Ideal chinese carrier thread

[Jeff Head]

I believe the Chinese are building a full blown STOBAR carrier with the refurbishment of the old Varyag. Will t be their finbal design? Most probably not. They will build other designs that are motre modern later, probably full blown CATOBAR carriers at some point.

Whatever the build, they will need an airwing to actually make use of their vessel design. All fixed wing carriers want to have all of the following functions filled with their aircraft:

Air Defense/Air Superiority
Attack
Airborne Early Warning (AEW)
Anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
Search and Rescue (SAR)
Electronic Warfare (EW)
Refueling
Carrier on board Delivery (COD)

In a lot of cases, some aircraft will fill two roles. In most STOBAT or VTOL designs, helos fill several of the roles.

The CHinese STOBAR carrier will probably fill the Air Defense/Attack/Refueling role with one or two aircraft. TYhe other roles will probably be filled by helicopters.

Wehn the Chinese go to CATYOBAR operations, they will expand the use of fixed wing aircrafty to fill mnore and more roles. At that point they may consider a fixed wing ASW aircraft.

Now, in that regard, the Russian P-42 design was a carbon copy of the S-3.. a Vikinski.

From the size and disposition, probably would have had similar capabilities and it is very understandable that they would want something like that. The Viking was an excellent carrier-borne ASW platform. Lots of capability, ordinance, range, and endurance.

IMHO, it is a shame that the US Navy has discontinued the S-3 use without anything replacing them. Not only a shame, but, again, IMHO, derelict.

Now, here's a potential design taken from my Dragon's Fury Series, and first put forward a good 5 years ago in the intial release of the initial voume in the series...now an all-in-one book.

It's basically a modular container design with very serious modifications, but meant to be produced quickly and in numbers.

-50-60,000 tons
-40 aircraft (30 air defense/attack)
-10 VLS ASM missiles
-36-48 VLS AAM missiles
-4 CIWS
-2 screws
-Conventional power

Plenty of hangar space.

The crossing design is unconventional, but also very possible for optimizing air operations, both for catapault launches and arrested landings.

 

[Sczepan]

.....

One thing ..That elevator in the middle foward part of the flight deck would be a real hinderance to flight operations. It's useless when launching and recovering aircraft. It would have to remain up during "flight ops". I know I was on CVA-19 and it had a elevator in a similar position.

....

there it is

[IMGhttp://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hancock_cv_19/uss_hancock_cva_19_01.jpg[/IMG]

I'll prefer small amphibious carriers as first step
to me the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

design could be a nice amphibious toy - carriing helos and light ground attack planes ....

just compared to the Melbourne design these carrier have 2 catapults in front ...

 

[planeman]

That ships about the size of a Tarawa class LHA.

How about some more drawings so I can better see your idea? You know flight deck, position of elevators and hangar deck arrangement.

Why a catamaran type hull?

I was thinking about a LHA/CV mix, but that's for anotherconcept - I really think that CVs should have roll-on-roll off logistics access to the hanger deck at the very minumum so that they can be used for logistics, not unlike a "commando carrier" but with conventionalfighters also.

As a general observation, thrust vectoring should enhance the take-off potential of ski-jumps making them a more viable rival to catapults. Together with smaller UCAVs (which can also be single engined without the worries which rightly or wrongly blight single engined fighters), and variable hanger floors (like ferries which can raise/lower floors to carry two floors of cars or one floor of trucks) which allow double-stacking of aircraft.... so many thoughts.

Re cats', well they have better sea handling that's why But seriously, they solve the exhaust problem that gas turbines give CVs thus reducing the bridge structure and reducing the IR signiture in one go.

One idea I've had which I think is very clever is to put the SSMs below the ski-jump:coffee:

 

[Sczepan]

Golly is rigth, to construct indegenious carriers China better develop some blue prints and existent designs

China could really use some russian Projects

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Project 1143/7

Project 1153

Project 1160

 

[Scratch]

planeman:

As a general observation, thrust vectoring should enhance the take-off potential of ski-jumps making them a more viable rival to catapults. Together with smaller UCAVs

But I think that doesn't really solve the problem of weaker powered auxiliaries to take of from sky-jumps, like AEW, ASW etc. Helos can do the job, but that is IMO not a sufficient platform for CGs that aim at delivering the force a super carrier should be able to do. So what I mean is sky-jumps may be an option for sea control carriers or smaller CVs, but not for the greater once. Additionally I think UCAVs are still some years away in PLAF.

And for the cat design. Doesn't that mean you have lesser space to store big things? I mean the volume may be the same, but it's alloted on two devided spaces. (I hope you get my idea).

Furthermore I think reducing the signature of a carrier shouldn't be a priority, since it simply is the biggest vessel in a group.

 

[Jeff Head]

I'll prefer small amphibious carriers as first step
to me the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

design could be a nice amphibious toy - carriing helos and light ground attack planes ....
just compared to the Melbourne design these carrier have 2 catapults in front ...

A-4 Skyhawks, F-8 Crusaders, A-6 Intruders and E-2 Hawkeyes. To this day, any nation that had a carrier of that tonnage that could carry such a diverse and effective air wing would be deploying a very effective and very capable carrier capable of significant power projection.

 

[Neutral Zone]

Golly is rigth, to construct indegenious carriers China better develop some blue prints and existent designs

China could really use some russian Projects

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Project 1143/7
[qimg]http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/rusian_carriers_files/sov_1143.7_01.jpg[/qimg]

Project 1153
[qimg]http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/rusian_carriers_files/sov_1153_01.jpg[/qimg]

Project 1160
[qimg]http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/rusian_carriers_files/sov_1160_01.jpg[/qimg]

What are those rectangular hatch things adjacent to the catapult tracks towards the bow of the ships? You can also see them in the overhead view of Varyag on the main site (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) They almost look like VLS cells, but to a layman like me, the middle of the take off run would seem a strange place to put them!

 

[bd popeye]

What are those rectangular hatch things adjacent to the catapult tracks towards the bow of the ships? You can also see them in the overhead view of Varyag on the main site (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) They almost look like VLS cells, but to a layman like me, the middle of the take off run would seem a strange place to put them!

The Varyag was to carry missiles. Those were the launchers.

 

[Neutral Zone]

The Varyag was to carry missiles. Those were the launchers.

Thanks for your help!

It just does seem strange to me to to have missiles launching out of the middle of your carrier's flight deck. You obviously couldn't launch your airwing and fire the missiles at the same time. But hey, I'm just a mere armchair admiral!

 

[bd popeye]

Thanks for your help!

It just does seem strange to me to to have missiles launching out of the middle of your carrier's flight deck. You obviously couldn't launch your airwing and fire the missiles at the same time. But hey, I'm just a mere armchair admiral!

Golly and others would know better but if I'm not mistaken the Russian CV's were probally designed to operate without an AAW ship fror cover.