanghai, not in Dalein, not in Guangzhou.
the new shipyard is in Wushi city, Jiangshu provice,the ship yard is beside the very large lake,it named Taikhu lake,the lake conect to Yiangzhi river,then through the ocean.
- source from a chinese magazine.

[FuManChu]

Both us and the French are using conventional power for our new class of carriers. I think it would be barmy for China to try to power its carriers with nuclear generators at this point. Would it even need to in the future?

Perhaps the Americans should just be left to get on with it by themselves. Not saying nuclear power is a bad idea for carriers, but I'm not sure it's that necessary either.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Nuclear propulsion is desirable for carriers, but it is hideously expensive to build. The savings come over the operational life of the vessel, especially if it is kept in service for an extended term (40 to 50 years). The advantage of nuclear power is extended (virtually unlimited) range for the ship which can then devote more internal volume to fuel for the air group (CVNs still have fuel bunkers in the double bottom, but the fuel is aviation fuel not ship fuel) which means extended operations between replenishments. RASing is a vulnerable time for a carrier strike group and the less often this is necessary the safer the CSG is.
The cost factor is the main deterrent to building CVNs, and if France had built the Charles de Gaulle as a conventionally powered ship then they would have been able to afford two ships for only a little more money. As it is now, the only way they can afford another carrier is to build a non nuclear ship, and buying the British CVF design saves them even more money (the design and development is already done, and the french are just paying a fee to use the plans). The Chinese will have understood this and I think the first class of indigenously built CVs will be modifications of the Kuznetzov design (for reasons of familiarity) and will most likely resemble a conventionally powered Ulyanovsk (saving about two fifths of the cost of building a CVN, a significant amount).

[bd popeye]

Jedi Master Obi Wan sez:

The cost factor is the main deterrent to building CVNs, and if France had built the Charles de Gaulle as a conventionally powered ship then they would have been able to afford two ships for only a little more money.

I believe I read that the Charles De Gaulle cost $14 billion dollars to build..The French should have built a conventionally powered CV. They could have built two for the price they eventually paid for the "R91"

This should be a lesson learned for the PLAN. Go conventional unless you want Newport News to build your ship.

[backwindow]

Originally Posted by adeptitus

3) Fixed-wing aircraft carriers would be seen as an aggressive offensive weapon. It'd be better to acquire "multipurpose" helicopter flat-tops like the Korean LP-X, which is smaller, cheaper, and less threatening in apperance.
A LP-X class ship, painted white and filled with "foreign aid" crates, would make an excellent UN-mission or disaster-relief platform. It's good PR (public relations) and will give the PLAN valuable experience in operating long-distance missions.

That is not exactly correct.
The Korea LP-X is obvously considered as theaten by both China and Japan.

[isthvan]

There is one more problem whit building nuclear carrier; building nuclear reactor for it… While you can use reactor designed for nuclear submarines that isn’t always ideal solution…
When USN build Enterprise they didn’t have dedicated reactor so they have used 8 smaller reactors designed for subs… Naturally this wasn’t best solution since reactors used more place then classical propulsion… Also there was(are) some speculations/doubts about quality of reactors in PLAN nuclear subs so I have some doubts that PLAN will choose nuclear propulsion for there carriers…

[bd popeye]

When USN build Enterprise they didn’t have dedicated reactor so they have used 8 smaller reactors designed for subs…

So true. the Nimitz class has only two reactors that need refueling after 23 years of service! In the case of the Enterprise it has been very costly for the USN to maintain. It is a single class ship. In fact the "Big E" has made 21 major deployments in it's 45 years of comission. On the other hand the USS Nimitz comissioned in 1975 has made 19 major deployments. The Enterprise has has several multi year re-fits. The Nimitz just one....Think about it.

The first CVN any nation builds will be very costly. Ask the USN and FN.

[Jeff Head]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

In the case of the Enterprise it has been very costly for the USN to maintain. It is a single class ship. In fact the "Big E" has made 21 major deployments in it's 45 years of comission. The Enterprise has has several multi year re-fits. The Nimitz just one....Think about it. The first CVN any nation builds will be very costly. Ask the USN and FN.

...and it an amazing testment to both the designers, and particularly the crew and shipyard workers, that the Old Lady of the Sea is still going strong after all of these years...even with the one off design and the multitude of reactors she carriers. Unbelievable safety and service record. She will be missed in a few years when she is set aside, and hopefully she will get turned into a museum. And as many have said, hopefully one of the 1st CVN-21s, will get her name.

[FuManChu]

Originally Posted by backwindow

That is not exactly correct.
The Korea LP-X is obvously considered as theaten by both China and Japan.

Well not really. The LPX is an amphibious assault ship, and although that has offensive characteristics, it's not exactly a real threat to China or Japan.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Originally Posted by FuManChu

Well not really. The LPX is an amphibious assault ship, and although that has offensive characteristics, it's not exactly a real threat to China or Japan.

The South Koreans are building four of them. They are big enough to operate Harriers and/or F-35B Lightnings as well as attack helos. And, obviously, they can land a commando force on enemy shores, so they do constitute a serious threat to the existing balance of power amongst navies in the region. As do the projected JMSDF "DDH"s (light aircraft carriers), and since neither the South Koreans or the Japanese are going to settle for one ship each it is logical to assume the PLAN won't either.

[Gollevainen]

The korean LPX can house four medium helicopters. It cannot function as aircraft carrier any more than Japanese Oozumi or Italian San Guisto class. Its hangar is too small for house aircrafts, it has CIWS in the place of the possiple take of path for VSTOL planes and it doesent have ski-jump... They present no offensive thread to China any more than the whole korean fleet itself. Those are ships whose operational function comes to play, AFTER Korean fleet would miraclously whipe out PLAN, but themselves cannot help in that task att all.
So lets cut this pointless china-korea-japan beeing thread to each other BS and focus on actual military facts and realistic speculation. If i see one more hat-pulled argument like the one in above, I will take actions...