PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Bltizo said:

The British QE carriers aren't exactly similar to USN carriers, either in the type of aircraft they're expected to embark or configuration. Sure, they're more similar to USN carriers than the Invincible class were, but they're still quite distinctive from the Nimitz class.

Nor do any of us know exactly what capabilities the PLAN wants their carriers to have, however I wouldn't be surprised if their ultimate goal was to attain similar capabilities to nimitz/ford sized supercarriers, and I think it makes sense for them to try and leverage a proven configuration.

Click to expand...

I agree, the one consistent characteristic of the PLA as a whole has been their pragmatism.

It has been one of their greatest strengths, and is a cornerstone that has allowed them to make such rapid gains in recent decades.

The PLA's general philosophy is that they are happy to put their pride aside and learn by copying others until they have the experience and expertise to start forging their own path.

The PLAN has not been coy about using the USN as the basis for its carrier development, going so far as to replicate the deck crew colour code and protective gear.

The Liaoning is effectively new built in terms of fixtures and fittings, but its Soviet roots can never be changed, and I think that will become a hinderance to the PLAN if they wish to pursue American style carrier ops.

As such, I think it would be a mistake to make a slight modified Liaoning as the first indigenous Chinese built carrier. Even the Russians are ditching the Varyag design philosophy with their own planned next gen carriers, so that is clearly an evolutionary dead end. So it makes little sense for the PLAN to sink any more time and resources going down that path.

Instead, the PLAN would be far better off adapting the British QEII class design, or even the old Kitty Hawk design.

Such a path would allow the PLAN to effectively emulate and evaluate the USN style of carrier ops and then add their own unique flourishes based on their operational experience, assets and requirements.

However, I think there is a very good chance that the first Chinese nuclear supercarrier will look a lot like a Ford class.

The Americans didn't just design their carriers willy nilly. The Ford class is the culmination and distillation of a century of US carrier operations and design history.

As the saying goes, form follows function, and just as many modern fighters looks broadly alike, because the requirements they were designed to meet led their respective design teams down the same design paths, I expect the Chinese ship designers to come up with the same general layout as the Americans when it comes to designing a nuclear supercarrier.

I would not expect a Chinese carriers to differ significantly from American carriers until at least the second or third generation of Chinese nuclear carriers.

plawolf said:

As such, I think it would be a mistake to make a slight modified Liaoning as the first indigenous Chinese built carrier. Even the Russians are ditching the Varyag design philosophy with their own planned next gen carriers, so that is clearly an evolutionary dead end. So it makes little sense for the PLAN to sink any more time and resources going down that path.

Instead, the PLAN would be far better off adapting the British QEII class design, or even the old Kitty Hawk design.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say, however regarding the point of the first indigenous carrier... I think PLAN are being deliberately cautious with the modifications of their first home grown flat top.
The general consensus is that we'll see a modified Liaoning CV 001A design from DL and a CATOBAR design from JN, with both possibly built without too much delay between them (i.e.: no more than a few years delay, so almost concurrently in timescales for building a ship as large as a carrier).

I think it is sensible in this case for PLAN to adopt a dual low risk and higher risk arrangement for their carrier production. I think a lot of the issues with the Kuznetsov class and thus Liaoning, is its internal arrangement and things such as hangar size, and more nuanced things like confusing deck geometry which leads to needless reduction of flight deck real estate.
I mean, I'd prefer it if PLAN could go straight to a Kitty Hawk or CATOBAR CVF design for their first indigenous carrier, but I can also see the reasoning for adopting a less ambitious ship first, with a more capable design in the wings, especially if the less ambitious design can fix a lot of the smaller inherent, structural issues plaguing the kuznetsov class.

More interesting will be if they put a catapult or two on the waist for the 001A class. While I've always believed that if one put cats on the waist they may as well put them on the bow too, I have revised that opinion a little: for a navy still new or not fully confident in its cats, a ski jump is still very useful in maintaining a minimum reliable air launch capability as issues with cats are worked out.

PLAN will want to maintain a balance between having a reliable short to medium term capability and making sure to advance and invest in medium and long term capability and technological growth, and at their current point I think it isn't a bad idea to go for a modified Liaoning class first.

A bigger version of the same picture posted on the last page

The full album:

Continued

plawolf said:

I agree, the one consistent characteristic of the PLA as a whole has been their pragmatism.

It has been one of their greatest strengths, and is a cornerstone that has allowed them to make such rapid gains in recent decades.

The PLA's general philosophy is that they are happy to put their pride aside and learn by copying others until they have the experience and expertise to start forging their own path.

The PLAN has not been coy about using the USN as the basis for its carrier development, going so far as to replicate the deck crew colour code and protective gear.

The Liaoning is effectively new built in terms of fixtures and fittings, but its Soviet roots can never be changed, and I think that will become a hinderance to the PLAN if they wish to pursue American style carrier ops.

As such, I think it would be a mistake to make a slight modified Liaoning as the first indigenous Chinese built carrier. Even the Russians are ditching the Varyag design philosophy with their own planned next gen carriers, so that is clearly an evolutionary dead end. So it makes little sense for the PLAN to sink any more time and resources going down that path.

Instead, the PLAN would be far better off adapting the British QEII class design, or even the old Kitty Hawk design.

Such a path would allow the PLAN to effectively emulate and evaluate the USN style of carrier ops and then add their own unique flourishes based on their operational experience, assets and requirements.

However, I think there is a very good chance that the first Chinese nuclear supercarrier will look a lot like a Ford class.

The Americans didn't just design their carriers willy nilly. The Ford class is the culmination and distillation of a century of US carrier operations and design history.

As the saying goes, form follows function, and just as many modern fighters looks broadly alike, because the requirements they were designed to meet led their respective design teams down the same design paths, I expect the Chinese ship designers to come up with the same general layout as the Americans when it comes to designing a nuclear supercarrier.

I would not expect a Chinese carriers to differ significantly from American carriers until at least the second or third generation of Chinese nuclear carriers.

Click to expand...

Very nice post Wolfie, and more in keeping with your old classy style, glad to see you are still a very bright lad! Two Thumbs up!

delft said:

Which makes it an unlikely concept. The British flattops are meant to operate in the USN operating concept and are still very different from all USN flattops. PLAN ships are bound to be designed for some different operating concept if only because choosing the American model without the vast experience of USN and its fleet size must lead to a weak position on the World oceans that is politically unacceptable. So how could building for a different operating concept lead to a ship of the same shape?

Click to expand...

This is fan art Delft. Just some kids in China with 3DS MAX thought it would be cool to render out Nitmitz and Ford-Class carrier and make it look like the future chinese carriers.

Currently we have no idea what the new carrier design even looks like. We don't even know PLAN's requirements for the carrier are.

Ultra said:

This is fan art Delft. Just some kids in China with 3DS MAX thought it would be cool to render out Nitmitz and Ford-Class carrier and make it look like the future chinese carriers.

Currently we have no idea what the new carrier design even looks like. We don't even know PLAN's requirements for the carrier are.

Click to expand...

I know. That's why I object to posts that take such designs seriously. We know about PLAN's requirements only that they are different from those of USN.

delft said:

I know. That's why I object to posts that take such designs seriously. We know about PLAN's requirements only that they are different from those of USN.

Click to expand...

There are only so much differences in a carrier design. For the most part ALL full deck carriers look similar. You'll have an angled deck, an island on the starboard side and elevators on the sides and defensive weapons on the sponsons.
I'm no oracle but I can almost guarantee you that PLAN's next full deck carrier will look quite similar to the USN's carriers.
The only difference is in terms of displacement and size. Will it be closer to the CdG or will it be more like the Forrestal class?

Also bonus points if someone can tell me why islands are on starboard and not port!.. and no cheating (googling)