Ideal chinese carrier thread
- Thread starter Gollevainen
- Start date
- Status
After doing all the comparison plan-views for the carrier threads, this is my thinking for an ideal "starter carrier" for any large navy (eg PLAN).
About 35,000 tons. Built as STOBAR but with provision for single waist position cat for experimental developments towards a CTOL carrier.
Main features are that the landing run is at a much shallower angle than most (like RN's aborted CVA-01 design). This allows for a more deck parking. Also, absolutely no parking on port side of landing strip (not an optimal place anyway).
The carrier would be a monohull and slightly lower than most carriers to allow a wider flight deck for tonnage.
Single run ski-jump but with three take-off positions one behind the other. Primary (first) one does not obstruct landing strip but second two do (compromises!!!). Third one would allow "heavies" like AEW fixed-wing or fully laden Su-33s to take-off(?).
The island superstructure is very far forward to minimise flightdeck distruption. VLS area-air defence SAM (HHQ-16??) next to ski-jump (I can't see the bow being an optimum place to park aircraft!).
3 FL-3000N CIWS give 360 degree coverage. Light crewed and/or remote 20/30mm operated cannon also fitted in hull sides or on outrider positions for GP defence. -maybe adapt remote operate IFV turrets?
Ideal fighter would be lighter than Su-33 but Flanker ops would be possible to cater for cross-decking with Varyag.
COGAG-ASAD(!!!) - i.e. COGAG with experimental steam after-boilers off the exhaust for the catapult. Also substantial diesel back-up and port-power. Exhausts on starboard side below flightdeck level behind second lift, to reduce island structure and IR signature.
About 35,000 tons. Built as STOBAR but with provision for single waist position cat for experimental developments towards a CTOL carrier.
Main features are that the landing run is at a much shallower angle than most (like RN's aborted CVA-01 design). This allows for a more deck parking. Also, absolutely no parking on port side of landing strip (not an optimal place anyway).
The carrier would be a monohull and slightly lower than most carriers to allow a wider flight deck for tonnage.
Single run ski-jump but with three take-off positions one behind the other. Primary (first) one does not obstruct landing strip but second two do (compromises!!!). Third one would allow "heavies" like AEW fixed-wing or fully laden Su-33s to take-off(?).
The island superstructure is very far forward to minimise flightdeck distruption. VLS area-air defence SAM (HHQ-16??) next to ski-jump (I can't see the bow being an optimum place to park aircraft!).
3 FL-3000N CIWS give 360 degree coverage. Light crewed and/or remote 20/30mm operated cannon also fitted in hull sides or on outrider positions for GP defence. -maybe adapt remote operate IFV turrets?
Ideal fighter would be lighter than Su-33 but Flanker ops would be possible to cater for cross-decking with Varyag.
COGAG-ASAD(!!!) - i.e. COGAG with experimental steam after-boilers off the exhaust for the catapult. Also substantial diesel back-up and port-power. Exhausts on starboard side below flightdeck level behind second lift, to reduce island structure and IR signature.
Last edited:
For the future Chinese aircraft carriers
I do not believe that chinese were able to create a advanced designs (catamaran, trimaran hull) at the beginning!
Why?
1) because China currently do not have a operationnel aircraft carrier (experience is decisive)
2) a advanced ships is very very expensive to develop !
3) Chinese engineers lack experience in aircraft carriers design (even't if melbourne, kiev and varyag design were extensively studied)
I think that the first Chinese aircraft carrier look like the former varyag, but with Chinese equipment (weapons, sensor), an island with more stealthy design, and a conventional propulsion
= probably in 50000/65000 tons range
it should appear towards 2013/2017 ?
by against, I think that the next aircraft carrier had followed were probably different. But I do not believe that chinese develop super aircraft carrier similar that US 80000/100000 tons ships.
But a smaller and more flexible designs (20000/45000 tons range), with a possible different hull (trimaran, catamaran ?)...............2018/2025 ?
I do not believe that chinese were able to create a advanced designs (catamaran, trimaran hull) at the beginning!
Why?
1) because China currently do not have a operationnel aircraft carrier (experience is decisive)
2) a advanced ships is very very expensive to develop !
3) Chinese engineers lack experience in aircraft carriers design (even't if melbourne, kiev and varyag design were extensively studied)
I think that the first Chinese aircraft carrier look like the former varyag, but with Chinese equipment (weapons, sensor), an island with more stealthy design, and a conventional propulsion
= probably in 50000/65000 tons range
it should appear towards 2013/2017 ?
by against, I think that the next aircraft carrier had followed were probably different. But I do not believe that chinese develop super aircraft carrier similar that US 80000/100000 tons ships.
But a smaller and more flexible designs (20000/45000 tons range), with a possible different hull (trimaran, catamaran ?)...............2018/2025 ?
Rising China
Junior Member
It's time for China to have her first AC.
China to consider building aircraft carrier
The Associated Press
Posted: Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2008
BEIJING China will "seriously consider" building its first aircraft carrier, the Ministry of National Defense said Tuesday in another sign of Beijing's expanding military ambitions.
An aircraft carrier is "a symbol of a country's overall national strength as well as the competitiveness of the country's naval force," said ministry spokesman Senior Col. Huang Xueping. He said China must ensure its maritime security and sovereignty but gave no timetable for launching such a vessel.
China's navy usually stays close to its shores, though the government said Tuesday that it will send three ships to the Indian Ocean to deter pirate attacks on Chinese vessels.
An aircraft carrier would allow China's navy to fight farther out at sea by providing air cover in places that land-based planes cannot reach. Military analysts see a Chinese aircraft carrier mainly as a deterrent to U.S. intervention in a possible conflict over Taiwan, the self-ruled island that Beijing claims as part of its territory.
"The Chinese government will take into overall account all of the relevant factors and seriously consider the relevant issue," Huang said at a news conference in response to question about whether the time was right for China to build an aircraft carrier.
China's neighbors have been closely watching its possible ambitions to extend the reach of its military as defense spending has grown by double-digit rates in recent years.
Beijing's reported military budget this year was 417.8 billion yuan ($58.76 billion), up 17.6 percent from 2007.
An aircraft carrier also could give Beijing an edge in any conflict over the South China Sea, where it has conflicting claims with neighboring governments over large areas.
:china::china::china:
China to consider building aircraft carrier
The Associated Press
Posted: Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2008
BEIJING China will "seriously consider" building its first aircraft carrier, the Ministry of National Defense said Tuesday in another sign of Beijing's expanding military ambitions.
An aircraft carrier is "a symbol of a country's overall national strength as well as the competitiveness of the country's naval force," said ministry spokesman Senior Col. Huang Xueping. He said China must ensure its maritime security and sovereignty but gave no timetable for launching such a vessel.
China's navy usually stays close to its shores, though the government said Tuesday that it will send three ships to the Indian Ocean to deter pirate attacks on Chinese vessels.
An aircraft carrier would allow China's navy to fight farther out at sea by providing air cover in places that land-based planes cannot reach. Military analysts see a Chinese aircraft carrier mainly as a deterrent to U.S. intervention in a possible conflict over Taiwan, the self-ruled island that Beijing claims as part of its territory.
"The Chinese government will take into overall account all of the relevant factors and seriously consider the relevant issue," Huang said at a news conference in response to question about whether the time was right for China to build an aircraft carrier.
China's neighbors have been closely watching its possible ambitions to extend the reach of its military as defense spending has grown by double-digit rates in recent years.
Beijing's reported military budget this year was 417.8 billion yuan ($58.76 billion), up 17.6 percent from 2007.
An aircraft carrier also could give Beijing an edge in any conflict over the South China Sea, where it has conflicting claims with neighboring governments over large areas.
:china::china::china:
Some defence analysts say building an aircraft carrier is more a matter of national prestige than military necessity.
"An aircraft carrier is a neat symbol of power but not necessarily a sign of substance, because they are so easy to sink," said Professor Hugh White, of the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute.
"If I was an American I would be down on my knees and praying they would be dumb enough to build one."
---------------------
So maybe the PLA is not so dumb after all !
This may explain the inordinate delay since the arrival of the Varagy - and why to date , China has yet to deploy an Aircraft Carrier
"An aircraft carrier is a neat symbol of power but not necessarily a sign of substance, because they are so easy to sink," said Professor Hugh White, of the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute.
"If I was an American I would be down on my knees and praying they would be dumb enough to build one."
---------------------
So maybe the PLA is not so dumb after all !
This may explain the inordinate delay since the arrival of the Varagy - and why to date , China has yet to deploy an Aircraft Carrier
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It sort of falls into the logic of those neo-cons who invoke Reagan in regards to the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War on how to deal with China. Let them waste time and resources trying to catch-up with the US until they go bankrupt. But China can't even just think of building a carrier without setting off the alarm bells. Also with "inferior" Chinese technology, what do they have to worry about and just open-up that can of Reagan's Whoopass on China? Concerns for how China spends its money goes in contradiction with how Reagan would do it. It only shows those who mention Reagan style strategy against China don't even know what they're talking about.
Why should China build just even if it's only one carrier? To the least just to know it can happen. In trying to discourage China from building one, it's pointed out the complexity of such a task. All the more reason to build and operate one just for the knowledge learned from doing it.
Contrary to what the China alarmists think, Beijing has shown to be very pragmatic in these issues. So what do they think is going to happen when China builds itself a carrier? The Taiwan invasion they said was definitely going to happen back while the US was preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan? Even if China starts building carrier fleets, it's never going to be about catching up or near the numbers of the US. This reminds me of not too long ago when the critics watching China build submarines say they were obsolete in today's modern warfare. Sounds like the same arguments going on here as well. And isn't it always interesting that the critics come from nations with or allied with militaries that have carriers? Why do they need them? Answer that and they'll have their answer why China should have them.
Why should China build just even if it's only one carrier? To the least just to know it can happen. In trying to discourage China from building one, it's pointed out the complexity of such a task. All the more reason to build and operate one just for the knowledge learned from doing it.
Contrary to what the China alarmists think, Beijing has shown to be very pragmatic in these issues. So what do they think is going to happen when China builds itself a carrier? The Taiwan invasion they said was definitely going to happen back while the US was preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan? Even if China starts building carrier fleets, it's never going to be about catching up or near the numbers of the US. This reminds me of not too long ago when the critics watching China build submarines say they were obsolete in today's modern warfare. Sounds like the same arguments going on here as well. And isn't it always interesting that the critics come from nations with or allied with militaries that have carriers? Why do they need them? Answer that and they'll have their answer why China should have them.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Carriers are incredibly difficult ships to sink; the amount of damage that WW II era carriers took and survived from is incredible. It is often an issue of a design flaw or poor damage control that would sink a carrier. Fast forward a bit, and the damage sustained by the USS Tripoli, a Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ship when she hit a mine was survivable; the mine ripped a 16 by 20ft hole in the ship's hull, but after 20 hours of damage control and through some additional flood control to balance the ship, she resumed normal duties.
Gents, let's keep the "sink your carrier" discussion in that thread.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2438&page=34&highlight=sink
bd popeye super moderator
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2438&page=34&highlight=sink
bd popeye super moderator
Gents, I moved the last few post(I.E. Sink a carrier) to the proper thread..here;
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2438
Next time I may not be so nice.
bd popeye super moderator
- Status