Ideal chinese carrier thread

[Jeff Head]

You also forgot one more thing: such ships are expendable. There is a reason why the CVE had the nickname "Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable". There is no need for them to be built particularly well due to the missions they will perform and the mercantile construction the ships are based off of. Similar ships built in World War II only had small airwings attached to them. As such, a 50,000 ton ship will only have a small airwing of less than 40 aircraft, because the small hangar that comes from the smaller size of the ship, plus the difficulties in modifying such ships for wartime carrier usage. The ARAPAHO container ship conversions only carried a handful of VSTOL aircraft, the concept allowing for only 5 helicopters. For high tempo combat operations, the limited airwing is a liability, and as such, such ships are better off operating as auxiliaries, meant to free up the dedicated fleet carriers and light carriers for combat duties.

48 aircraft...with a hangar designed specifically to accomodate them...but again...it is fictional.

I am well aware of the CVEs and what they represented and how they were used...it is an amazing story and they were very well utilized not only for what the intent was, but off Samar they proved their worth and valor in a most emphatic and dramatic way, preventing an absolute disaster.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Ryz05]

The PLA should take into consideration the future of aircraft carriers and advancements in aircraft technology - it is highly likely that dangers against carrier battle groups from cruise and ballistic missiles will increase. More time should be invested in exploring light aircraft carrier possibilities, so the loss of one ship does not jeopardize an entire operation. The refurbishing of the light carrier Varyag is a great place to start. The Varyag will support and protect the main naval combatants against threats from fighter jets, which is what the PLAN really needs. If they are looking for land attack capability, then a catapult capable carrier is more suitable, but that is not what the PLA desires (at least for now) - air superiority is more important. Also, if UCAVs are going to become more important in the future, then light carriers will be more than enough to accomodate them.

I like the idea of catamaran carriers (or even trimaran), because they are faster, more stable, and do not require deep harbors. Speed is a very important aspect on the open seas, not only for escaping incoming threats, but also for chasing down opponents and rushing to areas where needed. A missile strike on a catamaran hull will deal significant damage, but the same thing goes for the monohull. Space shouldn't be a problem, depending on how large the carrier has to be and how many planes are expected to land.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

At 65,000tons Varyag could not be described as a 'light carrier', a term more usually used to refer to ships around the 20,000ton or less mark. At the very least Varyag is in the upper reaches of the 'medium sized carrier' range, with the US CVNs in the super carrier range obviously.

 

[Jeff Head]

At 65,000tons Varyag could not be described as a 'light carrier', a term more usually used to refer to ships around the 20,000ton or less mark. At the very least Varyag is in the upper reaches of the 'medium sized carrier' range, with the US CVNs in the super carrier range obviously.

I would even put the Varyag and the Kuznetrzov at the low end of the Supercarrier range...particularly if they had cats. QE class will be the same IMHO.

De Gaulle, Sao Paulo, Vikramaditya, Vikrant are mdeium sized carriers in my mind.

Invincible, Asturias, Garibaldi, Cavour are light carriers.

Just my opinion if they had to be broken out by super, medium and light.

 

[adeptitus]

Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.

 

[Jeff Head]

Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.

Good points. Still, particularly if the Kuznetsov class had cats, and if more room for aircraft was made (which may well happen with the Varyag), I'd still put them in the very low end of the supercarrier range...knowing that the De Gaulle is just as capable in terms of air ops at a much lower tonnage.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

My understanding is that normaly the Kuznetsov can have all her aircraft parked in the hangar- but if need be their # may be increased with some planes staying on the flight deck at all times, like on the USN carriers. Apparently they felt no need for this, but the Chinese may decide to push the envelope, and get their smaller

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

navalized in addition to using Su-33s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[joshuatree]

The PLA should take into consideration the future of aircraft carriers and advancements in aircraft technology - it is highly likely that dangers against carrier battle groups from cruise and ballistic missiles will increase. More time should be invested in exploring light aircraft carrier possibilities, so the loss of one ship does not jeopardize an entire operation. The refurbishing of the light carrier Varyag is a great place to start. The Varyag will support and protect the main naval combatants against threats from fighter jets, which is what the PLAN really needs. If they are looking for land attack capability, then a catapult capable carrier is more suitable, but that is not what the PLA desires (at least for now) - air superiority is more important. Also, if UCAVs are going to become more important in the future, then light carriers will be more than enough to accomodate them.

I like the idea of catamaran carriers (or even trimaran), because they are faster, more stable, and do not require deep harbors. Speed is a very important aspect on the open seas, not only for escaping incoming threats, but also for chasing down opponents and rushing to areas where needed. A missile strike on a catamaran hull will deal significant damage, but the same thing goes for the monohull. Space shouldn't be a problem, depending on how large the carrier has to be and how many planes are expected to land.

Ultimately, it all depends on what mission role will carriers have within the PLAN? Since China preaches noninterference of other nations' affairs as opposed to the US, will China even need supercarriers to protect shipping lanes? Cat or tri based carriers can be useful but many pointed out, one drawback is lack of below waterline space which could translate to shorter endurance, not unless you always have a supply ship accompanying the carrier.

 

[planeman]

Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.

You make some great points but I think that your comparrison with CDG is a bit deceptive. The CDG routinely operates far fewer than the notional 40 aircraft (as USN carriers don't normally carry 90 aircraft these days????) and the Rafale is significantly more compact than the Su-33. BlueJacket's point is good also

 

[bd popeye]

as USN carriers don't normally carry 90 aircraft these days????

No they do not.. No more S-3's in most airwings and no Tomcats. Only one Super Hornet squadron has replaced the two Tomcat squadrons.

Typical make up of a present day USN CVW;

48 Hornets & Super Hornets
4 E/A-6B Prowlers
4 4 E-2C Hawkeyes
6-10 SH-60 Seahawks

62-66 total aircraft.

There may also be two C-2 Greyhound logistic suppourt aircraft on board.