Ideal chinese carrier thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

sandyj

Junior Member
Is China Building Aircraft Carriers? an over view

The recent flurry of articles and revelations about the submarine-hiding tunnels on Hainan Island in the South China Sea has again raised questions about China’s aircraft carrier program. Indeed, some articles have suggested that the tunnels may be large enough to "hide" an aircraft carrier -- a clear impossibility.

[Photo of 'concrete' carrier: Marc van der Chijs blog]

Articles regularly cite Chinese plans to rehabilitate the ex-Soviet carrier Varyag, now moored at the port of Dalian, or even the carrier Minsk, moored as a "theme park" at Shenzhen. Other articles cite alleged Chinese plans to build up to six aircraft carriers in the near term. A South Korean newspaper has stated that "A source close to Chinese military affairs said . . . that China has been promoting the construction of a 93,000-ton atomic-powered carrier under a plan titled 085 Project. The nation also has a plan to build a 48,000-ton non-nuclear-powered carrier under the so-called 089 Project."

The Chinese Navy is certainly interested in aircraft carriers. At the end of the Cold War a Chinese naval delegation visited the Black Sea shipyard at Nikolayev in the newly established Ukraine nation to examine the unfinished Soviet carrier Varyag. Subsequently, shortly before his retirement in 1997, Admiral Liu Huaqing wrote that it was "extremely necessary" for China to possess aircraft carriers. Liu was Commander-in-Chief of the Chinese Navy from 1982 to 1988, and the vice chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission from 1989 to 1997.

According to Liu, aircraft carriers are needed to protect China’s sovereignty and maritime resources, especially with regard to Taiwan and the South China Sea; guard China’s sea lines of communications as the country industrializes and becomes a major trading power; enable China to keep up with regional powers such as India and Japan; and give China’s Navy a decisive edge in future naval warfare.

In the early 1990s the Chinese Navy began a large-scale modernization program, acquiring advanced submarines, destroyers, anti-ship missiles, and aircraft, primarily from Russia. Rumors surrounded those acquisitions that a carrier program was begun when China acquired the unfinished Russian Varyag and the retired carrier Minsk in the late 1990s. But both ships had been stripped of all useful aviation and electronic equipment, and their propulsion plants are inert; at best they could provide Chinese naval architects with hands-on design information.

Upon arrival in China the Minsk spent 18 months at the Guangzhou Wenchong Shipyard for repairs and rehabilitation. She was then towed to Shenzen, arriving on 9 May 2000, configured as the center piece for a military a museum-theme park. She is certainly not capable of being returned to service as an operational carrier.

The Varyag is equally problematical. Since being towed to Dalian she has been painted but no other work has been observed, with the ship being readily visible from public locations.

Returning the Varyag -- designed in the 1960s -- to operational service would require new propulsion and auxiliary machinery, new electronics with the attendant wiring of the ship, structural repairs, and other work. Looking at the continued delays and increasing costs of a Russian shipyard rehabilitating and upgrading the Soviet-built carrier Admiral Gorshkov for the Indian Navy, objective analyses shows that the Varyag is highly unlikely to be returned to service. She has lain idle with no work on the ship having been observed since her arrival at Dalian on 3 March 2002.

Rather, it can be expected that in the next few years the Chinese Navy will initiate the construction of small carriers -- possibly modeled on the recent Japanese-built dock landing ships and aegis destroyers that have large flight decks. Such ships would be a reasonable step toward the eventual construction of large carriers -- to be started a decade or more from now.

-- Norman Polmar
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jeff, won't this superstructure at the tail affect landing? There should be serious air turbulence I suppose?
Sorry, I neve saw this response. I will respond now.

Having the approach come in from the angles as the aircraft do, the heading of the vessel to take advantage of the headwind, from whatever direction it was originating from, and the design of that aft superstructure itself, could all go a long ways in significantly reducing or eleminating any harmful turbulence to non-harmful levels.

PLAN-CV-DFS-XDeck.jpg
 

Delbert

Junior Member
If looking for a super carrier, I think it would be better if China can build a new carrier who can carry up to at least 70 - 90 SU-30, SU-33's
This would be definitely as good as the US Nimitz class carrier.

If defense will be the purpose, I don't think carriers are needed. Since aircrafts can be launched from air bases.

The only purpose of aircraft carriers, was to project power beyond your borders. To attain what is so called blue water Navy.
 

Norfolk

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Jeff:

What sorts of operational limitations - specifically with regards to aircraft launch and recovery - if any, would be imposed by the X-pattern runways? I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that in the past such configurations may have been contemplated, but were rejected on grounds that it may have interfered with flight operations. If so, is this a case of how things changed with the replacement of prop-driven aircraft by jets, such that instead of several or many slow aircraft taking off or landing in quick succession, with jets the same is accomplished singly and at very definitie intervals? Are these questions indeed off-base, even?

Sweet design by the way.:D
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jeff:

What sorts of operational limitations - specifically with regards to aircraft launch and recovery - if any, would be imposed by the X-pattern runways? I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that in the past such configurations may have been contemplated, but were rejected on grounds that it may have interfered with flight operations. If so, is this a case of how things changed with the replacement of prop-driven aircraft by jets, such that instead of several or many slow aircraft taking off or landing in quick succession, with jets the same is accomplished singly and at very definitie intervals? Are these questions indeed off-base, even?

Sweet design by the way.:D
Outside of emergencies, I believe the vessel would be limited to using one landing pattern at a time. If they had to use both, the wind conditions would have to be optimal for that, and the stageering and intervals in the landing patterns would also have to be a consideration.

As to launch, I believe they could use both of those pitions simultaneously with cats, with limitations depending on wind conditions.
 

Intrepid

Major
The US are reducing from a number of four arresting gear down to three. I think, a second landing strip is counterproductive.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The US are reducing from a number of four arresting gear down to three. I think, a second landing strip is counterproductive.
This is a fictious design based on a conversion of a large container ship design. Two get the two cats, you had the two forward decks. The extension of both to the rear was as much for mass and deck balancing (Parking, traffic, etc.) as it was for the potential for two lanind ares.
 

Intrepid

Major
What I mean is that the newest Nimitz-Carrier has only three arrestor wires to reduce the number of crew necessary. So it is not attractive to build a modern carrier with to runways and may be six or old fashion eight arrestor wires.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
What I mean is that the newest Nimitz-Carrier has only three arrestor wires to reduce the number of crew necessary. So it is not attractive to build a modern carrier with to runways and may be six or old fashion eight arrestor wires.
It's not built to be attractive, but functional. If you reduce the arrestor wires to three, that's okay. But as I said, it is a design that could be mass produced from a container ship design with a lot of capability therefore very cost effective. That is all.
 

man overbored

Junior Member
Sorry, I neve saw this response. I will respond now.

Having the approach come in from the angles as the aircraft do, the heading of the vessel to take advantage of the headwind, from whatever direction it was originating from, and the design of that aft superstructure itself, could all go a long ways in significantly reducing or eleminating any harmful turbulence to non-harmful levels.

[qimg]http://www.jeffhead.com/dragonsfury/PLAN-CV-DFS-XDeck.jpg[/qimg]

Oh goodness, where to begin. Well, for one thing forget similtaneous launches and recoveries. Assume you want to recover on the landing area that runs from the port side aft while launching from the other "runway" for lack of a better term. Wind over the deck considerations will make this impossible. With the current design you can steer a heading that puts the wind down the angle deck that does not prevent launching from the bow cats. This will not be possible with Jeff's imaginary design. The crosswind component will be too great. Splitting the difference by placing the wind on the bow will make recovery unsafe. This design also limits you to only two cats, compared to four on modern USN designs. Assuming you could finagle the winds to allow recoveries while launching, only one cat will be available compared to two on USN designs. The flight deck of a Nimitz is much more flexible than this one. Jeffs deck looks suspicioiusly like the design of the cancelled USS United States. United States was cancelled in favor of the Forrestal class, to our great fortune.
Jeff talks about the advantage of the aft superstructure in terms of turbulence, then places all the weaponry forward with their radars, etc, thus creating a huge eddy at the ship's bow. Nice.
The centerline elevator configuration was dropped decades ago because centerline elevators eat into precious hanger space. This is why every carrier since the 1950's has had deck edge elevators. The only reason the Essex class had two centerline elevators and one deck edge elevator was to keep that class narrow enough to fit through the Panama Canal ( and this explains why the sole deck edge elevator amidships to port folded flat against the side of the ship, otherwise it would foul the sides of the locks ). Early design proposals for the Essex class in the late 1930's included deck edge elevators port and starboard. Later angle deck conversions of Essex class carriers brought this original design feature to fruition.
Placing the armament in one area forward leaves much of the ship vulnerable to attack. Better to place sponsons at the corners with RAM and ESSM as on a Nimitz.
Last, a typical big container ship has exactly the wrong powerplant for a carrier. These ships are designed to operate on regular scheduled routes at a specific speed necessary to meet published schedules for their customers. Most make 25-27 knots( while a Nimitz and her escorts all make well over 40kts ). That is about the only speed they make. The single diesel engines used are typically four decks tall and run at one rpm. The shaft is turned at engine speed, there are no reduction gears. Slowing the engine down from cruise speed is not as simple as one might imagine. These engines make at most only 105 rpm. They won't turn much slower. Reversing the engine entails stopping the engine. Once stopped a crew member must climb the engine and reverse a gear on the cam shaft, taking several minutes to do. Only then can the engine be restarted in the opposite direction. These are not flexible power plants required of combat ships, and there is no redundancy. One engine, one shaft, one rudder. Damage one and the ship is DIW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top