Ideal chinese carrier thread
- Thread starter Gollevainen
- Start date
- Status
Hi Planeman
Well I liked the Cat design, but I would pitch it for a "smaller, lighter and faster" kind of Carrier, with a group of say four light Carriers replacing one Big Carrier.
It may seem a more expensive option, but I suspect that the next major naval engagement will show the Mega Carrier concept as False Economy White Elephant.
By splitting one Mega carrier to 3 or 4 Light Cat Carriers, you can launch and land more Aircraft in any given time, plus you cannot deny the use of the Carrier Group with just one bomb.
Like I said, I like it and think we might see something along these lines in reality during the next few decades.
Well I liked the Cat design, but I would pitch it for a "smaller, lighter and faster" kind of Carrier, with a group of say four light Carriers replacing one Big Carrier.
It may seem a more expensive option, but I suspect that the next major naval engagement will show the Mega Carrier concept as False Economy White Elephant.
By splitting one Mega carrier to 3 or 4 Light Cat Carriers, you can launch and land more Aircraft in any given time, plus you cannot deny the use of the Carrier Group with just one bomb.
Like I said, I like it and think we might see something along these lines in reality during the next few decades.
Some interesting points all around. I think that it's easy to not look past the USN concept of operations and forget that there have been 'modern' fighter aircraft operated of very small carriers, such as Argentina operating Skyhawks and Super Etendards' from 25 de Mayo (now scrapped).
There is actually a world wide prolification of carriers going on, with mayor new, and more significantly much larger and more versitile, carriers from Spain and Italy, plus UK's imminent return to proper carriers and India and China's induction of ex-Russian conventional carriers.
Italy's Cavour class is interesting in several ways, as it has lots of cutting edge weapons systems and is very versitle:
The AAW system is similar to that of Italy's new "Horizon" class destroyers though I think only Aster-15s are carried.
Where it's a radical improvement over other carriers is that it has both a roll-on-roll-off cargo deck and a ski-jump. At the moment Italy only has a relatively small number of AV-8 Harriers but with F-35s this will be tough competition even for larger carriers.
Spain's 27,000t Buque de Proyección Estratégica (BPE) aircraft carrier also combines logistics with ski-jump, this time with a floodable dock. In pure aircraft carrier role it can carry as many as 20 Harriers, or I would guess 15 F-35s. It is due to be launched in December this year.
There is actually a world wide prolification of carriers going on, with mayor new, and more significantly much larger and more versitile, carriers from Spain and Italy, plus UK's imminent return to proper carriers and India and China's induction of ex-Russian conventional carriers.
Italy's Cavour class is interesting in several ways, as it has lots of cutting edge weapons systems and is very versitle:
The AAW system is similar to that of Italy's new "Horizon" class destroyers though I think only Aster-15s are carried.
Where it's a radical improvement over other carriers is that it has both a roll-on-roll-off cargo deck and a ski-jump. At the moment Italy only has a relatively small number of AV-8 Harriers but with F-35s this will be tough competition even for larger carriers.
Spain's 27,000t Buque de Proyección Estratégica (BPE) aircraft carrier also combines logistics with ski-jump, this time with a floodable dock. In pure aircraft carrier role it can carry as many as 20 Harriers, or I would guess 15 F-35s. It is due to be launched in December this year.
Last edited:
Continuing the world tour, India is obviously planning on commissioning two medium/large conventional carriers in the next few years although the true status of the Project 71 carrier is somewhat vague:
Project 71 Carrier, indiginous, 37,000t. Similar in size to Charles De Gualle and probably able to carry 20+ combat aircraft, most likely thoroughly updated MiG-29 Fulcrums, though Indian fans still hope for a navalised LCA. Service entry is somewhere in the 2015 timeframe although building is progressing at a snail's pace:
Far closer to reality is the convertion of the ex-Soviet carrier Kiev into a proper carrier by removal of the weapons deck to make room for aircraft parking and a ski-jump. Numerous other modifications also obviously. The main limitation of this ship will be the compariatively small hanger which was originally designed with only the small Yak-38 Forger in mind. She will carry 16 MiG-29 Fulcrums:
Project 71 Carrier, indiginous, 37,000t. Similar in size to Charles De Gualle and probably able to carry 20+ combat aircraft, most likely thoroughly updated MiG-29 Fulcrums, though Indian fans still hope for a navalised LCA. Service entry is somewhere in the 2015 timeframe although building is progressing at a snail's pace:
Far closer to reality is the convertion of the ex-Soviet carrier Kiev into a proper carrier by removal of the weapons deck to make room for aircraft parking and a ski-jump. Numerous other modifications also obviously. The main limitation of this ship will be the compariatively small hanger which was originally designed with only the small Yak-38 Forger in mind. She will carry 16 MiG-29 Fulcrums:
Hmm, China seems to be having a radi-tech fit and is seeking whatever is good but unconventional, including: J-10(Delta), Type 95(Bullpup), 2208 (Cat hull) so such radical designs would not be irrational to their eyes.
I don't think Cat or Tri-hulls would be unusual here.
It depends on how you look at the idea. If you merge two monohull carriers together, you have pretty much a Cat already. I don't think it always lead to lack of space.
I don't think Cat or Tri-hulls would be unusual here.
It depends on how you look at the idea. If you merge two monohull carriers together, you have pretty much a Cat already. I don't think it always lead to lack of space.
Tough highly douptable, yet still nice looking
The thing with the Catamaran hull is (like I've been saying earlier) is that it has too much limitations. The sea-worhtiness is one that can be depated and many of you disagree with me on that, but one thing is undispute and that is the low volume of the hull. It means basicly that there is not enough room to store all the needed stuff that makes warships warships. It might be adequate for smaller vessels but with large ones it really cross the line of being too volumeless. In Aircraft carriers the issue is even greater when you have the aircraft hangar taking hell alot of space.
The overall idea of aircraft carriers is to provide an airforce to your fleet when it's not possiple to use aircrafts launched from land. This means that the carriers needs to have good endurance even just to be justificable to exist. With catamaran hull there is no room for stores, crew habiltability, fuel and so on. It would tie the ship operating in the range of small missile FACs...not worht of wasting money
They look nice, but...
In addition to what Golly said I would say that a problem with the catamaran design for carriers is that it cannot withstand missle strikes like a single hulled vessel. The ship would list heavily to whatever side it was hit on. It also seems to me that a missle explosion could punch entirely through the side of the carrier.
Thanks guys for participation:china:
Now I haven't exactly given my own suggestion to the "ideal" carrier, the one that I gave was sort of foreplay and basis for future work. As I mentioned, the pr. 086 carrier was cut to one unit and the then (in the 80's) existing older carriers (pr. 085) were to be replaced by new unit in the 90's. I first tought that it's an easy task, just draw a "as good looking carrier as possiple" but then I become to realize some important things that I haven't been able to solve my own...
So why not try to do them with together?
First the stuff that I've come sofar:
There is to be build two of them. The geopolitical, economical and the scale of the naval operations sets the size of the carriers somewhat similar to Kuznetsov, basicly little larger than the contepory french and UK future carriers, but still smaller than US supercarriers. This ofcourse gives some limitations to the design.
As there's only two ships being build, and added the earlier 086, the aircrew is to be as homogenious as possible. It's just not cost effective to fit the ships with lets say two type of fighters (J-11 and J-10). Also i've been rethinking of the SH-6 ASW plane...can any nation (outside the superpowers) afford to build such a complicated plane with only few numbers? So thus I've decided to drop the Sh-6 and replace it with helicopters. AEW plane is still needed and it will be inlcuded to the new ships (and to the 086 as well) and it's based on the Y-7 airframe with Hawkeye type of tail and the KJ-200 type "balance beam" radar.
So the airgroup of the new carriers will be focused around J-10 as it's more suitable to carrier operations due it's smaller size. As in the USN, the J-10 will play the role of Super hornet in fighter, strike and recce platfroms. ASW is given to helicopters.
The proplems that I mentioned comes mostly form the propulsion....I first toughted a gas turbine and eletric diesels as in the CVF but then I realized how silly I would have sounded if presented it to you...Where comes the steam to the catabults?
So I've basicly tied to two options, either nuclear or conventional steam propulsuion. The proplems with nuclear plants is that they are really expensive, and for example the French weren't happy for it and the future PA2 will have non-nuclear propulsion. It's benefits are however long endurance and the "freedom" to design the ship without tieing the Island to the familiar place in the side...
So here's few questions that I would like to ask and I hope you all can give your own toughts
1. Nuclear or Conventional steam?
2. Is the placement of the Island superstructure better in the front like in the De Gaulle or in the back like in CVN-21?
3. The ship is going to be 300 meters long, about 65 000 tons displacment, should there be two or three catabults? How about elevators? and where should they be situated?
4. Which one is better solution in long term operational use, The larger airgroup due more deck park or the ability to launch and recover simulatainiously (If you can have only either one)?
Thanks for beforehand
Now I haven't exactly given my own suggestion to the "ideal" carrier, the one that I gave was sort of foreplay and basis for future work. As I mentioned, the pr. 086 carrier was cut to one unit and the then (in the 80's) existing older carriers (pr. 085) were to be replaced by new unit in the 90's. I first tought that it's an easy task, just draw a "as good looking carrier as possiple" but then I become to realize some important things that I haven't been able to solve my own...
So why not try to do them with together?
First the stuff that I've come sofar:
There is to be build two of them. The geopolitical, economical and the scale of the naval operations sets the size of the carriers somewhat similar to Kuznetsov, basicly little larger than the contepory french and UK future carriers, but still smaller than US supercarriers. This ofcourse gives some limitations to the design.
As there's only two ships being build, and added the earlier 086, the aircrew is to be as homogenious as possible. It's just not cost effective to fit the ships with lets say two type of fighters (J-11 and J-10). Also i've been rethinking of the SH-6 ASW plane...can any nation (outside the superpowers) afford to build such a complicated plane with only few numbers? So thus I've decided to drop the Sh-6 and replace it with helicopters. AEW plane is still needed and it will be inlcuded to the new ships (and to the 086 as well) and it's based on the Y-7 airframe with Hawkeye type of tail and the KJ-200 type "balance beam" radar.
So the airgroup of the new carriers will be focused around J-10 as it's more suitable to carrier operations due it's smaller size. As in the USN, the J-10 will play the role of Super hornet in fighter, strike and recce platfroms. ASW is given to helicopters.
The proplems that I mentioned comes mostly form the propulsion....I first toughted a gas turbine and eletric diesels as in the CVF but then I realized how silly I would have sounded if presented it to you...Where comes the steam to the catabults?
So I've basicly tied to two options, either nuclear or conventional steam propulsuion. The proplems with nuclear plants is that they are really expensive, and for example the French weren't happy for it and the future PA2 will have non-nuclear propulsion. It's benefits are however long endurance and the "freedom" to design the ship without tieing the Island to the familiar place in the side...
So here's few questions that I would like to ask and I hope you all can give your own toughts
1. Nuclear or Conventional steam?
2. Is the placement of the Island superstructure better in the front like in the De Gaulle or in the back like in CVN-21?
3. The ship is going to be 300 meters long, about 65 000 tons displacment, should there be two or three catabults? How about elevators? and where should they be situated?
4. Which one is better solution in long term operational use, The larger airgroup due more deck park or the ability to launch and recover simulatainiously (If you can have only either one)?
Thanks for beforehand
Golly sez;
Gas turbines similar to LM2500. Conventianal power like this would be the most reliable and economical to operate.
I like the island amidshisp or just aft of amidships. Kinda comprimise between the ships you mentioned.
Two bow catapults only. A ship that large could have three elevators. All deck edge of course. Deck edge elevators optomize hangar space.
In the configuration I suggest a larger airgroup(40+ aircraft) would fit well on the ship I discribed. Aircraft could be launched and recovered with ease.
I suggest a flight deck configuration similar to the USS Midway. I was on board Midway in '73 & '74 and it was the smoothest operating flight deck I ever worked on.
As you look at the picture below on a PLAN ship I envision the island being much more outboard like on the most other CV's..
This picture is a model of the final configuration of the USS Midway CV-41.
Gas turbines similar to LM2500. Conventianal power like this would be the most reliable and economical to operate.
I like the island amidshisp or just aft of amidships. Kinda comprimise between the ships you mentioned.
Two bow catapults only. A ship that large could have three elevators. All deck edge of course. Deck edge elevators optomize hangar space.
In the configuration I suggest a larger airgroup(40+ aircraft) would fit well on the ship I discribed. Aircraft could be launched and recovered with ease.
I suggest a flight deck configuration similar to the USS Midway. I was on board Midway in '73 & '74 and it was the smoothest operating flight deck I ever worked on.
As you look at the picture below on a PLAN ship I envision the island being much more outboard like on the most other CV's..
This picture is a model of the final configuration of the USS Midway CV-41.
Attachments
-
eddiemiller-003b.jpg
Last edited:
But how can you operate steam catabults with gas turbines?
Why not catabults in the angled deck?
Can't you use the hot gases driving the turbine to heat water producing steam as well ?
And I could imagine having more than two cats on a carrier that size in different spots, bow and angeled deck, is a bit too much ...
- Status