Ideal chinese carrier thread

[planeman]

Really cool concept, but just one quick question:
Why would you put land attack or anti ship cruise missiles on your carrier? You would get more flexibility with just storing extra ALCMs for your aircraft.
If you try to pile to many "nice to have" weapon systems, you are using space that could have been used to support air ops

just my five cents

This is where I differ with many people here. The way I see it a carrier cannot rely on its airwing as its only means of offense/defence. This appproach has been adopted by several navies though notably not the USN.

I also think that the carrier shouldn't rely too much on escorts for area-air defence SAM coverage, and for close-in ASW defence. Saying that a carrier doesn't need medium/ heavy SAMs because it will always be escorted, and has air-defence aircraft, is foolhardy IMO.

Stealth is another aspect of differing views. In my view the carrier should have a low enough RCS to be easily mistaken for an escort in the missile's eye view. Obviously the RCS is never going to be as small as the similar measures on a corvette.

Here's a 3-D view of my basic layout. The bridge structure is at the extreme front of the ship between the two ski-jumps. A bit like putting an air-defence destroyer onto the front of a CV, giving it excellent fields of fire. I haven't drawn the weapons fit although the YJ-62s would be under the ski-jumps.

Although I think it needs better looks, I am quite happy with the advantages of this layount and guess I'll get going on the scale diagrams.

 

[bd popeye]

This is where I differ with many people here. The way I see it a carrier cannot rely on its airwing as its only means of offense/defence. This appproach has been adopted by several navies though notably not the USN.

I also think that the carrier shouldn't rely too much on escorts for area-air defence SAM coverage, and for close-in ASW defence. Saying that a carrier doesn't need medium/ heavy SAMs because it will always be escorted, and has air-defence aircraft, is foolhardy IMO.

The USN has been operating CV's since 1923. You'd think they may know a little something about it. The USN never sends a CV to sea alone. Even a CV emerging from a re-fit has an escort when it goes to sea. This has been and will continue to be the USN policy. A CV was designed to launch, recover, store aircraft and assoicated equipment. The CV's AAW is provided by it's own aircraft and escorts. As well as it's ASW.

Each navy world over operates diffrently. I do not expect the PLAN to operate like the USN. I'm sure they are developing their own doctrine.

 

[Jeff Head]

Here's my thoughts on how the PLAN's first carriers will look.

Obi, those are gorgous pics. My hat's off to you. Always very good posts and very well stated and professionally done.

You inspired me to make a better representation of my X-Deck design for the PLAN as described in my novel series.

So, here is the new pic...the 50-60,000 ton x-deck (conventional carrier takeoff and landing) design from my book, with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls.

A 50-60,000 ton design with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls. (Just click on the thumbnail for a larger image)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Scratch]

Hey, Planeman. You said your landing strip is also a STOBAR take off right?
I think that might be a problem. Having it would help slow an aircraft down on a successful landing, but what if the plane flies too fast or is descending too slowly? It would have to power up and repeat.
My concern is, I can't imagine having to power up in that short space and avoid the new obstacle!

Right, something I havn't seen before. If for whatever reason the pilot has to "wave it off", it could become difficult. He cannot countinue in his path, since he will then crash into the skyjump. That means he has to fly a turn to avoid it. Now if he's already close to the carrier, that turn could become relatively steep. But that's something you don't want as well, because when rolling into a turn, your loosing lift. At the slow landing-speed and that close to the see not all that good. To maintain altitude in the turn, you must increase your AOA, but since that is already rahter high, you're close to a stall.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Obi, those are gorgous pics. My hat's off to you. Always very good posts and very well stated and professionally done.

You inspired me to make a better representation of my X-Deck design for the PLAN as described in my novel series.

So, here is the new pic...the 50-60,000 ton x-deck (conventional carrier takeoff and landing) design from my book, with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls.

A 50-60,000 ton design with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls. (Just click on the thumbnail for a larger image)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The possibilities of container ships and containerised modules is a subject close to my heart, as I have been working with containers in the road haulage sector for twelve years now. A container ship is almost an impressive a sight as a CV when alongside, and the imagination cannot help but wander at the possibilties...

A lot of specialist containers from the Arapaho project (an 80s update of the CVE idea) are stored at the MOD site at Bicester in Oxfordshire, ready to be sent to Portsmouth or any other yard if needed to refit a container ship at short notice,- a process which could be carried out in a matter of days, quite an achievement by any standard. Of course this would only produce a ship able to operate up to four ASW Helos, but this would suffice for convoy escort duties. The more complex design illustrated here would require a lot more preparation in peacetime, and indeed this should be done as a matter of urgency to prevent delays in time of war. A converted vessel (the prototype) could be held in reserve and extra modules could be held in store at any number of container storage depots, most of which would be anonymous and thus quite secure in civilian yards. Sufficient modules to convert two or three extra vessels would constitute a viable war reserve plus the protoype vessel available at short notice.:nono:

 

[Jeff Head]

The possibilities of container ships and containerised modules is a subject close to my heart, as I have been working with containers in the road haulage sector for twelve years now. A container ship is almost an impressive a sight as a CV when alongside, and the imagination cannot help but wander at the possibilties...

A lot of specialist containers from the Arapaho project (an 80s update of the CVE idea) are stored at the MOD site at Bicester in Oxfordshire, ready to be sent to Portsmouth or any other yard if needed to refit a container ship at short notice,- a process which could be carried out in a matter of days, quite an achievement by any standard. Of course this would only produce a ship able to operate up to four ASW Helos, but this would suffice for convoy escort duties. The more complex design illustrated here would require a lot more preparation in peacetime, and indeed this should be done as a matter of urgency to prevent delays in time of war. A converted vessel (the prototype) could be held in reserve and extra modules could be held in store at any number of container storage depots, most of which would be anonymous and thus quite secure in civilian yards. Sufficient modules to convert two or three extra vessels would constitute a viable war reserve plus the protoype vessel available at short notice.:nono:

In the book, that type of production process is discussed and the PLAN utilizes such methodologies to put them into full, rapid production. Also much discussed are the tell-tale signs the west begins to notice of the covert conversions and how they ultimately determine what is up...but only on the eve of the actual conflict and too late to do anything about it.

With a modular construction methodology, minimizing drastic hull changes, with all of the logistics in place, and utilizing three seperate facilites, the PLAN is able (in the tale) to pump out a new carrier every 10-12 weeks from each facility. Almost liberty ship style production...and they have a telling effect.

The PLAN makes good use of the Varyag as its initial carrier before the conflict in training crews to man the rapid production vessels.

...and as you indicate, all of this is not just wild speculation. The ARAPAHO project existed and was studied. During World War II, the practise of converting commercial ships to light, "jeep" carriers for escort duty was put in place and many conversions were made, and a lot of good escort duty was accomplished. Many of them saw combat and several were lost...but they did their job well. Anyhow, from all of that I drew some of the details and reasoning for it in the Dragon;s Fury book.

 

[Sczepan]

.....

You inspired me to make a better representation of my X-Deck design for the PLAN as described in my novel series.

So, here is the new pic...the 50-60,000 ton x-deck (conventional carrier takeoff and landing) design from my book, with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls.
.....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Jeff, didn't you see the possibility of collissions by the "crossing x-deck"?
To reduce the risk, you have to wait in landing operations that the aircraft before passed the "collision-point" and than the next plane could touch down, but so you win no more capacity compared to conventionell angled-deck designs;
in starting operations you have two decks - thats the same as conventionell angled-decks can make available;
so - excuse my stupid question - where is the big advantage of this creation?

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

The X-deck design offers better battle damage resistance, in as much as two landing areas with arrestor wires increases the chances of retaining one operational after a misslie or LGB strike, assuming they penetrate th ships defences. Also when landing on aircraft, the landings will obviously be staggered but with computer assistence this can be done with relative ease and close spacing between aircraft. Two sets of arrestor gear means aircraft landing on alternate landing strips can land at twice as fast a rate as a conventional CV theoretically because they don't have to wait for the gear to reset after the previous landing. Marshalling issues arise here of course but with two decks this isn't the same problem as on a conventional deck. If an aircraft has to use the crash barrier on one deck then normally all the aircraft in the landing pattern will have to circle burning precious fuel reserves until the deck can be 'unfoulled' whereas the X-deck ship could simply switch them to the other deck (and hope the barrier would not be needed again too soon!).

 

[kickars]

The X-deck design offers better battle damage resistance, in as much as two landing areas with arrestor wires increases the chances of retaining one operational after a misslie or LGB strike, assuming they penetrate th ships defences. Also when landing on aircraft, the landings will obviously be staggered but with computer assistence this can be done with relative ease and close spacing between aircraft. Two sets of arrestor gear means aircraft landing on alternate landing strips can land at twice as fast a rate as a conventional CV theoretically because they don't have to wait for the gear to reset after the previous landing. Marshalling issues arise here of course but with two decks this isn't the same problem as on a conventional deck. If an aircraft has to use the crash barrier on one deck then normally all the aircraft in the landing pattern will have to circle burning precious fuel reserves until the deck can be 'unfoulled' whereas the X-deck ship could simply switch them to the other deck (and hope the barrier would not be needed again too soon!).

X-deck is a great idea. But I have another thought, what if instead of an 'X' there is a '=' deck design, which means you can still remain 4 run ways design (two for landing, two for take off). And you can also avoid the cross road section of the 'X' design. What’s more the overall length and width of the deck would be pretty much the same as X-deck (extend the '=' deck to the very front of the hull). Becoz of the '=' deck design, there will be a long space between the four run ways (or u can say two very long run ways) which can be used for elevators, helicopters (both parking and landing/take off) and all other fixed wing planes' parking. Coz all the aircraft would be stored in the middle between the two long run ways, it should be pretty balanced as well I think.

 

[Jeff Head]

Jeff, didn't you see the possibility of collissions by the "crossing x-deck"?
To reduce the risk, you have to wait in landing operations that the aircraft before passed the "collision-point" and than the next plane could touch down, but so you win no more capacity compared to conventionell angled-deck designs;
in starting operations you have two decks - thats the same as conventionell angled-decks can make available;
so - excuse my stupid question - where is the big advantage of this creation?

The advantage is that the deck configuration gains the same advantage of conventional carrier operations just like you say, while doing so on a container ship hull, where the provisions for control and the superstructure are all located at the back of the ship in the middle of what would normally be a conventional carrier deck.

It wasn't a matter of somehow improving a conventional carrier design, it was a matter of working with a different hull and getting the same basic advantages available to a conventional configuration.

So, this design allows carrier operations to be conducted like a conventional carrier...and give some flexability for wind conditions with the crossing configuration, while doing all of that on a smaller, less expensive hull that can be produced modularly very quickly. Those are the advantages and hope I that helps the explanationand understanding.

Your question wasn't a stupid question at all, thanks for asking and allowing me to clarify.