Ideal chinese carrier thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

man overbored

Junior Member
The cost of A-gear and duplicate landing aids is not as insignificant as you imagine. The A gear takes up considerable under deck space and requires heavy machinery. This is not a trivial part of the design or the cost of a carrier.
The ability to launch and recover is essential. The do-all end-all of a carrier is it's daily sortie rate. All else is secondary. Go back and have a look at the RN analysis of their carrier in the CATOBAR and STOVL versions. Their original design with two small superstructures was adopted to maximize deck space for servicing and arming aircraft utilizing STOVL operations. Since the F-35B wil perform a vertical landing all the way aft, the rest of the runway area can be used for a rolling take off over the ski jump. In this manner aircraft may be launched and recovered similtaneously and over 100 sorties per day ( depending of airgroup size ) may be launched and recovered. When the ship is configured for cats and A-gear, if you look at the diagrams in that link I provided, you will see that both cats intrude on the landing area. Because of the placement of the forward island of the Queen Mary, the bow cat cannot be placed on the starboard side of the flight deck ( keep in mind the C-13B cat is 95 meters long, a shorter cat cuts into payload as the French discovered with their Charles de Gaulle class ). The double island configuration of the RN design forces the forward cat to port, and thus the JBD and part of the cat intrude into the landing area. This configuration will never permit launches and recoveries at the same time. The RN analysis of this states that the sortie rate of the CATOBAR version is only around 60% of the STOVL version. What saddens me about this is that had the RN adopted a single island aft, they could have built a flight deck much like the similarly sized USS Midway. On that old girl, neither bow cat intrudes into the landing area and it can conduct similtaneous launches and recoveries. The RN will be ok with it's STOVL ops on that design, but the French version with cats and A-gear will not support the pace of opertions of it's RN sisters.
This is why I will tell any who are interested that unless you have the resources to build something the size of a Kitty Hawk or Nimitz with enough flight deck acreage to accomdate full length cats that do not intrude into the landing area, and a long enough landing area to recover a modern twin engined fighter with it's ordinance ( so you do not have to throw away good ordinance to make landing weight ) it is more productive to build a good STOVL design. With STOVL you can land on a spot and use the bulk of the flight deck for your free deck take off. It is an easier technique to learn as well. RAF pilots picked it up in a few days during the Falklands Island war. China and any new carrier operator will be fully occupied just trying to sort out the many othere details of operating airplanes at sea. Flying instrument approaches to a moving navigation aid, where the "Marshalls" or holding patterns move in space along with the ship is a new skill for the land based pilot. Managing the flow of airplanes out of their marshalls onto fiinal approach ( deciding the "push time" for each aircraft ) that does not overwhelm the flight deck crew takes time to develop the necessary judgement. There are details like designing magazines and ordinance elevators that can move ordinance from the mags to weapons assembly areas ( usually a mess deck ) where fins and fuses are applied, then move the weapons up to the flight and hanger decks in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of an airwing. You do NOT want the ordinance department slowing your sortie rate simply because there is gridlock in the ordinance handling process, but you never want to take ordinance out of the protection of the magazine until right before it is needed ( Midway anyone ). There will be lots to learn about the job of "Mr Hands", the crew that has a mock up of the flight and hanger decks with models of the different aircraft who move these around to simulate recovering or launching aircraft. When a plane returns Mr Hands will already know where that plane must go to clear the landing area for the next recovery ( a plane who will now be low on fuel because they just dumped their fuel to make landing weight ). Mr Hands will give the yellow shirts on the flight deck directions on where to spot the plane after landing to prevent gridlock. You have no idea how crowded a flight deck is and how easy it is for planes to bump into each other if the process is not well thought out. These are tough skills to learn, and are more easily and safely accomplished on a STOVL design.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The cost of A-gear and duplicate landing aids is not as insignificant as you imagine. The A gear takes up considerable under deck space and requires heavy machinery. This is not a trivial part of the design or the cost of a carrier.
My point was not to say it was trivial or minimize it, rather, simply to point out that relaive to the cost of the whole vessel and its aircraft, it is small in comparison to that. Certainly that equipment (along with the expertise to operate it) is not trivial in either cost or installation.

The ability to launch and recover is essential. The do-all end-all of a carrier is it's daily sortie rate. All else is secondary. Go back and have a look at the RN analysis of their carrier in the CATOBAR and STOVL versions. Their original design with two small superstructures was adopted to maximize deck space for servicing and arming aircraft utilizing STOVL operations. Since the F-35B wil perform a vertical landing all the way aft, the rest of the runway area can be used for a rolling take off over the ski jump. In this manner aircraft may be launched and recovered similtaneously and over 100 sorties per day ( depending of airgroup size ) may be launched and recovered. When the ship is configured for cats and A-gear, if you look at the diagrams in that link I provided, you will see that both cats intrude on the landing area. Because of the placement of the forward island of the Queen Mary, the bow cat cannot be placed on the starboard side of the flight deck ( keep in mind the C-13B cat is 95 meters long, a shorter cat cuts into payload as the French discovered with their Charles de Gaulle class ). The double island configuration of the RN design forces the forward cat to port, and thus the JBD and part of the cat intrude into the landing area. This configuration will never permit launches and recoveries at the same time. The RN analysis of this states that the sortie rate of the CATOBAR version is only around 60% of the STOVL version. What saddens me about this is that had the RN adopted a single island aft, they could have built a flight deck much like the similarly sized USS Midway. On that old girl, neither bow cat intrudes into the landing area and it can conduct similtaneous launches and recoveries. The RN will be ok with it's STOVL ops on that design, but the French version with cats and A-gear will not support the pace of opertions of it's RN sisters.
All well said...but in the end, the British and the French (and most other nations) have to make trade-offs, economically, technically, and politically (which sadly too often drives the others) and then get the best that they can acquire. Those factors certainly limit most other nations from being able to do what the US does in this area...and also impacts US development as well.

This is why I will tell any who are interested that unless you have the resources to build something the size of a Kitty Hawk or Nimitz with enough flight deck acreage to accomdate full length cats that do not intrude into the landing area, and a long enough landing area to recover a modern twin engined fighter with it's ordinance ( so you do not have to throw away good ordinance to make landing weight ) it is more productive to build a good STOVL design. With STOVL you can land on a spot and use the bulk of the flight deck for your free deck take off. It is an easier technique to learn as well. RAF pilots picked it up in a few days during the Falklands Island war. China and any new carrier operator will be fully occupied just trying to sort out the many othere details of operating airplanes at sea. Flying instrument approaches to a moving navigation aid, where the "Marshalls" or holding patterns move in space along with the ship is a new skill for the land based pilot. Managing the flow of airplanes out of their marshalls onto fiinal approach ( deciding the "push time" for each aircraft ) that does not overwhelm the flight deck crew takes time to develop the necessary judgement. There are details like designing magazines and ordinance elevators that can move ordinance from the mags to weapons assembly areas ( usually a mess deck ) where fins and fuses are applied, then move the weapons up to the flight and hanger decks in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of an airwing. You do NOT want the ordinance department slowing your sortie rate simply because there is gridlock in the ordinance handling process, but you never want to take ordinance out of the protection of the magazine until right before it is needed ( Midway anyone ). There will be lots to learn about the job of "Mr Hands", the crew that has a mock up of the flight and hanger decks with models of the different aircraft who move these around to simulate recovering or launching aircraft. When a plane returns Mr Hands will already know where that plane must go to clear the landing area for the next recovery ( a plane who will now be low on fuel because they just dumped their fuel to make landing weight ). Mr Hands will give the yellow shirts on the flight deck directions on where to spot the plane after landing to prevent gridlock. You have no idea how crowded a flight deck is and how easy it is for planes to bump into each other if the process is not well thought out. These are tough skills to learn, and are more easily and safely accomplished on a STOVL design.
Again...very well said. And in the fictional scenario I represent, the STOVL version may be a better choise...but then that would have required a STOVL aircraft that the Chinese do not have and so I too dealt with trade-offs in that regard while trying to consider the other factors as well for the sake of the overall story.

Your comments provide great insight into carrier operations and further punctuate why the US is so good at what it does in this area and has been able to sustain it. Sustained capabilities like, R&D, technology base, manufactuoirng base, quality control (despite whaytever failings creep in from time to time), expertise (both technical and operational), regular and rigourous training, damage control (as we recently saw on the George Washington), economic strength to be able to afford it (including the aircraft, personnel, escorts, logistics, etc.), political will to project it...all of these factor into the things you have mentioned and are areas where the US has excelled when it comes to Naval matters in general and carrier development and deployment specifically.
 

man overbored

Junior Member
Are we having fun yet :)

Maybe instead of using all the resources China will expend to learn to build a big CATOBAR carrier, naval Flankers and then learn to operate these Flankers off of it, perhaps it would be less costly to hire Yakovlev to complete the nearly finished Freestyle and then fly this off something the size of the Cavour? How many here realize the Freestyle is already the first supersonic VSTOL fighter? How may realize it has the same basic fire control and radar as the MiG-29? This could be a good choice of aircraft for a first attempt at operating a carrier. You get a smaller hull to learn the ropes on and a half decent supersonic fighter with genuine BVR radar and missiles. Then add some ASW helos and maybe even the WZ-10 gunship to the air wing. Learn with this then make some decisions later. Such a ship would certainly make for an easier container hull conversion.
BtW, the basic hull of any ship is the cheap part. Adding tonnage to any design is quite inexpensive ( after all the necessary equipment is added it might not be less costly to convert a container hull ). What costs the bucks are the fittings and equipment. A-gear and all those landing aids are very expensive items to purchase and install. Maintaining them is also very costly. Example; the US throws away each arrestor cable after it has been used 200 times. We average 80-100 sorties a day, double that for a war. Wires are used up quickly. The ship has to carry a huge supply with them at sea. Cats require tons of fresh water daily to make steam. Evaps are not cheap, and warships in general skimp on these because of their cost ( when Harbin visitied San Diego in 1998 we were stunned to discover it had no evaps at all, the crew was rationed bottled water to drink and the accompanying supply ship had to provide water to wash or do laundry in ) and the space they take away from other things, forcing sailors to suffer through "water hours" where the engineering plant has first dibs on fresh water and water for "hotel services" is turned off completely.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Are we having fun yet :)

Maybe instead of using all the resources China will expend to learn to build a big CATOBAR carrier, naval Flankers and then learn to operate these Flankers off of it, perhaps it would be less costly to hire Yakovlev to complete the nearly finished Freestyle and then fly this off something the size of the Cavour? How many here realize the Freestyle is already the first supersonic VSTOL fighter? How may realize it has the same basic fire control and radar as the MiG-29? This could be a good choice of aircraft for a first attempt at operating a carrier. You get a smaller hull to learn the ropes on and a half decent supersonic fighter with genuine BVR radar and missiles. Then add some ASW helos and maybe even the WZ-10 gunship to the air wing. Learn with this then make some decisions later. Such a ship would certainly make for an easier container hull conversion.
BtW, the basic hull of any ship is the cheap part. Adding tonnage to any design is quite inexpensive ( after all the necessary equipment is added it might not be less costly to convert a container hull ). What costs the bucks are the fittings and equipment. A-gear and all those landing aids are very expensive items to purchase and install. Maintaining them is also very costly. Example; the US throws away each arrestor cable after it has been used 200 times. We average 80-100 sorties a day, double that for a war. Wires are used up quickly. The ship has to carry a huge supply with them at sea. Cats require tons of fresh water daily to make steam. Evaps are not cheap, and warships in general skimp on these because of their cost ( when Harbin visitied San Diego in 1998 we were stunned to discover it had no evaps at all, the crew was rationed bottled water to drink and the accompanying supply ship had to provide water to wash or do laundry in ) and the space they take away from other things, forcing sailors to suffer through "water hours" where the engineering plant has first dibs on fresh water and water for "hotel services" is turned off completely.
The YAK-141 was the first VSTOL...but it was never saw mass production, or even, really, IMHO, sufficient production units for thorough, exhaustive testing in the environment it was intended to fly.

Great design, but a mix of politics and money killed it. China would probably be well served to try and resurrect it, but I do not think (at least right now) that they have any intention of doing so.

I still haven't heard if they ever actually took delivery of the two SU-33s and started actually testing them...much less the add on aircraft potential in theur understanding with Russia.

We shall see.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
the domestic naval flanker program is well under way. If my interpretation of avic1 articles is correct, then they are assembling their first one right now and probably will finish sometimes this year. I think they did get those two su-33s for studying purposes.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
the domestic naval flanker program is well under way. If my interpretation of avic1 articles is correct, then they are assembling their first one right now and probably will finish sometimes this year. I think they did get those two su-33s for studying purposes.
Thanks for that news tphuang...you always have an ear to the ground. Could you provide a link? If in fact the Chinese are starting to assemble SU-33s, then it is pretty clear what their intentions are.

Looks more and more like the PLAN plans STOBAR at the least, probably still starting with the Varyag...but we shall see.

Says the same for their indigenous designs.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Thanks for that news tphuang...you always have an ear to the ground. Could you provide a link? If in fact the Chinese are starting to assemble SU-33s, then it is pretty clear what their intentions are.

Looks more and more like the PLAN plans STOBAR at the least, probably still starting with the Varyag...but we shall see.

Says the same for their indigenous designs.

well, not a really link, but this appeared on aerospace news a while back
日前,备受人们关注的新研项目飞鸡顺利通过公司评审组评审,交付试飞站,这标志着这个型号飞鸡研制生产取得 了重大进展。
自8月下旬新型号飞鸡正式投入总装生产以来,在技术协调问题较多,工作条件简陋,质量要求高的情况下,总装厂领导班子打破常规,攻坚克难,着力提高生产能力,在装配技术,实物质量上下功夫,不仅使每日工作内容逐步增加,而且产品质量也得到了保证。在新研飞鸡总装中,厂里成立现场工作团队,由工艺,调度,工段,维护,检验等部门抽调专人负责研制生产。组织员工两班倒,计划按小时排,能提前1分钟决不耽误60秒。 。。
and it doesn't say that naval flanker is the one finishing assembly and delivered to test station. But in reality, SAC only has 2 projects that fit this description. I'm pretty sure there was an article on avic1 saying similar message, but I can't find it right now. And what I read sort of got confirmed by one of the big shrimps on Chinese bbs.
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
I found an interesting video on YT a while back, it appears that the Russians (Soviet Navy?) did test the Yak-41 on Kiev class aviation cruisers:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In the video you can see multiple Yak-41's, as well as the "aircraft 77" accident while landing on the Admiral Gorshkov (ex-Baku) on Oct 5, 1991.

I suspect the Yak-41M was just a few years behind serial production in 1991. But with the fall of Soviet Union and retirement of Kiev-class aviation cruisers, the Russian navy didn't need the Yak-41M (as Yak-38 replacement) anymore. Given limited choice, the Russian navy opted to fund the Admiral Kuznetsov & Su-33's.

If we look at the post-Soviet time-line, the first 3 Kiev-class aviation cruisers (Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk) were retired in 1993, and the Yak-41M project was also canceled in 1993.

Without foreign buyer, I think Yakalov saw the writing on the wall and retired the project. Had China or France approached them in 1992-1993 to express interest and funding, things might have turned out quite differently.
 

man overbored

Junior Member
The Yak-41 was definitely coming, and it looked interesting, but the fall of the USSR ended the program. It is far from impossible to resurrect such programs. The B-1 anyone? I am still of the opinion that it would be less costly in terms of Renminbi and in terms of lives to finish the Freestyle and use this off of a simpler STOVL carrier rather than try to build and then operate a CATOBAR carrier as the PLAN's first try at a CV. Even the USSR didn't attempt that. I'm also certain the PLAN would find such carrier to be a better ship all around than a rebuilt Varyag. The Varyag has a lot of limitations, not the least of which is all the hanger space lost to the missile silos under the forward flight deck. That is wasted space. A carrier exists for it's air wing, loosing sorties and ammunition storage for the airwing to carry big anti-surface missiles is foolish. Better off to make a well designed STOVL carrier and learn the ropes this way.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The Yak-41 was definitely coming, and it looked interesting, but the fall of the USSR ended the program. It is far from impossible to resurrect such programs. The B-1 anyone? I am still of the opinion that it would be less costly in terms of Renminbi and in terms of lives to finish the Freestyle and use this off of a simpler STOVL carrier rather than try to build and then operate a CATOBAR carrier as the PLAN's first try at a CV. Even the USSR didn't attempt that. I'm also certain the PLAN would find such carrier to be a better ship all around than a rebuilt Varyag. The Varyag has a lot of limitations, not the least of which is all the hanger space lost to the missile silos under the forward flight deck. That is wasted space. A carrier exists for it's air wing, loosing sorties and ammunition storage for the airwing to carry big anti-surface missiles is foolish. Better off to make a well designed STOVL carrier and learn the ropes this way.
I believe the PLAN is capable of building a STOVL carrier...but believe at this point that the chances of resurrecting the Yak-141 are probably pretty remote. Though it would probably still make a good design, particularly since Yakovlev has the Yak-43 upgrade still hanging around.

Yak41M_over_Baku.png

The Yak141 in vertical take-off mode.

I believe the PLAN has removed those ASM silos forward on the Varyag and could well have made use of that space. Though the missile launchers appear to be gone, we cannot be sure that the space has been made use of...but they have certainly had plenty of time to do so.

I still believe they intend a STOBAR use of the Varyag and if, after the initial agreement to buy two to twelve SU-33's a couple of years ago, the reports of license building their initial SU-33s are true, it would tend to support that opinion.

But time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top