PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing


thunderchief

Senior Member
Aegis-like destroyers are primarily air-defense ships. Basically , you would use them to cover your fleet with high value assets (i.e. aircraft carriers) when sailing far from your land bases . They could be used for ASuW , ASW and BMD , but that is not their primary function . Navies of Japan and ROK expect to work with USN in event of conflict . Of course, Japan may secretly wish to have their own aircraft carrier fleet, but that is still on long rope . In event of hostilities against China , they could attempt to blockade China inside First Island chain , but that would work only if they have decisive air power - in other words only if USN aircraft carriers are nearby . Without that, Aegis or not , whole strategy falls apart . Do not expect that any of those destroyers could endure sustained missile attacks from H-6 and JH-7 .

On the other hand, China may wish to project some naval power with shiny new ships around the world, but reality is that in case of war they need offensive missile carriers ( planes, subs ...) in large number , not so much air-defense ships . They could of course use Type 052 destroyers if they break out of First Island Chain (in latter phases of war) , but IMHO that is of somewhat secondary importance .
 

Ultra

Junior Member
OTish:

Well, none of the features I listed were particularly conducive to low RCS or even low visual profiles, they were merely what I considered to be aesthetically unappealing.
Symmetry is definitely a preference of mine, which is why the likes of 052B, Ticonderoga, Akizuki, Horizon and Type 45 are in the bin of "meh" for me. A good looking bridge/superstructure is also important; it's the "face" of the ship after all. Then there's the overall shape of the hull.

I think the Sejong class could have been one of the best looking ship classes around if only they'd adopted a square aft hull and straighter overall hull shape rather than a burke-esque curved profile at the water line. It had so many things going for it, like its sleek length, its smooth aft hangar/VLS section, and enclosed RHIB davits.
Zumwalt is also a nice looking design simply on the basis of how sleek it is, but its main superstructure/hangar gives the appearance of top heaviness and blockiness despite how futuristic it is. (amusingly, Zumwalt is the most blatant attempt to develop an invisible "box" of any navy yet, and it is of course American)

Hopefully 055 adopts the same hull philosophy as 052D and that its aft VLS section is relatively high and smooth. Its single long funnel/smoke stack integrated with the main bridge superstructure is quite a unique arrangement and has the potential to look quite appealing.

But of course this is all my taste. Maybe other people like more bulbous hulls, tall superstructures and offset funnels on their DDGs.




I personally likes the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It has a pretty slick look to it that I just love. Only that it is too small, and doesn't have APAR or VLS. If only they enlarge the hull to the size of Burke and install APAR, VLS and all the good stuff Burke gets and it will be my dream ship! :D

In fact, I think Lockheed Martin actually has something along those line - witness the Multi-Mission Combat Ship!



Pretty slick if you ask me! :)
 
I personally likes the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It has a pretty slick look to it that I just love. Only that it is too small, and doesn't have APAR or VLS. If only they enlarge the hull to the size of Burke and install APAR, VLS and all the good stuff Burke gets and it will be my dream ship! :D

In fact, I think Lockheed Martin actually has something along those line - witness the Multi-Mission Combat Ship!

Pretty slick if you ask me! :)
Can't agree more. I have always believed in the LCS concept though not the final execution.
 
...
I use the 48 DDG and 48 FFG number because it would be a logical extrapolation from their current fleet structure where their primary DDGs and FFGs are distributed among six destroyer flotillas each made up of four DDGs and four to five FFGs each, for a total of some 24 DDGs and 30ish FFGs (FFGs are likely to drop as some older hulls may end up getting transferred to second line frigate squadrons).
So the 48 DDG and 48 FFG number is a projection of an effective doubling of either destroyer flotilla number (so 12 destroyer flotillas, four per fleet, each with four DDGs and four FFGs) or doubling the orbat of each destroyer flotilla (so still 6 destroyer flotillas, two per fleet, each with eight DDGs and eight FFGs)
I was just wondering on a different thread whether the PLAN would build more 054A/054A+'s. I think the PLAN faces a tighter budgetary constraint than most assume given China's economic trends.

In 10 years from now I would expect the PLAN to have as many 055's to CV/LPD/LHD's on a one-to-one basis, 6 to 8, as the core of as many task forces.

The ratio of the most modern DDG's and FFG's will each be two-to-one for each of those capital ships so a total of 24 to 32 each. This will probably accomplished for DDG's with mostly the 052D and maybe the initial vessels of its successor class, for FFG's with mostly the existing 054A/054A+'s and several vessels of its successor class.

With a tighter budget the PLAN may make do with only a single successor class to the 052D and 054A/054A+ further out in time, in which case the above numbers would include only one or two ships of that successor class.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I was just wondering on a different thread whether the PLAN would build more 054A/054A+'s. I think the PLAN faces a tighter budgetary constraint than most assume given China's economic trends.

In 10 years from now I would expect the PLAN to have as many 055's to CV/LPD/LHD's on a one-to-one basis, 6 to 8, as the core of as many task forces.

The ratio of the most modern DDG's and FFG's will each be two-to-one for each of those capital ships so a total of 24 to 32 each. This will probably accomplished for DDG's with mostly the 052D and maybe the initial vessels of its successor class, for FFG's with mostly the existing 054A/054A+'s and several vessels of its successor class.

With a tighter budget the PLAN may make do with only a single successor class to the 052D and 054A/054A+ further out in time, in which case the above numbers would include only one or two ships of that successor class.
Well budget is also the unspoken factor in projecting the PLA; if they have less budget to play around with then naturally their forces in future will suffer for it, in which case I have no particular interest in speculating given we'll then get into intricacies of just how much X and Y costs and wondering just how much budget they may get in future.

I prefer to assume a more steady budget profile with force projection based on needs and requirements primarily.
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
The PLAN Airwing training centre start receiving the AJT "Sea eagle" Haiying aka JL9G. With future requirement of at least 150 new Carrier capable pilot (50 for CV17 and 100 for 002), they need to crank up pilot raining fast,.It takes at least 3 years to train properly at least

From Xinhui at CDF They supposed to receive new batch every 3 months according to post in chinese web.
No tail hook I guess to light weight. It just tear the body sturcture. How about Goshawk did it has tailhook? Anyone

Lift1_jet.jpg

Lift2_jet.jpg

Lift3_jet.jpg

And new helmet too
JL-9's new helmet





They are speeding up training for both PLAAF & PLAN
 
Last edited:

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
Henri K take on recent induction of 5 JL9G into the Navy training center. This version doesn't have tail hook unlike US navy Goshawk. the JL9G turn out to be bigger heavier and slower landing speed vs the air force version
Jet trainer is not as flashy as J 15 but very important component of China's carrier program. they need at least 50 JL9G
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



The Chinese navy continues to receive its new JL-9G supersonic jet , with the delivery of five new aircraft on Saturday, March 4th.

Registered from 83101 to 83105, this new JL-9G batch came out of the assembly line of GAIC (Guizhou Aircraft Industry Corporation) in the summer of 2016 and started flight testing as early as November.

With these five new aircraft, the total number of this model in the Chinese navy is expected to reach ten. They will be used to train young pilots of the Chinese navy air force.

Their exact assignment is unknown for the moment, but it is likely that they will join the Xingcheng Aircraft Training Center, where Chinese aircraft carriers on board pilot are being trained.

Indeed, the videos and photos have already shown this plane taking off from a ski jump ramp, and perform simulations of landing without a arresting wire - the current version does not have a landing stick.

It would appear, however, that the JL-9G would become the first embedded training aircraft of the Chinese Navy when interpreting certain official GAIC releases (see our file "
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"), And that development to make it "embarkable" is currently underway.








The delivery of 5 JL-9G training aircraft to the Chinese Navy (Photos: AVIC, GAIC)

It should be noted that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, known as the FTC-2000G . At the latest news dating from late February, this jets are dedicated to the Sudanese Air Force, which is part of an order of six aircraft of the same model signed in early 2016, was about to make its roll-out.

Compared to the basic version, the JL-9G / FTC-2000G is characterized by a much lower landing speed - 210 km / h compared to 260 km / h, and a significantly reduced take-off and landing distance, To meet "pre-naval" needs.

Because of the many modifications to achieve these ends, the aircraft is larger and, above all, much heavier, from 9,800 kg of MTOW to 11,000 kg, despite the use of some measures to reduce the mass, such as The use of the DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) air inlet.


If an embarked version is considered, the constraints related to the operational conditions on an aircraft carrier will increase the aircraft more. GAIC engineers should therefore find other ways to control its mass, such as optimizing the structure and making more use of composite materials on the parts not subjected to stress.

Henri K.
 
Last edited:

defenceman

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hi can anybody give information about training on single engine jet
Specially for aircraft carrier as we have seen dual engine j15 for
Carrier so does it matter or it doesn't ?
Thx
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Hi can anybody give information about training on single engine jet
Specially for aircraft carrier as we have seen dual engine j15 for
Carrier so does it matter or it doesn't ?
Thx
Often naval pilot training is the same as air force training in the beginning. The fundamentals are exactly the same. Only more advanced/specialized training will require aircraft, such as twin engine for naval. By that time the pilot should already know if he is going to be on a carrier or not.
 

Top