Ideal chinese carrier thread

[planeman]

Ok, here's my current thinking.


70,000t super-carrier
Length: 300m (shorter than Nimitz)
Beam: 112m (34m wider than Nimitz!)
Draught: 10m (2m less than Nimitz)
Propulsion: Nuclear (same reactors as latest SSBNs) driving 4 conventional props

Armaments:
64 x HHQ-16 medium range SAM
6 x Type-730 CIWS
3 x ASW MRLS
Possibly JY-62s.

Surge air-wing capability 110+ aircraft but typical air-wing 50 aircraft

 

[bd popeye]

Intresting design. I'd like to see more drawings of this if you have them.

Very heavily armed. Humm?? Your choice. But you could not use those missiles and recover aircraft at the same time.

Beam: 112m (34m wider than Nimitz!)

Thats 367ft..That is wide. Where are you going to berth that bad boy? Will it fit through the Suez canal?..Really..

I don't like the elevator in the center of the flight deck. As I have stated many times..Center deck elevators are a hinderance to flight operations. There's no advantage to having it there.

Does it have a catamaran hull? And have you figured out those hangar deck demension?

Intresting design..just needs a little tweaking IMO..

5min later..I see the hangar deck height demensions now...one last thing I don't understand the varring heights of the hangar deck.

 

[planeman]

She's a trimaran like most of my designs

Imagine this but bigger and as a flat-top:

The hull ratios are a bit different (less slender) and the sides are canted outwards to maximise width.

I don't think it'd fit through either the Suez or the Panama canals but I don't think that's a huge deal for China. I see PLAN's carriers operating in Pacific and Indian ocean and only ever venturing into Atlantic on goodwill visits.

Mooring is a problem but there are plenty of berths in China that big and she's nuclear anyway so theoretically could remain at sea for protracted periods (not necessarily economically obviously).


Heavily armed? not really that different from anything else. Just MR-SAM (like ESSM or Aster-15) and CIWS and ASW rockets for self-defense.

 

[planeman]

With a few aircraft dotted around for scaling. Hanger deck is approx 100m wide and about 180m long in main area.

As you can see the starboard and central lifts serve both levels. The central lift is much less disruptive of flight operations than olden-days ones because the flight deck is that much wider.

Harbin makes Embraer ERJ-145 regional jets. A shortened fuselage, folding wings, new landing gear and internal rearrangements and you have a good basis for a balance-beam AEW system, and also a tanker, transport and MP variants.

Something this size would be better suited but does China make a suitable base-type?

Or if you wanted to go lighter, a Harbin Y-12 with searchwater or lighter balance-bar might look not unlike this:

 

[Pointblank]

I think that the USN is making a compromise, which in their mind is optimum. But clearly if you can store 100% of your regular air-wing below decks that's a huge benefit. This also means that aircraft carriers like CDG and Admiral Kuznetsov can actually operate with almost twice the number of aircraft in "surge" capacity conditions such as war.

Experience has proved that carriers can only effectively handle no more than 90 aircraft at a single time, due to airspace, deck, and command and control constrictions.

 

[planeman]

but experience in what technological age?

 

[montyp165]

but experience in what technological age?

The testing was done on a Midway class carrier back in the late 40's with a 120 plane complement; although tech has changed tremendously since then air traffic volume of that size would still be a significant problem to deal with.

 

[planeman]

This is obviously drawn with a Royal Navy fit, but what about micro-carriers as escorts for the main carrier? 3-5 helicopters, 10,000 tons and full AAD capability.

 

[Scratch]

... but what about micro-carriers as escorts for the main carrier? 3-5 helicopters, 10,000 tons and full AAD capability.

I don't like those things, a bit of everything and nothing completely.
I also sometines think of mini CVs, but only with point defence capability and reliance on AAW escorts. Those mini carriers could then improve the situational awareness footprint of a SAG or perhaps even CSG. A few helos for improved ASW, or small, perhaps VTOL / tilt rotor UAVs with EO / RDR sensors to extant the picture beyond the visible horizon.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

I don't like those things, a bit of everything and nothing completely.
I also sometines think of mini CVs, but only with point defence capability and reliance on AAW escorts. Those mini carriers could then improve the situational awareness footprint of a SAG or perhaps even CSG. A few helos for improved ASW, or small, perhaps VTOL / tilt rotor UAVs with EO / RDR sensors to extant the picture beyond the visible horizon.

According to DK Brown, mini carriers/hybrids such as these are uneconomical for any air group smaller than six aircraft/helos as the costs of support facillities and maintenance personnel remain the same below that level, unless just a single shipboard helo is embarked as on a Destroyer or Frigate. Two lifts seems a little extravagent for three helos, so if one lift is deleted you immediately gain space for an extra couple of lynx sized machines or a Merlin. The JMSDF's Hyuga can operate a much larger airgroup than this anyway despite the politically influenced BS being circulated. If the air group is six or less, then a conventional hangar and pad aft is the preferred layout, and if more airframes are required then the through deck layout becomes the more economical and practical way to go.