PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Franklin said:

It will be a disappointment if this carrier is just a copy of the Admiral Kuznetsov class. I certainly hope that they will have brought changes and improvements to the design. Like a wider flight deck bigger hangar deck and a smaller island structure at the least. A catapult on the angled deck will be a huge bonus.

Click to expand...

I don't think 001A will be a direct carbon copy by any means but it will follow the same overall configuration.
I speculate it may feature a slightly larger flight deck, smaller island, different weapons elevators, and possibly even larger main aircraft elevators... not to mention countless internal modifications as well of course.

====

Franklin said:

That is at this point still possible. But has anyone seen any clear evidence of a catapult program in China ? Steam or EMALS a like ?

Click to expand...

We have had direct statements from Rear Admiral Ma Weiming directly mentioning the EM cat project, and he's also the head or a part of a variety of other developments including IEPS and railgun development.
Beyond that we've also had a number of very consistent rumours regarding EM cat development over the years, and even a few speculated sites that may be for testing catapults...
And of course, the naval air facility at huangdiancun appears to be undergoing installation of something which looks suspiciously like a pair of catapults...

We have less information on Chinese steam catapult development but it is regarded as something which generally exists, and is even thought to be the slightly more likely catapult to be placled aboard the 002 CATOBAR.

So the question is whether they'll end up placing a EM cat or steam cat on 002.

A full CATOBAR carrier would mean that they have to retrain their pilots and deck crew. And maybe even redesign the plane.

Click to expand...

Yes, any CATOBAR carrier will require a new J-15 variant... and a catapult compatible J-15 is accepted to be under development.
I don't think pilots and deck crew will have to undergo too much additional training, because the significant difference between a CATOBAR and STOBAR carrier is simply the launch itself, where the pilot and deck crew simply need to learn how to take off from a catapult. It's a small additional "skill" to learn for both sides of the launch.
Of course, the deck crew and technicians must also learn to maintain the catapult as well, but that's a somewhat separate task.

A STOBAR/CATOBAR combo is at the same time progress and playing it safe. If they have issues with the deck crew or pilots or plane. Then the carrier doesn't have to sit idle for long periods of time and instead just operate it like a STOBAR carrier as they have trained and working to fix the problems at the same time.

Click to expand...

I suspect that when the Chinese Navy does install catapults onto its first carrier (most likely 002), it will be at a stage where they have already thoroughly tested the catapult on land, and conducted a large number of test launches with various aircraft under all manner of conditions as well.
If, in the unlikely situation that 001A is fitted with a catapult on its waist, then I would expect the catapult to be there as a test to see how well it functions under true maritime conditions aboard a carrier, but that the ship itself will not conduct standard operations with the catapult (at least not early on in its career).

lcloo said:

Only one module was added. This module is longer than previous two, but doesn't looked it is full beam because if you look at the interior of the hangar, you find the absence of this 3rd module hangar floor.

And the overhang part is indeed there.

Click to expand...

So maybe the module they added is the portion that includes one of the hangar doors, and they decided to fit the elevator portion (shown in the ship yard) on separately.

I still think while the internal structure and basic layout might owe a lot to the Kuznetsov, the external visual appearence will be substantial different. Throughout modern history Naval architects from different major naval powers have for whatever reason always develop clearly distinct visual styles that instantly distinguishes a ship as the product of a particular nation. The Chinese naval architects seem to have developed a clearly recognizeable style since mid 1990s, with comparatively clean and conservative hull lines, large uncluttered hull surfaces that avoids complicated curves, protrusions, creases, and shapes, which they have consistently followed since that time. To my eyes this style is as distinctive as swan bow of the interwar Japanese ships, or the tumblehome of French predreadnoughts. This style is quite different from the soviet era designs which characterizes Kuznetsov. I think that distinctive Chinese hull style will carry into the first domestic Chinese carrier. I suspect the new Chinese carrier would instantly look like a ship designed by the designers of type 052, and not look clearly like a close relative, at least on the surface, of the Kuznetsov.

Franklin said:

It will be a disappointment if this carrier is just a copy of the Admiral Kuznetsov class..

Click to expand...

That is most likely what it is.

My guess is that the only improvements you will see are a better layout for the island, and a more space in the hanger, taking advantage of the removal of the large VLS cells to allow for a little more room forward.

We shall have to wait and see...but according to everything we have heard, it is basically a Chinese built STOBAR carrier modeled after the Liaoning.

Richard Santos said:

... the external visual appearence will be substantial different.

I suspect the new Chinese carrier would instantly look like a ship designed by the designers of type 052, and not look clearly like a close relative, at least on the surface, of the Kuznetsov.

Click to expand...

Doubtful that the basic hull form will change at all if indeed this is to be a second STOBAR carrier...which all reports indicate it is.

In that case, they will stick with the Kuznetsov/Varyag hull form IMHO, and make a few improvements (probably to the island and to the hanger). The propulsion may well be different as well.

But I expect, based on everything we have heard, that if this is a STOBAR carrier to be a sister ship to the Liaoning, that it will look very much like the Liaoning.

Time is going to tell us pretty quickly at this stage,.

Bltizo said:

Yes, any CATOBAR carrier will require a new J-15 variant... and a catapult compatible J-15 is accepted to be under development.
I don't think pilots and deck crew will have to undergo too much additional training, because the significant difference between a CATOBAR and STOBAR carrier is simply the launch itself, where the pilot and deck crew simply need to learn how to take off from a catapult. It's a small additional "skill" to learn for both sides of the launch.
Of course, the deck crew and technicians must also learn to maintain the catapult as well, but that's a somewhat separate task.

Click to expand...

I disagree that there is only a small skill difference between a STOBAR and CATOBAR carrier ops. Having a catapult means you add a new piece of equipment and another person for the launching of the aircraft. So you increase the chances of mistakes and failures. It will take a lot of training and ajustments for all involved to get it right.

Watch this video below to see a catapult shoot drill (gone wrong) starting at 18 min 15 sec.

Franklin said:

I disagree that there is only a small skill difference between a STOBAR and CATOBAR carrier ops. Having a catapult means you add a new piece of equipment and another person for the launching of the aircraft. So you increase the chances of mistakes and failures. It will take a lot of training and ajustments for all involved to get it right.

Watch this video below to see a catapult shoot drill (gone wrong) starting at 18 min 15 sec.

Click to expand...

You add anything onto a carrier can increase chances for mistakes and failures. It's about discipline and learning from mistakes. And China has the most active and soon to be most advance carrier program in Asia.

I think the differences would be more internal than external. Basic Hull design would be essentially the same except possibly a redesign fantail section. There is also a possibility that she may have a slightly bigger 'rump' perhaps influenced by the ford class but also makes logical sense. When it comes to carriers these days, everyone is liking big butts.. and they cannot lie or deny.

It will still be STOBAR/ramp. The odds of it being cat launched full deck carrier is extremely small.
I predict evolutionary changes to the superstructure. A lil smaller with cleaner lines and certainly new sensors and comm gears. Keep in mind the liaoning's island is already a vast improvement over the Kutz herself.

We are comparing 001A to Liaoning not the kutnesov class. I see slightly increase hanger deck lengthwise and big improvement in ducting/plumbing/wiring such as exhaust venting. Things we cannot see externally but makes a world of difference in operations and day to day life aboard. Aircraft workshops will be improved and expanded due to increase hanger deck. I see improvements in crew quarters as well.

Anyway those are my semi professional opinion.

Jeff Head said:

In that case, they will stick with the Kuznetsov/Varyag hull form IMHO, and make a few improvements (probably to the island and to the hanger). The propulsion may well be different as well.

Click to expand...

The use of IEP would be a huge change and improvement if they went that route. The interior layout could then be really different along with extra space freed up for other uses.

Franklin said:

I disagree that there is only a small skill difference between a STOBAR and CATOBAR carrier ops. Having a catapult means you add a new piece of equipment and another person for the launching of the aircraft. So you increase the chances of mistakes and failures. It will take a lot of training and ajustments for all involved to get it right.

Watch this video below to see a catapult shoot drill (gone wrong) starting at 18 min 15 sec.

Click to expand...

I think we have a differing opinion of what "a lot" means.
No doubt actually operating a catapult is difficult for crew and pilot, but compared to what they already would have learned to do on a STOBAR carrier, I do believe learning to use a catapult is not singly that much more significant.