SinoDefence Forum

AssassinsMace · 12-05-2008

Is it easier to move in engine components from that end of the ship?

PrOeLiTeZ · 12-05-2008

ok im still looking and im still wondering what are we actually look for? is it the installation of the elevators for moving the fighters to the deck?

tphuang · 12-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

tphuang, OK ..I give up!

Just what changes are we susposed to be seeing?

actually I don't know exactly, that's why I was asking. it looks like they cut open the deck to put something through, I was guessing engine. But I don't know. I don't know what the other circles are for.

crobato · 12-05-2008

Apparently the missile section is opened to access the hanger deck. There is a discussion on the CDF on scenarios how to lower engine and machinery components such as new boilers and turbines into the Varyag's engine section without cutting the main carrier deck or the hull underneath.

One scenario is to lower machinery components through the funnel, use the hanger deck underneath the top deck as a temporary storage space. Open up the hanger deck, assuming the hanger deck is fully completed, that is on top of the engine section to lower the components.

It seems that going through the missile section to access the hanger deck might also work. And the hole is big enough to lower machine components to the hanger deck, again as a stepping stage to accessing the lower decks beneath.

It seems to me they might actually go through in finishing the ship, although if they wanted to lower the components, get the ship into dry dock first with a crane on top of it. I suspect they are preparing for this event.

alopes · 12-06-2008

Weel, Varyag is a Chinese property that is the most close to be a carrier at the momment, so the logic points that Varyag will be used as the first carrier for China Navy.
And the news about this project just keep coming.

Edited
The author of the article just said that Varyag "most likely" will not be an operational carrier, but that don´t make sense at all. Why would China just not use an asset that is perfect for the job they just want to do, that is to have an operational aircraft carrier.

http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008...y_pilots/4214/

And here is the google map for the said training airfield facility in Ukraine

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...7&source=embed

Quote:

Ukraine to help train China's navy pilots

Hong Kong, China — China has been sending military personnel to the Ukraine to learn how the country trains its aircraft carrier pilots, in preparation for the aircraft carrier battle group it eventually plans to build.

According to a source in the Ukrainian military industry, China first sent a large naval delegation, headed by the deputy chief of the PLA Navy, to visit the Ukrainian Navy Aviation Force training centers in the southern port cities of Odessa and Sevastopol in October, 2006.

The Chinese visited the Research Test and Flying Training Center at Nitka on the Crimean Peninsula, and the two sides discussed the possibility of Ukraine helping to train China’s navy aviation force and aircraft carrier pilots, the source said. Since then, Chinese engineers, pilots and naval technical experts have made frequent visits to Nitka.

The focus of much of China’s current military cooperation with Russia and Ukraine is on producing large aircraft and an aircraft carrier. Ukraine has provided China with a prototype of its T-10K shipborne fighter. By dissecting the T-10K – an earlier variant of the Su-33 fighter – China hopes to acquire the capability to independently develop its own shipborne fighters.

The single T-10K that China purchased from Ukraine was originally based at the Nitka center, which is equipped with a range of simulators to train pilots in jump take-offs, arresting landings and contingency responses. The training modules simulate the release of the arresting hook on take-off and its use on landing at a speed of 250 kilometers (155 miles) per hour.

The Nikta center previously trained a generation of Soviet pilots on the Su-33 and MiG-29K fighters. Now the 297th Fighter Regiment of the Russian Navy Aviation Force is undergoing training there.

As this author reported earlier, China has imported four sets of aircraft carrier landing assistance equipment and arresting hooks. The Chinese are in the process of building their own aircraft carrier training base, which is why they have been so keenly interested in Nitka’s simulators, training software, management procedures and technologies.

The training of aircraft carrier fighter pilots is a crucial step in putting together an aircraft carrier fleet. The training program is extremely harsh. According to the Ukrainian source, the most basic training for short-istance take-offs, landings and ski-jumps would take at least six months.

Ukraine was once the main training center for the Soviet Union’s aircraft carrier fighter pilots. It now intends to train navy pilots not only for China, but also for India and other countries that aspire to possess aircraft carriers, a source from Nitka says.

The Indian Navy is in the process of purchasing an aircraft carrier from Russia, as well as MiG-29K and MiG-29UBK fighters, the first batch of which is expected to be delivered to India by the end of the year – already a year later than scheduled. The pilots for those fighters will most likely be trained at Nitka.

China’s dealings with Ukraine reconfirm that the PLA Navy is moving forward on its aircraft carrier project. The Chinese carrier is apparently based on a Russian design; otherwise China would not be interested in Ukraine’s simulators. This means China’s aircraft carrier will very likely adopt the Russian methods of ski-jump take-off and landing.

China has also taken practical steps to build an aircraft carrier training base. The first step is to train shipborne fighter pilots at this base, followed by basic short distance take-off and landing training on the disabled Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, which China purchased in 1998.

Sources from the Ukrainian military industry have confirmed on several occasions that the Varyag is unlikely to be restored to an operational fighter aircraft carrier, and will most likely only be used as a training platform.

Although the ship was purchased by a Hong Kong company ostensibly to be converted into a casino, Ukrainian sources say they were aware of China’s intentions from the beginning to use it for military purposes. The aircraft carrier, repainted with the colors of the PLA Navy, is now in the Chinese port city of Dalian.

--

(Andrei Chang is editor-in-chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, registered in Toronto, Canada.)

bd popeye · 12-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrOeLiTeZ

ok im still looking and im still wondering what are we actually look for? is it the installation of the elevators for moving the fighters to the deck?

I'm not sure. But I do know we have seen the elevators in various positions over the years. I can't believe I've been following this ship for nearly 4 years and it's still in the shipyard..

Quote:

One scenario is to lower machinery components through the funnel, use the hanger deck underneath the top deck as a temporary storage space. Open up the hanger deck, assuming the hanger deck is fully completed, that is on top of the engine section to lower the components.

Possible..very possible...seems like someone has been reading what I posted some years ago..09.01.2005 to be exact.

Quote:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/show...8&postcount=12

I've never been to the shipyard that holds the Varyag or the PRC for that manner but I think engines could have been installed. You really don't need a large crane. The engines could have been disassembled and re-assembled on board Varyag.

The below text is an answer that I posted to a similar question in our old forum.

Please read carefully. My opinion only..the technology does exist to change the power plants without a large pier side crane. Whether or not the PLAN has it I don't know. I know the USN has pulled reduction gears {they are very large} out of carriers. Also replaced nuclear power plants power cores. This is accomplished by cutting large holes in the decks above and rigging a crane in the hangar deck and lifting them out. The hangar on the Varyag has to be at least 6.5 meters high. High enough for a heavy lift crane. The engines could be disassembled in sections and then lifted out. And the new one lifted down and assembled in the engine room. Or as in the case of the USS Saratoga in the '70's a hole was cut in the side of the ship. But you all say this was not done. We all will just have to wait to see what happenes.

AssassinsMace · 12-10-2008

Here's an interesting photo.

alopes · 12-18-2008

News about possible China choices in their new Aircraft Carrier.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Anal...t_one_999.html

Quote:

Analysis: China's carriers Part One
by Andrei Chang
Hong Kong (UPI) Dec 16, 2008

Russia, India and China will be building aircraft carriers for their navies almost simultaneously over the next five years or so, using many of the same design concepts, technologies and equipment. This is unprecedented in the history of shipbuilding.
The three countries currently are enjoying healthy political relations, smoothing the way for Russia's continued military cooperation with both China and India with regard to aircraft carrier technologies.

The news that China is about to start building its aircraft carrier is no secret in either Russia or Ukraine. Multiple authoritative sources from the Russian shipbuilding industry have confirmed in recent interviews with the author that China has candidly informed Russia of its intentions. After all, the technology and subsystems for China's aircraft carrier are largely from Russia.

As reported previously, systems such as arresting equipment for aircraft landings have been imported from Russia. A Russian shipbuilding industry source also has confirmed that China's first aircraft carrier will use the Russian ski-jump deck.

"This is a Russian invention, but it has been accepted by both India and China," said the source.

India launched its aircraft carrier construction project about one year ago. It also incorporates the Russian ski-jump deck design for aircraft takeoffs and uses steel plates imported from Russia. It will also use Russian MiG-29K shipborne fighters.

At the same time, Russia has an ambitious plan to build new aircraft carriers for its own navy. The commander in chief of the Russian navy, Adm. Vladimir Masorin, declared in 2007 that the navy would need at least three aircraft carriers before 2020 and that Russia would build nuclear-powered carriers.

The design of the new aircraft carriers is currently under way at the Russian Nevskoye Design Bureau. The designs for this project are expected to be completed by 2010 and the first carrier should be finished around 2016-2017 -- a date that coincides with China's plan to build its first aircraft carrier.

The chief designer at this facility told UPI in an interview that China had not asked for assistance in designing its aircraft carrier, however.

Russia's aircraft carrier construction program is not yet officially listed in the 2005-2015 national defense equipment development agenda. Moreover, the issue of using a nuclear-powered propulsion system is controversial within the Russian navy. It seems no final decision has been made as to what propulsion system will be fitted on the new carriers.

Despite similar timeframes and shared technologies, there are several major differences between the aircraft carrier construction plans of Russia and China.

First, the Russian navy has had 35 years of experience with aircraft carriers, including the technologies and experience of building the Ulyanovsk-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier -- even though this project was never completed, having been abandoned at the end of the Cold War. The Chinese navy has no such experience.

Second, Russia has a full toolbox of production technologies, while the People's Liberation Army navy has to search around to acquire these technologies. Third, and most important, the Russian navy fleets have practical experience with aircraft carriers, while the PLA navy has had to start from zero -- including the building of large surface warships and strategic nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.

(Part 2: The Russian-Chinese-Indian pattern of cooperation)

(Andrei Chang is editor in chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, registered in Toronto.)

F40Racer · 12-18-2008

Here is a comparison of 5 carriers from 4 countries

Link to original article: http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/...12-758322.html

Roger604 · 12-19-2008

Quote:

As reported previously, systems such as arresting equipment for aircraft landings have been imported from Russia. A Russian shipbuilding industry source also has confirmed that China's first aircraft carrier will use the Russian ski-jump deck.

Who the heck is PKF trying to fool? His so-called sources are pretenders.

His repeated attempts to somehow tie Russian and Chinese arms industries are tiring.

alopes · 12-19-2008

And here´s the second part of the article.
He talks more about Russian´s carriers but....

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Anal...t_Two_999.html

Quote:

Analysis: China's carriers Part Two -
by Andrei Chang
Hong Kong (UPI) Dec 17, 2008
Russia today still has a large number of nuclear-powered submarines armed with cruise missiles and nuclear attack submarines in service. For instance, there are five Project P671 SSNs in service in the navy alone, eight Project 949B SSGNs and more than 10 Project 970 serial SSNs.
Moreover, the first of the latest-generation P885 SSNs already has been launched. The Russian navy has enough warships and large-tonnage nuclear submarines to form three aircraft carrier fleets immediately. This is in sharp contrast to China's People's Liberation Army navy's rather obsolete capabilities.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who is in charge of Russia's defense industry, said recently that an investment of close to $180 billion would be required to build three aircraft carriers. His remark could be inaccurate -- the actual cost should be closer to $20.8 billion.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin recently gave the go-ahead to build the new aircraft carriers, in any case. Putin said last February that building the carriers would boost the Russian economy and improve the social well-being of the country before 2020.

Still, this is a huge budget, especially under current global financial pressures. Russia had hoped to cooperate with foreign countries in one way or another to lower the total cost. This is one reason Russia has been closely watching both China's and India's aircraft carrier construction programs.

The production of Sukhoi Su-33 fighter aircraft is one opportunity for Russia. China has said it will need this type of fighter, but the production lines for this combat aircraft closed down years ago. If the Russian navy's new aircraft carriers also require upgraded variants of the same fighters, the production line very likely will be reopened, which would reduce costs.

At present, there are two shipbuilders in Russia capable of building aircraft carriers. First choice is the Sevmash Shipyard located at Severodvinsk city. This is where the Indian navy is receiving assistance in upgrading the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, which it bought from Russia. This shipyard also built two Kilo-636 submarines for China's PLA navy.

If Russia decides to use gas turbines for its new aircraft carriers, it probably will build them here, as this shipyard is now acquiring experience in manufacturing gas turbines for the Indian navy's carrier.

The other option is the Baltic Sea Shipyard located at St. Petersburg. This is the shipyard that built the 24,000-ton Kirov-class nuclear-powered cruiser for the Russian navy. This colossal cruiser uses a KN-3 nuclear reactor. If Russia chooses to build a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, this shipyard has the advantage with its nuclear technology and experience.

Before the designs are completed, the controversy will continue within the Russian navy and the defense establishment as to whether the new aircraft carriers should use conventional or nuclear propulsion systems.

Within the pro-conventional power faction there are additional controversies. For instance, should the propulsion system use four to six gas turbines or continue using ordinary turbines and boilers?

If the gas turbine is chosen, both China and Russia have the option of using Ukrainian DN-80 gas turbine engines, each of which has an output power of 24,300 hp. China has been licensed to manufacture these DN-80 gas turbines domestically, and the PLA navy's 052B/052C destroyers currently use this propulsion system.

An alternative gas turbine would be the M90FR jointly developed by Russia and Ukraine, which has an output power of 27,500 hp.

(Andrei Chang is editor in chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, registered in Toronto.)

escobar · 12-19-2008

I wonder how the Russians pay for him that he tells of stupidity
tphuang iwill China really use the Su-33 for varyag

I think that China will deploy varyag to the SSF to counter the arrival of the U.S. Navy during the attack of taiwan.
do you thinks that tphuang

Maggern · 12-19-2008

Also remember that those carrier schematics are the makings of planeman on this very forum...

Also, it's the East Sea Fleet that handles Taiwan, not the South Sea Fleet. Anyways, using a Chinese carrier in the Taiwan scenario would IMO be a waste of resources, most of China's modern fighters can reach most of Taiwan from land-based airbases, which are far more effective (and harder to "sink") than a carrier. Carriers are best used for forward defence, if any.

crobato · 12-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by escobar

I wonder how the Russians pay for him that he tells of stupidity
tphuang iwill China really use the Su-33 for varyag

I think that China will deploy varyag to the SSF to counter the arrival of the U.S. Navy during the attack of taiwan.
do you thinks that tphuang

I tend to think that a Chinese carrier is more of a hinderance rather than a support to Taiwan operations. With only one carrier vs. the might of the US fleet the best it can do is run and be a distraction.

SSF is the best place to put a carrier because its one of the only few places where you can put one in China. I can't think of any base in the NSF or the ESF. Lunshun, formerly Port Arthur the cause of a few wars of its own, seems awfully crowded if you look at it at GE. This is the main NSF base. The main ESF base is at Shanghai, which is the naval version of the Bangkok traffic intersection. At the north and east China seas, this carrier is within reach of three of the most powerful airforces in Asia plus at least two major USAF bases.

Putting the carrier at the SSF means you can show the flag at the various territorial disputes over there, in effect, putting a big fish on a small pond. Plus the ability to interact quickly if there are any threats against sea lanes to the Middle East, Europe, Southeast Asia, Australia, and Africa.

If anything, the carrier is more of a sign that the PLAN is now looking beyond the myopic Taiwan scenario and more towards what is expected of a navy of a world player.

pla101prc · 12-22-2008

my question is if China were to build a carrier battlegroup, will the fleet be consisted of existing ships and subs (cept for the carrier) or will they build new ones? cuz in the case of the former that'ill take away a huge chunk of China's existing inventory LOL

SinoDefence Forum

Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/latest-plan-aircraft-carrier-info-photos-4714.html

Similar Threads

vBulletin Tweet Poster