All About The Chinese Aircraft Carrier Thread

[BLUEJACKET]

If I'm trying to protect merchant shipping, I rather have 5 or 6 frigates than one Kiev-ASW escort carrier. Why? I can spread out the area of coverage. I don't put all my eggs in one basket, should the Kiev be hit and sunk, I have nothing left. .. I know it sounds cool to revive these big ships but you also need to see what are you getting out of it? Otherwise, why don't the USN just do a major complete refurbishment of their old decommissioned or soon to be decommissioned carriers?

If I were the top PLAN admiral, I would use modernised Kiev/Minsk (if they do refit them) in the Yellow/East/South China seas only to enforce claims to EEZ/Islands & protect SLOCs there, and in case of RFE revertment to China, in the Sea of Japan & maybe of Okhotsk also. That way, if they are without a true CV nearby the land based aviation could cover them- unless, of course, they are made to be carriers like the Gorshkov and carry enough longer range fighters. There are many variables involved, so this is pure speculatiuon- I admit my knowlege of Naval science/strategy is limited so by all means, other's suggestions are welcome!
The US is a corporate welfare state- they are supporting the industry by ordering new CVNs/SSNs instead of keeping the old ones in service longer.
[QUOTE=bd popeye;49748
While the PLAN does not have enough escorts for 2-3 CVBG's it does shave enough for one. [/QUOTE] What do you mean "shave enough"?

[bd popeye]

What do you mean "have enough"?

Right now the PLAN has enough ships to send to sea escorts for a CVBG.
051c, 052c, 052b, 956 & o93/094 SSN.

Of course the ships would have to be trained in such operations. So if they started today with a CV in 3-5 years time they would be ready.

[BLUEJACKET]

Even if they won't use Kiev/Minsk themselves, there is a possibility of them being modernized & sold to Burma, Pakistan &/or Iran to counterbalance IN & USN- they'll do PLAN's work wihout flying it's flag!
There is an article on EMCAT in the latest issue of Air & Space magazine (I couldn't find it online. The Chinese may opt to bypass steam cats alltogether and go for EMCATs!

Steam catapults, in the form of the C13-2 system employed in all the US Navy's carriers, represent a proven baseline solution. But requirements for high volumes of steam and water present problems for a non-nuclear carrier like CVF, and there is a strong disinclination towards steam within the RN given its through-life cost implications. And a problem facing designers is that the traditional steam catapult is not compatible with the IFEP system planned for the CVF. A separate and expensive auxiliary steam plant with considerable output therefore would be required.
The answer could lie in the maturation of the electromagnetic catapult (EMCAT), a technology today on the cusp of being transitioned from the physics lab to an engineering reality. If the concept can be realised, EMCAT offers the prospect of significant life-cycle cost benefits (in terms of reduced maintenance and crew workload) and would also offer benefits for aircraft operations and flight-deck operability. EMCAT's should increase launch performance and make significant reductions in installed weight, volume, and manning workload requirements. Initial studies by DERA and the USN indicate that a 90MW 300ft long linear motor EMCAT able to accelerate every 45 seconds a 100,000 lb. airplane to over 130 knots, or a lighter aircraft (such as UAV's) to 200 knots, would seem to be viable.
Across the Atlantic, the USN is now planning for an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to enter service aboard the projected CVNX-1, due in service in 2013, a comparable timeframe to CVF. The EMALS system will use a 300ft-plus-long linear electric motor to accelerate aircraft over the flight deck, employing rotational energy storage alternators to supply high-frequency power to the linear motor through a PWM inverter. The linear motor takes the average power from the inverter and releases it in a short pulse, which accelerates the aircraft for launch. ..
An electromagnetic aircraft launching system (EMALS) will replace the steam-powered system used on current ships. The current steam catapults are large, heavy, and operate without feedback control. They impart large loads to the airframe via sudden shock, and are difficult and time consuming to maintain. Additionally, the trend towards heavier, faster aircraft will soon result in energy requirements that exceed the capacity of steam catapults.
EMALS offers a 30% increase in launch energy potential, as well as substantial improvements via reduced weight, smaller volume, and more flexibility; plus increased controllability, availability, reliability, and efficiency. Self-diagnostics can be embedded in it, simplifying maintenance. The other thing that simplifies maintenance is the removal of the 614 kg of steam required for each aircraft launch, plus hydraulics and oils, water for braking, and associated pumps, motors, and control systems.
Because an EMALS-based system will take up far less space, it also provides design flexibility. EMALS launchers can be moved far more easily, downsized and incorporated into a ramp to provide additional launchers for short take-off aircraft, etc.
Finally, its steadier acceleration reduces launch strains on naval aircraft, which helps extend their airframe life. That isn’t calculated as part of cost savings for the ship, but it definitely adds up over time. ..
Removing the steam catapults and replacing them with an electro-magnetic EMALS launch system and advanced arresting gear will also reduce manning and maintenance on the ship. This works in tandem with the power plant changes, as EMALS largely eliminates the maintenance-heavy steam conduits,..

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf3-2.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...12/ai_n8908466

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-primer-01624/

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...updated-01494/

[Gollevainen]

Even if they won't use Kiev/Minsk themselves, there is a possibility of them being modernized & sold to Burma, Pakistan &/or Iran to counterbalance IN & USN- they'll do PLAN's work wihout flying it's flag!
There is an article on EMCAT in the latest issue of Air & Space magazine (i couldn't find it online. The Chinese may opt to bypass steam cats alltogether and go for EMCATs!

NO NO NO and NO!!! Whats the matter with you guys? What is so hard to understad in this following sentence: "Minsk and more so it's older sister Kiev are not any longer fit for military service!" They are old ships with poor design, decades of negelent and most likely stripped of all equipment (incl. machinery) neccecerical to get them even on the move. Reconstructing these ships would propapply be more expensive than building a reasonable size (not to mention design) new carriers which performs what ever task intended to these miracle cure kievs to do much better.

It's like bying old Tu-128 oversized interceptors, refurbishing them and then put them back to service in a modern warfare enviroment. It's INSANE!!

Now I've always kept my personal views over matters in one side and the moderating the forum in other but in this situation I have to break my policy as the issues agross. The nonsense discussion of Kievs and Minsk in chinese military service ends now. To allow it to continue brings only shame to our forum as we try to set up constructive, meaningless and reasonable discussion. Modernisating Kievs does not fall to that cathegory. So if you wish to dream about these fantasies, continue it in the member's club room, but not in this thread.

It's an order... ....

[BLUEJACKET]

Right now the PLAN has enough ships to send to sea escorts for a CVBG.
051c, 052c, 052b, 956 & o93/094 SSN.
Of course the ships would have to be trained in such operations. So if they started today with a CV in 3-5 years time they would be ready.

If they'll still have shortage of surface escorts, could they compensate by
2x or 3x the # of subs attached to CBG as I suggested earlier?
I'll be watching IN/A tread for Gorshkov related developments, so enough said about Kiev/Minsk here!

[bd popeye]

BLUEJACKET sez;

If they'll still have shortage of surface escorts, could they compensate by
2x or 3x the # of subs attached to CBG as I suggested earlier?

I don't think so. And someone feel free to correct me on this statement.
Right now the PLAN may not have enough trained crew members for SSN's to send multipule numbers of subs to sea.. It is my understanding that the PLAN nuke boats are intirely manned by offices because of the complexity of the subs...Please,anyone, correct me if I am wrong in this statement.

[adeptitus]

I don't think so. And someone feel free to correct me on this statement.
Right now the PLAN may not have enough trained crew members for SSN's to send multipule numbers of subs to sea.. It is my understanding that the PLAN nuke boats are intirely manned by offices because of the complexity of the subs...Please,anyone, correct me if I am wrong in this statement.

There's 2 ways that we can look at this.

First, the PLAN has been operating Type 91 SSN since 1970's, and the single 092 SSBN since 1980's. So it's prolly silly to think that they don't have enough trained crews.

Second, from recent Kilo purchase report, we see that the Russians offer 18-month training course for PLAN sailors, and the PLAN demand the training to be shortend to 9-months, and only sent few officers. This report is from 1990s and may or may not reflect situation today.

I'm inclined to think that the PLAN does have enough trained sailors, but the quality of the training is prolly not as high.



Hmmm... it just occured to me that if a sailor only signed up for 2-year tour, but spends 18 months in training. That gives 6-month service period before quitting. @_@ I guess most submarine crew prolly has to sign longer contract and renew them to get better returns on investment.

[BLUEJACKET]

I suspect that the sailors serve longer than soldiers & airman in conscript militaries- without any "contract". In the Soviet navy there was a 5 year svc time, then 3, while in the Army/AF 2 years. I also think that not only SSNs could fulfill escort duty- SSKs can be sent ahead of time/forward deployed or maybe follow their CBG on snorkels while in transit, or be attached by electric/comm cable to SSNs to keep their batteries charged- if it's technicaly possible (I don't see why not)!
The carrier fleet will be instrumental in achieving PRC goals of a multipolar world!

At a time when China is emerging as a political and military -- and not only economic -- power, whose strategic reach expands and involves new maritime ambitions, the South China Sea issue poses a huge challenge to Washington and its Asian allies. Beijing is adopting a complex policy, predicated upon diplomatic openness to enhanced cooperation with A.S.E.A.N. and, at the same time, upon a self-confident, assertive stance on the South China Sea.
Washington believes that Beijing's real goal is to reach strategic dominance over the South China Sea, which could make China the hegemonic power in Southeast Asia and multiply its influence on the global stage.

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=vi...&language_id=1

[bd popeye]

Hmmm... it just occured to me that if a sailor only signed up for 2-year tour, but spends 18 months in training. That gives 6-month service period before quitting. @_@ I guess most submarine crew prolly has to sign longer contract and renew them to get better returns on investment

Sub crews and sailors in high tech ratings probally do sign up for a longer term of service.

The thing I question most about the whole PLA is training. How well can anyone be trained in two short years. In comparison my son is a surface sonar tech in the USN. He spent 20 months in school before he went to a ship. 20 months of advanced training....That does not include boot camp.

If anyone knows the full terms of enlistment in the PLAN please post!

[maozedong]

·台称大陆将拥有双航母战群 舰载机为自制歼-11
·驻藏部队列装机械蜘蛛等“科幻”装备(组图)
·台军战力整合五大重点 资金分配向制空战力倾斜
·美空军上校承认：最新隐形战机不能完全隐身
·美国从网友到学者都在炒作中国海军航母计划
Hi,Sczepan:
please watch this websit again.http:/news.sina..com.cn/jczs/
that BlueJacket talk about the information is from Taiwan newspaper <自由时报> is not the credible newspaper,do you belive J11 will be the carrier air craft?and the last thread 美国从网友到学者都在炒作中国海军航母计划 is 新华社 环球杂志 China authority magazine
article,it criticizes about chinese carrier rumours around US internet and how the rumours come from.

[Sczepan]

Hi Maozedong
sorry, I can't open thise side,

I dont believe that J-10 will become a carrier aircraft - see post 715,
I suspect, the PLAN will get L-15 for training and light attack role, and SU-33 as carrier fighter;

For taiwanese newspapers generaly:
be careful at news, given by possible enemys (in case of declaring independence).
Of course, all officials increase the power of opponent forces, to provide the home force with capital and get more power.
TW urgent need subs, TW urgent need Arleigh-Burke-DDGs, TW urgent ...

let me say one thing here:
TW have enough defence forces including very dangerous attack helos (AH-1, AH 64) to give all aggressors a "Omaha Beach" experience
(see http://www.normandiememoire.com/NM60...sto3_p4_gb.htm)
they will sink all Amphibious Warfare Ships with Harpoon anti-ship and Hellfire *) air-to-surface missiles (The ROCA Aviation's primary offensive asset is the Bell AH-1W Supercobra. The AH-1W were delivered with 1,000 AGM-114C hellfire anti-tank missiles 240 AGM-114K3 Hellfires, and 300 AIM-9S sidewinders, plus an unknown quantity of BGM-71 TOW missiles.
The ROCA AH-1W's have been upgraded with the NTSF-65 night targetting system for all weather combat. The AH-1W is equipped with M197 triple barrel 20mm cannon, and can be equipped with rocket pods, hellfire, TOW missile, & sidewinders. Each AH-1W can carry up to 16 anti-tank missiles.).
end

Thats one of my reasons to believe in future chinese amphibious carriers ....

*) The taiwanese army wants to buy the anti-ship version of the US-made Hellfire missile for use by its attack helicopters
Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiw.../15/2003067923

[su-27]

I think that, about cbg development, the south fleet has the ships to escort a carrier and the first Chinese cbg will be completed by Varyag. Next I think that a 2nd cbg will be made in the North fleet. I think that next we will see in North fleet the same appened in the south fleet: new destroyers build and commissioned in the fleet, next comes the carrier.
Parallel I think that China is building on east fleet an amphibious group starting with LPD 071. I think that after LPDs we will see LHDs to complete the amphibious group. After that I think China will proceed to build carrier groups and amphibious groups many as possible.

I’m sure that Varyag’s first air group will employ Flankers, also is probable that will employ L-15. About a dual engine carrier version of J-10, there is an article on Wikipedia that speaks about a dual engine J-10 called Super-10. I think strange develop two projects of a dual engine J-10 (the so called “super-10” and the J-14) so, I think that could be the same plane.
The SU-33M is said to be comparable with F/A-18E, so I think that a carrier variant of J-14 could be comparable with F-35C (although less advanced technologically).
I propose this air group for Varyag: in first moment 24 Flankers and a number of L-15 and Helos, next 12 J-14, 24 Flankers, 4 L-15, 4 AEW helos, 4 ASW helos, 2 transport helos.

A question: L-15 I think could be perfect against helicopters armed and attack helicopters, but could be a good light attacker operating from carriers? Could be comparable in attack performance with the A-4s of the Brazilian carrier Sao Paulo? Only curiosity!

[maozedong]

根据1998年12月29日新颁发的《中华人民共和国兵役法》和1999年6月30日国务院、中央军委修订 发布的新的《中国人民解放军现役土兵服役条例》，现役士兵按兵役性质分为义务兵役制士兵和志愿兵役制士兵。 义务兵役制士兵称义务兵。义务兵服现役的期限为2年。志愿兵役制士兵称士官。士官从服现役期满的义务兵中选 取，根据军队需要，也可以从非军事部门具有专业技能的公民中招收。士官实行分期服现役制度。士官服役的年限 为：第一期、第二期各3年，第三期、第四期各4年，第五期5年，第六期9年以上。土官服现役的期限，从改为 士官之日算起，至少3年，一般不超过30年，年龄不超过55岁。
this is I found one section document for PLA enlistment term regulation:
the dutyservice enlistment term is 2 years.
voluntary enlistment select from duty service solder,or select the professional people,first term and sencond term are 3 years,third term and fourth term are 4 years, fifth term is 5 years, sixth term over 9 years.total service not over 30 year,age not over 55 years.
this regulation for PLA army,navy,airforce,all the same.
the regulation effect in june,30,1999

I think that, about cbg development, the south fleet has the ships to escort a carrier and the first Chinese cbg will be completed by Varyag. Next I think that a 2nd cbg will be made in the North fleet. I think that next we will see in North fleet the same appened in the south fleet: new destroyers build and commissioned in the fleet, next comes the carrier.
Parallel I think that China is building on east fleet an amphibious group starting with LPD 071. I think that after LPDs we will see LHDs to complete the amphibious group. After that I think China will proceed to build carrier groups and amphibious groups many as possible.

I’m sure that Varyag’s first air group will employ Flankers, also is probable that will employ L-15. About a dual engine carrier version of J-10, there is an article on Wikipedia that speaks about a dual engine J-10 called Super-10. I think strange develop two projects of a dual engine J-10 (the so called “super-10” and the J-14) so, I think that could be the same plane.
The SU-33M is said to be comparable with F/A-18E, so I think that a carrier variant of J-14 could be comparable with F-35C (although less advanced technologically).
I propose this air group for Varyag: in first moment 24 Flankers and a number of L-15 and Helos, next 12 J-14, 24 Flankers, 4 L-15, 4 AEW helos, 4 ASW helos, 2 transport helos.

A question: L-15 I think could be perfect against helicopters armed and attack helicopters, but could be a good light attacker operating from carriers? Could be comparable in attack performance with the A-4s of the Brazilian carrier Sao Paulo? Only curiosity!

Hi, Su27:
I got the scource from magazine that Russion have researched Y44 AEW and ASW plane,the research almost done, Russia allow Y44 to be export type plane.
for my oppinion Varyag needs years to be done,and maybe 5 years training.I think in the time China can buy Y44 for AEW and ASW , it fits Varyag.
also,in that time,maby more carrier aircraft avialible for China.
also,CBGs for north sea fleet,seams put the carrier in the lake,dose aney body has deffint oppinion?
maybe we talk this too early,as some one said is dreaming.

[su-27]

Hi Mao, interesting that new about YAK-44. But I think that Chinese will start to operate with Varyag using only Sky-jump: If they wants to fit catapults now they don't remade the coat of the deck and sky jump is far more easy to use to learn about carrier operations. So I think that Varyag will start only with Sky jump. I think that we will see catapults on the next carrier and possible that we will see at least one catapult in the angled deck of Varyag, after a mid-life refit.
Putting carriers in a lake? Do you remember where was Kusnetsov and Varyag? In the Black Sea...
Remember also that in the North fleet was all nuclear subs of PLAN, they was put in a lake?
The south fleet is now training with Shichang to escort a carrier, also I think that Chinese are training as possible in simulators, to be ready to start to operate with Varyag as soon. So I think that training of Varyag will not be too long.

[Scratch]

Just interested:
are there planes in an air-wing that (later) could perform AAR missions, or specialised Su-33 / navalized J-10 for EW tasks ??