Ideal chinese carrier thread

[Scratch]

Well, since I'm probably looking into a 4-6 airframe fit, it's getting a bit difficult.
Maybe it would finally become a cruiser with one NH-90, one

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and two

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

like platforms as the minimum fit. With different ISR and also ASW capabilities.
That would then also go back somewhat to the original meaning of cruiser I think. I'm not primarily looking for sea-controll already but just increased awareness. Primary armament of the ship wouldn't be that great either. Maybe it could fit into an 8.000-9.000t hull?
For more I already see a small multi-mission LHD like platform that can carry any mix of light inf (up to one battalion[?], perhaps more like one or two companies), helos (up to two heay, 2-6 light-medium transport / ASW / attack), and UAVs, like those mentioned above.

 

[Sczepan]

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.

[qimg]http://i35.tinypic.com/s1ib2w.png[/qimg]

this toy is much to small - I prefer light strike aircraft carrier with a min. Displacement of 20,000 tons full load

to me this seems the smallest displacement to use catapults and light weight ground attack planes, in combination with helos it will become a usefull pocket carrier - for escort and amphibious operations (as I sad before ....)

 

[adeptitus]

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.

IMO the design is trying to do too many things in one small package. This ship is only slightly larger displacement vs. Osumi class:

It's way too small to operate rotatory, fixed wing aircraft, and have the main gun and VLS cels in the front.

I say increase the displacement to Dokdo Class or Hyuga Class level, use flat-top design, and use it as a multi-role helicopter & UAV carrier. Delete the gun and install 2 x CIWS and maybe 8 or 16 cel VLS for SAM and ASROC.

If you're looking for something like the FN Jean D'Arc, I say go with the Royal Danish Navy's Absalon class concept (or the 071) and enlarge it. For fixed wing aircraft carrier, I'd lean toward >30,000 tons.

 

[Sczepan]

....
To minimize the risk, at first indegenious design I'll prefer a small Carrier, to operate JL-15 trainee and light weight ground attack fighters, WZ-10 attack and the Z-8 (SA 321Ja Super Frelon) Multirole Helicopter for support und transport operations. Also ASW and KA-31 AEW Helos [qimg]http://ram-home.com/ram-old/ka-31-prev.jpg[/qimg] to support a local air shield.
This would be a amphibious carrier.
The carrier could be a derivate of the proofed MELBOURNE design, including modern engines (diesels), catapulte and angled deck. This little carrier also in political view is no a big thread to SE-Asien neighbours, so they would accept this kind of carrier without political rejection.
To operate the JL-15 would be indeed also a training for using big fighters like the (suspected) SU-33 with the future "big stick".
I'll prefer 2 or 3 ships of that class, starting to be build in 2009/2010 and finished in 2014/2015 (production continuing).
.....

So in 2020 / 2025 the first chinese carrier fleet could include:
....
3 to 5 amphibous carriers (Melbourne derivate) - operating JL-15, WZ-10, Z-8, KA-31 AEW ....

only to compare:

(right one is USS LHA)

 

[Totoro]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There, ideal chinese carrier. For the first decade or two of carrier operations, anyway. Everything is drawn to scale. Fighter is some variant of j10, bigger plane would be a custom designed aew&c plane, something in the vain of USN's S-3, only with different (shorter) wings, different position of the engines, erieye style radome etc...

beam 54 meters, length 240 meters, displacement should be between 25.000 and 30.000 tons.

Catapults are 75 meter ones, like on french CDG carrier, landing strip is of similar length, only narrower - both cause there's no as plane as wide as e-2 operating on it and cause hopefully computer guided landings will get implemented in the next decade or so. If USN can do succesful test landings with its F18s today, why not china as well in the near future?

Hangar is a bit oversized for the rest of the ship, which i think is doable since there will be a smaller crew operating the boat (than there would be today) with less space 'wasted' on supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, the whole concept of usage would allow a larger hangar as i envisioned part of it also being a storage area, for added fuel, supplies, etc.

Basically, a ship could go on a round the world missions where needed, with only several planes in the hangar and extra fuel and supplies... or it could be used as an extended safety buffer around chinese mainland, forcing other navies to stay clear some 1000 miles or so of the coast until they've dealt with the threat. That'd all be part of the doctrine not to really go way out into the open seas, as PLAN's fleet would still not be that strong... better to remain where conventional subs can lurk and PLAAF's and PLANAF's fleets can also come to aid, if needed.

Carriers could have different loadouts if operating alone or in groups... If there's two of them together, for example, each could have just 2 awacs planes and 3 helicopters, with rest being combat planes. Naturally, a big support fleet would still be needed.

As for the max loadout, since the hangar can accept some 17 j10 sized planes and 4 of the mentioned type of awacs, as well as 4 helos, (theres room for more but one has to have space for maintenance) max aircraft tally should be 24+8, meaning 24 combat planes and 8 support planes. Naturally, in less demanding missions, less aircraft could be carried.

 

[planeman]

nice idea, I'm leaning towards smaller carriers too.

Re the catapult, since the foredeck is too narrow to have aircraft parked on it and still operate the catapult it could actually be much thinner still making a lot more room for defensive weaponary. Just a thought.

 

[planeman]

25-30,000 tons multihull SWATH with COGAG all-electric drive to waterjets.

HHQ-16 VLS and 76mm GP between catapults, wich are slightly uphill.

 

[AmiGanguli]

nice idea, I'm leaning towards smaller carriers too.

Re the catapult, since the foredeck is too narrow to have aircraft parked on it and still operate the catapult it could actually be much thinner still making a lot more room for defensive weaponary. Just a thought.

Why not just make the deck rectangular? The hull underneath of course needs to be hydrodynamic, but the deck can be whatever shape is most useful.

 

[Totoro]

Because extra deck surface wouldn't be cost effective. It'd require larger hulls to support all the extra weight, lowering speed, endurance, increasing costs, etc.

Even with the drawing as it is, there's really no way of knowing if such a carrier would be possible. No one tried it yet. Perhaps the strain on the side hulls would just be too great. Who knows what sort of structure and how much reinforcement it'd be needed to support such a deck on such hullform.

BTW, planeman, good call on narrowing the foredeck. There's more problems, of course... with perhaps not enough deck space for handling many planes at once. The positions of the weapons elevators are perhaps not ideal... As i said, hangar may prove to be too large for such a small ship...

If i may suggest, for your carrier, use as many elevators (carrying two planes) as there are catapults. It takes less time for a catapult to launch two planes than it takes an elevator to make one round...

 

[Pointblank]

Because extra deck surface wouldn't be cost effective. It'd require larger hulls to support all the extra weight, lowering speed, endurance, increasing costs, etc.

Even with the drawing as it is, there's really no way of knowing if such a carrier would be possible. No one tried it yet. Perhaps the strain on the side hulls would just be too great. Who knows what sort of structure and how much reinforcement it'd be needed to support such a deck on such hullform.

BTW, planeman, good call on narrowing the foredeck. There's more problems, of course... with perhaps not enough deck space for handling many planes at once. The positions of the weapons elevators are perhaps not ideal... As i said, hangar may prove to be too large for such a small ship...

If i may suggest, for your carrier, use as many elevators (carrying two planes) as there are catapults. It takes less time for a catapult to launch two planes than it takes an elevator to make one round...

I would have a large monohull, as they provide the best internal volume compared to any multihull ship as internal space is very important on a carrier. Being able to carry a large portion of your airwing inside allows for maintenance to be conducted at all times, and improves the life of the aircraft as they are not exposed to constant sea spray that will cause corrosion.