Ideal chinese carrier thread

[Gollevainen]

To continue the succesfull series of threads by Planeman, lets move on to the "big ships"

So your task is to develope an ideal aircraft carrier for china...

My suggestion is based to the same "what if" idea as my previous ones.

So here's a project 086A.

background
It's dates back to the 70's when china seek replacement for it's earlier, WWII era carriers (project 085). During the late 60's there were several suggestions made, ranging form 100 000 ton super carriers to small VSTOL carriers (in the event of latest innovations aboard). 80 000 ton carrier was favoured by the navy's carrier advocates but during the same period a dramatic shift in the PLAN happened and the nuclear submarine advocates started to enjoy brief but cruical political influence. (The old Mao Zedong had almoust an obcession to SSNs in his later years) As result of this, the new carrier plan was in trouple and there were not enough funds to build the 80 000 ton nuclear powered carrier as fisrt toughted. The existing carriers were modernized instead.
This was not a long-lasting solution and trough out the early 70's a small but presistent "carrier-wing" kept pushing on a new carrier. As the political balance changed in the late 70's (Mao Zedongs retirement) the carrier plans recieved a ressuerection. Politicans weren't however still willing to fund a super carrier so new resizing of the existing projects begun. There were several variants and the one ultimately choosen was the one that became the project 086A.

Technical data
Displacement: 55.000 tons standart, 60 000 tons full load
Lenght: 265 m wl, 291 m oa
Beam: 32 m (max flightdeck withd: 60 m)
Draught: 9.5 m
Machinery: 4 steam turbines, 200,000 shp;= 30 kn
Armament: 8 x Type 37A CIWS, 2 x LY-60 SAM

Airgroup: 21 J-9H fighters, 12 JH-7B Fighter-Bombers, 6 SH-6 ASW planes, 3 SH-6Z AEW planes, 5 Z-9 helicopters.

Laid down: 7.6. 1983
Launched: 11.11. 1986
Completed: 3.1. 1988

Notes:

Altough great improvement to the previous chinese carriers, the pr. 086 wasen't alltogether succesfull. It was plagued by the same reason as in so many other warship designs around the world: Politicans saying the last word. It was still however the best possiple solution to fit the 55 000 tons set by the central commitee of the CCP. There was orginally a plans to build two ships, but wisely, the navy seddled for just one unit Mao Zedong [81]. The seccond unit was replaced with the new design, pr. 087 but thats a different story...

Ps. To those who doesen't know, this drawing is based on the pr. 1153

[bd popeye]

Excellent design Golly. Excellent. Too bad it's just an idea. I'm sure this drawing will wind up as the latest PLAN design in a Chinese forum.

One thing ..That elevator in the middle foward part of the flight deck would be a real hinderance to flight operations. It's useless when launching and recovering aircraft. It would have to remain up during "flight ops". I know I was on CVA-19 and it had a elevator in a similar position.

That's OK...

The hangar deck appears and is in my USN eye..too small. Those aircraft are really crowded into that hangar. In my opinion a hangar should have enough room for a little more than half the aircraft in the airwing.

6 SH-6 ASW planes, 3 SH-6Z AEW planes

Are these part of the "what if sceniaro"...I only ask because I've never heard of them.

[Gollevainen]

Well this design is basicly a "chinese" version of the apportive Soviet pr. 1153 which was one of the forefathers of the Kuznetsov/Varyag.

The fact that the aviation facilities are too small are basicly becouse the soviets didn't have any practical expereince of operating conventional carriers and thus they didn't pay enough attention to these factors. In my hypotetical "what-if" world, the chinese were forced to choose this design as it was the biggest one allowed by the politicans. The follower which I attend to draw next is however much wider and the flightdeck and hangar area is considerably increased.

The planes are also "what-ifs", based on the Soviet Beriev P-42 ASW aircraft which was designed pararel to the project 1153 and like the ship it never left the design board. It's very similar aircraft to S-3 Viking.

[bd popeye]

The follower which I attend to draw next is however much wider and the flightdeck and hangar area is considerably increased.

The planes are also "what-ifs", based on the Soviet Beriev P-42 ASW aircraft which was designed pararel to the project 1153 and like the ship it never left the design board. It's very similar aircraft to S-3 Viking.

Thanks Golly. So you based it on what the USSR was planning and may have shared with the PRC. Excellent. I'm looking foward to your next drawing.

If you could post a pic of the Soviet Beriev P-42 ASW I would really apperiacte it!

[Gollevainen]

No it's more like I've been playing around this idea of what if china was a major player in the whole 20th century and to fullfill the caps in chinese warship design, I've used unfinished and cancelled soviet projects as a bases of my fleet.

here's one from the P-42

[bd popeye]

Thanks ..man i could reek some havoc in my yahoo USN groups with those pics.

The Soviet Beriev P-42 ASW looks almost identical to a S-3 Viking.

Thanks Golly!

[BuSOF]

Hello, guys! I saw a picture months ago of a training platform resembling an aircraft carrier, but made of concrete and I'm trying to find it now but it's an awfull lot of pages I need to go through and I cannot find it. Could you help?

[planeman]

As Golly will agree, the wave piercing catamarans are the way forward!



Sun Tzu class CV
30,000t, 250m

Air wing:
8-12 x Su-33MKKI multirole fighters
12-14 x UCAVs
3 x AEW UAVs
4 x Ka-28 Helix ASW
2 x Z-9 SAR/Util

Weapons:
5 x Type-730
48 x Shtil
8 x YJ-62 under ski-jump

[bd popeye]

That ships about the size of a Tarawa class LHA.

How about some more drawings so I can better see your idea? You know flight deck, position of elevators and hangar deck arrangement.

Why a catamaran type hull?

[Gollevainen]

of those catamaran based carrier Ideas I have seen, non had have hull mounted Hangar...thats raises some concerns over me. I need to check out why....

[Jeff Head]

here's one from the P-42

Hmmm...as I thought from the initial pic...looks like a carbon copy of the S-3.. a Vikinski.

From the size and disposition, probably would have had similar capabilities and it is very understandable that they would want something like that. The Viking was an excellent carrier-borne ASW platform. Lots of capability, ordinance, range, and endurance.

IMHO, it is a shame that the US Navy has discontinued their use without anything replacing them. Not only a shame, but, again, IMHO, derelict.

To continue the succesfull series of threads by Planeman, lets move on to the "big ships"

So your task is to develope an ideal aircraft carrier for china...

Okay Golle, here's a future design taken from my Dragon's Fury Series, and first put forward a good 5 years ago in the intial release of the initial voume in the series...now an all-in-one book.

It's basically a modular container design with very serious modifications, but meant to be produced quickly and in numbers.

-50-60,000 tons
-40 aircraft (30 air defense/attack)
-10 VLS ASM missiles
-36-48 VLS AAM missiles
-4 CIWS
-2 screws
-Conventional power

Plenty of hangar space.



The crossing desing is very unconventional, but also very possible for optimizing air operations, both catapaulyt launches and arrested landings.

[Sczepan]

.....

One thing ..That elevator in the middle foward part of the flight deck would be a real hinderance to flight operations. It's useless when launching and recovering aircraft. It would have to remain up during "flight ops". I know I was on CVA-19 and it had a elevator in a similar position.

....

there it is


[IMGhttp://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hancock_cv_19/uss_hancock_cva_19_01.jpg[/IMG]







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 ...

[planeman]

That ships about the size of a Tarawa class LHA.

How about some more drawings so I can better see your idea? You know flight deck, position of elevators and hangar deck arrangement.

Why a catamaran type hull?

I was thinking about a LHA/CV mix, but that's for anotherconcept - I really think that CVs should have roll-on-roll off logistics access to the hanger deck at the very minumum so that they can be used for logistics, not unlike a "commando carrier" but with conventionalfighters also.

As a general observation, thrust vectoring should enhance the take-off potential of ski-jumps making them a more viable rival to catapults. Together with smaller UCAVs (which can also be single engined without the worries which rightly or wrongly blight single engined fighters), and variable hanger floors (like ferries which can raise/lower floors to carry two floors of cars or one floor of trucks) which allow double-stacking of aircraft.... so many thoughts.

Re cats', well they have better sea handling that's why But seriously, they solve the exhaust problem that gas turbines give CVs thus reducing the bridge structure and reducing the IR signiture in one go.

One idea I've had which I think is very clever is to put the SSMs below the ski-jump

[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


Project 1153


Project 1160

[Scratch]

planeman:

As a general observation, thrust vectoring should enhance the take-off potential of ski-jumps making them a more viable rival to catapults. Together with smaller UCAVs

But I think that doesn't really solve the problem of weaker powered auxiliaries to take of from sky-jumps, like AEW, ASW etc. Helos can do the job, but that is IMO not a sufficient platform for CGs that aim at delivering the force a super carrier should be able to do. So what I mean is sky-jumps may be an option for sea control carriers or smaller CVs, but not for the greater once. Additionally I think UCAVs are still some years away in PLAF.

And for the cat design. Doesn't that mean you have lesser space to store big things? I mean the volume may be the same, but it's alloted on two devided spaces. (I hope you get my idea).

Furthermore I think reducing the signature of a carrier shouldn't be a priority, since it simply is the biggest vessel in a group.