Ideal chinese carrier thread

[Obi Wan Russell]

When I saw the checkerboard structure on the stern, my first thought was "Oh no, not another well deck squeezed onto a ship it has no place on!" I have noticed most carrier fanboys around these days are obsessed with the idea that the LHD is the ultimate in carrier layout. The number of arguments I've had with those who say we should scrap the 65k CVF design in favour of a 20 knot 40K LHD... MADNESS! You can't use a well deck unless you are stopped, for several hours, hello, sitting duck? Even the USN is moving away from them with the first few units of the America class. Well decks belong on second wave transports like LPDs and LSDs, not first wave flat tops. I'm still waiting for them to insist the new Gerald Ford class MUST be redesigned with a well deck!!

As to other aspects of the designs, the first one in Popeye's post has two cats to starboard in front of the bridge. Far too close together to be practical and not even a 100ft stroke length. Useless for launching anything bigger than a UAV IMHO. Why put a couple of useless cats on the starboard side where they foul the deck park when you can put a pair of 200ft+ cats on the angle deck? Sorry to disappoint the creationists out there, but evolution is a fact of life and certainly in carrier design these problems have already been solved. Just because young Mr Fanboy doesn't like the way working carriers look doesn't mean he can re write the rule books!:nono:

 

[planeman]

Cats on Starboard is not in itself madness, just that specific design. Oh how us Brits lament that this beauty was cancelled (bottom):

 

[bd popeye]

Planeman, as you can well see those cats are on the bow..or angle deck where they should be. Not protruding out like on the fanboy design. With cats designed as that fanboy has the deck would be either fouled or have a reduced air wing so aircraft can be spotted to be launched.

 

[Ambivalent]

When I saw the checkerboard structure on the stern, my first thought was "Oh no, not another well deck squeezed onto a ship it has no place on!" I have noticed most carrier fanboys around these days are obsessed with the idea that the LHD is the ultimate in carrier layout. The number of arguments I've had with those who say we should scrap the 65k CVF design in favour of a 20 knot 40K LHD... MADNESS! You can't use a well deck unless you are stopped, for several hours, hello, sitting duck? Even the USN is moving away from them with the first few units of the America class. Well decks belong on second wave transports like LPDs and LSDs, not first wave flat tops. I'm still waiting for them to insist the new Gerald Ford class MUST be redesigned with a well deck!!

As to other aspects of the designs, the first one in Popeye's post has two cats to starboard in front of the bridge. Far too close together to be practical and not even a 100ft stroke length. Useless for launching anything bigger than a UAV IMHO. Why put a couple of useless cats on the starboard side where they foul the deck park when you can put a pair of 200ft+ cats on the angle deck? Sorry to disappoint the creationists out there, but evolution is a fact of life and certainly in carrier design these problems have already been solved. Just because young Mr Fanboy doesn't like the way working carriers look doesn't mean he can re write the rule books!:nono:

I agree with the critiques of awkward catapult placements on fanboi carrier "designs", and with the propensity of the fanbois to throw a well deck onto every design.
I will caution, however, that in an actual amphibious assault, well decks will be flooded and used from the very first wave of the assault to the end. The assault force ships will be between 50 and 100 nm offshore, and they will not be stationary but moving at a few knots to maintain steerage. DDG's and CG's will come in closer to provide fire support. The first wave will include both LCAC's, helicopters and tiltrotors, with the LCAC's emerging from the well decks, to be replaced by LCU's loading out material and manpower that can take more time to reach the beach ( the LCAC's will arrive at the landing area loaded in the well decks, the LCU's will be on deck and craned over the side at the beginning of the assault ). The great bulk of the landing force will come ashore on LCU's. The standard for the MEF is to be unloaded on the beach in six hours maximum, and this standard is achieved in training.
Obi Wan, there is a lot of criticism within my service of the new LHA(R) design for the absence of a well deck. There is actually a very detailed schedule of what has to go into every load to the beach on every LCAC, LCU and helicopter to meet the six hour requirement. There is a shortage of well deck space as it is, and this new design contributes further to this. There is a school of thought that the speed of the tiltrotor will overcome this shortage of space in well decks, but there are others like me who think the tiltrotor will not survive combat in the numbers necessary to meet the landing schedule. Yes it can fly over the ground based AA threat for some of it's flight, but it still must descend through the MANPAD and gun envelope to deliver troops ashore. Those LZ's better not be hot. Yes, I'm one of the tiltrotor's critics, way too expensive and troublesome for combat assault.

 

[bd popeye]

Here's a very viable LPD/LHD design I found at sin.com.cn

If someone desires to translate the Chinese please do so!

超猛：中国海军999泰山号两栖攻击舰现身了！图
顶不顶看着办

 

[rhino123]

Here's a very viable LPD/LHD design I found at sin.com.cn

If someone desires to translate the Chinese please do so!

超猛：中国海军999泰山号两栖攻击舰现身了！图
顶不顶看着办

[qimg]http://i47.tinypic.com/2w4kzlg.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i50.tinypic.com/5ygok8.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i45.tinypic.com/301zzw9.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i50.tinypic.com/2q8dpfq.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i46.tinypic.com/15zk3d1.jpg[/qimg]

Basically it is saying that the pics showed of the Chinese PLAN Type 999 Mount Tai class Amphibious Attack ship. The author is basically asking whether China actually need this ship.

 

[bd popeye]

Thanks for that translation rhino123.

I think the ship is of a generally good design. The two areas of concern for me are

1) The hangar deck is very small but probably adequate.

2) The placement of that elevator in the middle of the ship will eat up valuable deck space on the flight & hangar decks and all the decks below. I do however understand why the designer placed the elevator there. So it may be used for both vehicles and aircraft.

 

[rhino123]

I am thinking... is it really that bad having better armed aircraft carriers - one with a number of air defence missiles and CWIS system in the ship other than aircrafts. Although, many has pointed out (in this thread and others) the disadvantage of heavily armed carriers and the reason why US navy didn't adopt such an approach.

But if we look at the US navy again, the US carriers are escorted and protected by large number of destroyers and other type of ships. Of course this is a good tactic, but it is extremely expensive and to maintain that vast amount of ships and a carrier is very difficult unless you are a nation that is very rich and had huge number of warships at your disposal.

I am wondering if the carrier of China should be better armed so herself could actually defend herself with all her weapons and so have smaller number of escort... plus her escort do not need to be huge destroyers. Coupled with the aircraft that she carried with her... I think she would still be very potent.

This type of arrangement would no doubt bring the maintenance of the carrier up... but the overall cost of maintaining the CBG would go down tremendously. Of course we couldn't then follow to the successful formula of the US navy, but I believe we could come up with a doctrine and operation procedure that suit this type of CBG.

 

[bd popeye]

I am wondering if the carrier of China should be better armed so herself could actually defend herself with all her weapons and so have smaller number of escort... plus her escort do not need to be huge destroyers. Coupled with the aircraft that she carried with her... I think she would still be very potent.

The reason a USN CV is lightly armed is that her aircraft are her main armament. You can't be firing off missile etc and conducting flight operation. It just does not work well. That's why the USN has escorts with it's CVNs. They form the Carrier Strike Group...CSG.

An USN CSG consist of

1) 1 CVN
2) 1 Ticonderoga class CG
3) 2 or 3 Arleigh Burke class DDGs
4) 1 Los Angeles class SSN
5) 1 Supply class T-AOE or one Lewis & Clark class T-AKE
+ one Henry J. Kaiser Class T-AO (fleet oiler)

The USS George Washington (CVN-73) CSG has the ablity to operate with as many as nine Aegis equipped DDGs & CGs.

 

[rhino123]

The reason a USN CV is lightly armed is that her aircraft are her main armament. You can't be firing off missile etc and conducting flight operation. It just does not work well. That's why the USN has escorts with it's CVNs. They form the Carrier Strike Group...CSG.

An USN CSG consist of

1) 1 CVN
2) 1 Ticonderoga class CG
3) 2 or 3 Arleigh Burke class DDGs
4) 1 Los Angeles class SSN
5) 1 Supply class T-AOE or one Lewis & Clark class T-AKE
+ one Henry J. Kaiser Class T-AO (fleet oiler)

The USS George Washington (CVN-73) CSG has the ablity to operate with as many as nine Aegis equipped DDGs & CGs.

Yes, what u have stated is very true. However China didn't have that much warships or warships that have the capability like US Aegis DDG and CG. And so it might be very difficult or would require more warships as escort to achieve what the US has now.

So I am wondering if the carrier had the capability to protect herself with missiles and also with their aircraft, wouldn't it cut down on the number of ships needed to protect her. I am not saying that there should not have any escorts ship, but they doesn't need to have huge number of escort.

What I am seeing is, Chinese carriers launching her aircrafts for the furthest circle of defense, then herself, together with her escort providing the intermediate and close range defence against targets who get too close.

The carrier do not need to conduct flight operation and firing off missiles all at once. Because I would expect that the aircraft might need to be launched first.

(At least that is the theory, the actual tactic is more complicated.)