Ideal chinese carrier thread

[Jeff Head]

Originally Posted by Sczepan

I'll prefer small amphibious carriers as first step
to me the http://www.usshancock.net/ design could be a nice amphibious toy - carriing helos and light ground attack planes ....
just compared to the Melbourne design these carrier have 2 catapults in front ...

A-4 Skyhawks, F-8 Crusaders, A-6 Intruders and E-2 Hawkeyes. To this day, any nation that had a carrier of that tonnage that could carry such a diverse and effective air wing would be deploying a very effective and very capable carrier capable of significant power projection.

[Neutral Zone]

Originally Posted by Sczepan

Golly is rigth, to construct indegenious carriers China better develop some blue prints and existent designs

China could really use some russian Projects
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/..._carriers.html

Project 1143/7
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/..._1143.7_01.jpg

Project 1153
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/...ov_1153_01.jpg

Project 1160
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/...ov_1160_01.jpg

What are those rectangular hatch things adjacent to the catapult tracks towards the bow of the ships? You can also see them in the overhead view of Varyag on the main site ( http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surf...aftcarrier.asp ) They almost look like VLS cells, but to a layman like me, the middle of the take off run would seem a strange place to put them!

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by Neutral Zone

What are those rectangular hatch things adjacent to the catapult tracks towards the bow of the ships? You can also see them in the overhead view of Varyag on the main site ( http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surf...aftcarrier.asp ) They almost look like VLS cells, but to a layman like me, the middle of the take off run would seem a strange place to put them!

The Varyag was to carry missiles. Those were the launchers.

[Neutral Zone]

Originally Posted by bd popeye

The Varyag was to carry missiles. Those were the launchers.

Thanks for your help!

It just does seem strange to me to to have missiles launching out of the middle of your carrier's flight deck. You obviously couldn't launch your airwing and fire the missiles at the same time. But hey, I'm just a mere armchair admiral!

[bd popeye]

Originally Posted by Neutral Zone

Thanks for your help!

It just does seem strange to me to to have missiles launching out of the middle of your carrier's flight deck. You obviously couldn't launch your airwing and fire the missiles at the same time. But hey, I'm just a mere armchair admiral!

Golly and others would know better but if I'm not mistaken the Russian CV's were probally designed to operate without an AAW ship fror cover.

[Sczepan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

A-4 Skyhawks, F-8 Crusaders, A-6 Intruders and E-2 Hawkeyes. To this day, any nation that had a carrier of that tonnage that could carry such a diverse and effective air wing would be deploying a very effective and very capable carrier capable of significant power projection.

well spoken - but which of these planes should china use

I only see the russians
SU-33


MiG-29


SU-25 UTG Frogfoot


L-15 trainers and lightwight attack role planes


which could also launched from Varjag, as I believe

and some "shut down projects"
YAK 44 for (instead of E-2 Hawkeyes) - 16 may have been built.



Berjev P-42 for anti-submarine warfare (Instead of A-6 Intruders )

[bd popeye]

Personally I like the L-15 and Mig-29 for the PLAN.

I'm sure it was golly that said that the YAK 44 never got past the wodden mock up stage. That's what that picture is.

[Jeff Head]

Originally Posted by Sczepan

well spoken - but which of these planes should china use

My personal opinion is that to be a completey effective conventional Carrier Strike Force, the air wing needs to consist of Fighter/Attack aircraft, heavier/dedicated attack aircraft (A-6 all weather types), ASW aircraft (fixed wing with long legs), AEW aircraft (fixed wing), EW aircraft (EA-6 or EA-18 types) and ASW and SAR helos.

The US, IMHO, has limited the effectiveness of the CVNs in any major wartime condition by removing the dedicated ASW fixed wing aircraft and the dedicated heavy attack aircraft. In addition, by scaling back the range and effectiveness of the AAW component of fleet defense (meaning nor LRAAM and no F-14 range) they have done the same.

My own feeling is that if you can afford to build 12 of these vessels, you'd best afford to keep their air-wings as robust and powerful as possible.

So, in my book, the Chinese or Russians should have the SU-33s, something like the YAK-44 AEW, something like the P-42 ASW, a heavier SU-25 and then an electronic variant of either the SU-33 or P 42.

The US is using the Super Hornet for the Fighter/Attack/Heavy Attack and EW roles. I believe it can perform ably in the figher (although losing ground in effective range and coverage to the F-14), attack and EW roles...but not in the heavy attack role when compared to the A-6. We have discontinued the S-3 ASW role, relying now on much shorter endurance and range helos, but the AEW role is still very strong with the E-2s.

[Scratch]

The L-15 would probably be a nice trainer and light attacker and more so the Su-25 UTG for CAS missions in amphibious assaults.

I don't believe the PLAN will ever get MiG-29K. It makes no sense to me to introduce a completely new type of aircraft just for a few CVW. I think we'll see a navalized J-10 instead in some years.
Could a prop driven aircraft like the Yak 44 take off from a sky jump? This is where I see problems for the full scale use of sky-jump carriers.

[sumdud]

Ehhh................for China's first carrier, I would say it should be a small experiment, maybe a straight-liner, just to gain some experience. I would base it somewhat on the Type 71 hull, except to lengthen and widen about twice.
I am thinking of using the landing spot and extending it all the way to the front as a runway for the fighters. A catapult will be set to fly aircrafts off the side of the fighter runway and is used for bigger planes. There will be 3 elevators, 1 aft and 1 'fore the island, and 1 to the left at the back(port?)(Maybe just two elevators)

Planes launched from the the long runway will probably need to take off from the back.
Fighters: (Hey, China can't rely on the Russians for planes, and the STOBAR design isn't very useful)
FC-1
L-15
(Something similar to A-6?)
Support:
HD-5 (I am serious! Y-7s'd break their legs! I am having an engine upgrade of course)
H-5-AEW
Chopper:
Z-8, Z-9C (usual.)

This carrier is pretty much a proving ground and a test platform for China to test sea-planes.

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by sumdud

Ehhh................for China's first carrier, I would say it should be a small experiment, maybe a straight-liner, just to gain some experience. I would base it somewhat on the Type 71 hull, except to lengthen and widen about twice.
I am thinking of using the landing spot and extending it all the way to the front as a runway for the fighters. A catapult will be set to fly aircrafts off the side of the fighter runway and is used for bigger planes. There will be 3 elevators, 1 aft and 1 'fore the island, and 1 to the left at the back(port?)(Maybe just two elevators)

Planes launched from the the long runway will probably need to take off from the back.
Fighters: (Hey, China can't rely on the Russians for planes, and the STOBAR design isn't very useful)
FC-1
L-15
(Something similar to A-6?)
Support:
HD-5 (I am serious! Y-7s'd break their legs! I am having an engine upgrade of course)
H-5-AEW
Chopper:
Z-8, Z-9C (usual.)

This carrier is pretty much a proving ground and a test platform for China to test sea-planes.

If you are going to use FC-1 on a carrier, you might as well use J-10, which can actually theoretically takeoff from a stobar carrier. It would only need about a 250 m runway.

[Sczepan]

for the potential future carrier aviation alternatives we could talk in Potential PLANAF Carrier Aviation Alternatives

the intention of my posting 22 hours ago at 3:18 is another idea:
today china have no other alternatives instead of the types which could be used from Varjag - to develop new designes need a lot of time;
this time could also be used to develop a new carrier design, resulted by ....

well, and now we discussed a long time about the basic design of future carriers;
crawl - walk - run
I am pretty sure, the chinese naval ingenieers will start a evolution with small steps,
small usable carriers first, lerning by doing, and than the next step
and the smallest design results by studiing the blue prints of the good ol'e Melbourne
- its a proofed design, functional and a good value
- it seems to be a ideal tonnage for amphibious operations
- China indeed need local air-shield to protect the battle-field in beaching operations
- amphibious air support is a need, much more as to use big attack carriers
- the risks are minimized
... (you could read my old postings ....)

Jeff Heads CVA-19 looks like a derivat, a evolution of the Melbourne design - and a future indegenious chinese amphibious carrier could have the pretty same evolution
- two catapults in front instead of the one of Melbourne
- angled deck ....

and of course, to quote

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

.... To this day, any nation that had a carrier of that tonnage that could carry such a diverse and effective air wing would be deploying a very effective and very capable carrier capable of significant power projection.

this evolution could be the first step for a chinese very capable carrier

[Gollevainen]

Golly and others would know better but if I'm not mistaken the Russian CV's were probally designed to operate without an AAW ship fror cover.

Well what comes to those Granit tubes in the frontside of the ship, there really isen't any other place where you could put them. Basicly Aircraft carriers shouldn't have SSMs at all, but Soviets way to approach the issue was bit difference and the SS-N-19 was a remainder of the rather complex and unorthodoxs aircraft carrier development history of VMF.

But the location of them is actually quite logical. The missiles aren't VLS, but launched from tubes angled around 45 degree beneath the haches. This takes alot of space and without interupting the already small hangarspace of the design or the catabults like orginally intended, the only place to put them is the bow. The price of not being able to launch planes while firing the missiles isen't really that high to compared to lower ammount of planes carried.

[Neutral Zone]

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

Well what comes to those Granit tubes in the frontside of the ship, there really isen't any other place where you could put them. Basicly Aircraft carriers shouldn't have SSMs at all, but Soviets way to approach the issue was bit difference and the SS-N-19 was a remainder of the rather complex and unorthodoxs aircraft carrier development history of VMF.

But the location of them is actually quite logical. The missiles aren't VLS, but launched from tubes angled around 45 degree beneath the haches. This takes alot of space and without interupting the already small hangarspace of the design or the catabults like orginally intended, the only place to put them is the bow. The price of not being able to launch planes while firing the missiles isen't really that high to compared to lower ammount of planes carried.

And in order to get them through the Bosphorous, they had to pretend that they weren't really aircraft carriers but "aviation cruisers," why didn't they just build them in Leningrad?

We all seem to take it for granted that China will put Varyag back into service in the next 2 or 3 years. It will be interesting to see if, in that eventuality, they retain the heavy missile armament or strip it out to maximise the aviation capability. I suppose it would depend on how many escort ships such as 051c/052c/054a's that they plan to build in the coming years so that they could form a viable battle group.

[sumdud]

That's news to me. But I would still pick the FC-1 since you can always find a better engine and J-10s can't land with shock.