PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

The discussion about the South China Sea Islands and ASW warfare, with or without Chinese (or other) carriers is taking this thread off topic too much. All of those discussion have now been moved to the following thread:

South China Sea Strategies (Spratly, Parcel, etc.)

If your post regarding that topic is missing, please look there, and continue the conversation there.

Thank you

Further comments on the size of the next Chinese flattops compared to USN practice:
USS Enterprise was designed in the late fifties at a size somewhat larger than the previous Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes. All these carriers were intended to be able to launch nuclear armed A-5 aircraft ( resp. their predecessors A-2 and A-3 ) which were pretty large. Enterprise was fitted with eight nuclear reactors similar to contemporary submarines. This must have been considered inefficient but necessary to prove the concept and to await the development of proper sized reactors as used in the Nimitz class.
The major experience with these carriers, and many earlier ones, in the sixties was power projection during the war against Vietnam. This showed the larger size to be more efficient than the earlier classes of smaller carriers used in that war. Also having designed the reactors for this class it made sense to continue with this class rather than spend billions for a reactor for a class of smaller ships.
Sea control rather than power projection will be the deciding requirement for the Chinese carriers thus these carriers will have about the size of Liaoning and with perhaps 50% more aircraft than this ship even when propulsion will be changed from gas turbine/electric to nuclear/electric about 2030 or even later.

Chuck and Cheng, I'm going to nip this discussion in the bud before it goes further, drags other posters into it, and takes the thread completely off topic.

Ths is not a economics thread, or a US/China economic comparison thread.

However, we do have an economics thread where such a discussion would be much more appropriate:

The Role of the Economy in national confrontations

I have moved your posts there. Feel welcome to continue the discussion about US/China economics comparison and their impact there.

Thanks.

delft said:

USS Enterprise was designed in the late fifties at a size somewhat larger than the previous Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes. All these carriers were intended to be able to launch nuclear armed A-5 aircraft ( resp. their predecessors A-2 and A-3 ) which were pretty large. Enterprise was fitted with eight nuclear reactors similar to contemporary submarines. This must have been considered inefficient but necessary to prove the concept and to await the development of proper sized reactors as used in the Nimitz class.

Click to expand...

Note, the four Forrestal class (designed prior to 1952), the four Kitty Hawk class (designed priot to 1956), and the Enterprise (designed prior to 1958) were all concieved and designed before the Vietnam War.

delft said:

The major experience with these carriers, and many earlier ones, in the sixties was power projection during the war against Vietnam. This showed the larger size to be more efficient than the earlier classes of smaller carriers used in that war. Also having designed the reactors for this class it made sense to continue with this class rather than spend billions for a reactor for a class of smaller ships.

Click to expand...

Global power projection and sea control were always the goals. The Vietnam War was a speed bump in that development, not a principle cause. The older carriers (Essex and Midway classes) were all designed and built for World War II, and then were upgraded to add angled decks, deck side elevators, and better catapaults.

The Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, and Enterprise carriers were purpose designed super-carriers designed for those power projection and sea control roles during the cold war. Enterprise was a single nuclear powered variant (originally concieved to be a class of six)...and did use the same reactors at the time as the nuclear subs.

delft said:

Sea control rather than power projection will be the deciding requirement for the Chinese carriers thus these carriers will have about the size of Liaoning and with perhaps 50% more aircraft than this ship even when propulsion will be changed from gas turbine/electric to nuclear/electric about 2030 or even later.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I expect the PLAN will build another STOBAR carrier very similar to the Liaoning, but, IMHO, it will have changes and improvements in several areas.

1) A larger hanger to hold more aircraft and better maintain them.
2) A smaller Island to improve size and operations of aircraft parking and handling on deck.
3) Other improvements in flight deck layout, and weapons and fuel delivery.
4) Improvements in the vessels proulsion and electrical system.
5) Improvements in bunkerage.

There will surely be other improvements as well. I believe it is an outside chance that they would put a single catapault at the waist position, but think that is not extremelyt likely.

I then think the PLAN will move on to a conventionally powered CATOBAR design of near 80,000 tons. Such a carrier may have the following over and above the Liaoning STOBAR carrier:

1) Four catapults. Two bow and two waist.
2) Three elevators.
3) A much more integrated electrical system.
4) An even larger hanger.
5) An even smaller island.
6) Will carry 60 aircraft.

Once this has been done, and probably two of those built, I believe then China will move on to a nuclear carrier design.

That design in essence will be an improved CATOBAR design of the conventional vessel with nuclear reactors and a completely integrated electrical system, possibly with EMALS type catapaults. Once there, I believe over time that the Chinese will use that design, and incremental improvements of it, to ultimately replace all of their carriers with that class.

Time will tell. The PRC certainly could go direct to the CATOBAR carrier after the Liaoning...but I personally think they will build one lof their own like the Liaoning firstand benefit from the huge logistical advantages and the experience it will bring.

They also could go directly from that design to a nuclear design, but again, I think they will make those moves more incrementally and conservatively.

In the end, I expect the PRC will operate five carriers.

delft said:

Sea control rather than power projection will be the deciding requirement for the Chinese carriers thus these carriers will have about the size of Liaoning and with perhaps 50% more aircraft than this ship even when propulsion will be changed from gas turbine/electric to nuclear/electric about 2030 or even later.

Click to expand...

I think it is more like sea denial in higher intensity conflicts, and power projection in lower intensity conflicts.

Sea control is what you do when you have substantial naval superiority. I think China won't be doing too much sea control with US Navy several times stronger than itself.

chuck731 said:

Sea control is what you do when you have substantial naval superiority. I think China won't be doing too much sea control with US Navy several times stronger than itself.

Click to expand...

Sea Control can be established locally to allow for power projection around that locality, or to defend specific sea lanes and other identified areas for variable lengths of time.

In the sense of global sea control, yes, the US Navy is unequaled...and if it is able to bring full force to bear, then it can exert sea control in almost all cases.

However, if Access Denial strategies are successfully implemented, due to land based weaponry, air assets, etc. then sea control can be established in specific areas by what otherwise would be a weaker naval force overall.

In practical sense, the US Navy has numerous world-wide commitments which it cannot ignore, so its ability to bring its full force to bear is limited. The question is, can it bring enough force to bear to overcome AD and any local SC established by another force and still gain overall superiority. The pivot to the Pacific is in part about trying to ensure this.

At the same time potential OPFORs undertsand this as well, and are developing their own force structures accordingly. They have their own national interests, their own areas of operations in line with those interests, and will establish force structures meant to defend them, and establish whatever levels of control, projection, and or denial necessary to do so.

Right now, the PLAN Liaoning Carrier group in the SCS is sending a message while it is conducting training exercises there. It is in an area where there are disputes. It is in an area close enough to the mainland and its force structures to receive the additional help it may need. It is a message that the PRC has not been able to send in this precise manner in the past. As they build more carrier groups, they will reinforce and punctuate that message. To what extent other nations who have whatever level of dispute with the PRC will react to that message is yet to be seen.

It is clear that the US, due to its own interests, is countering that message with one of its own.

We all hope and pray that those two sets of messages and contingencies do not collide.

The survelliance by the two US carrier group and Japanese CV is a great and rare opportunity for the CV-16 and her escorts to practise anti-survelliance and anti-electronics operations while the former tried to gather its data intelligence...

Dear all,

Sharing a video of my fav programme...

[video=youtube;1dgmfo96pqA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgmfo96pqA[/video]

Basically it introduces the "so-called" CV-16 carrier battle group. You can watch it as a leisure during breaktime.

It's in Chinese but I will translate after I watched.

After-notes:

The military analysis is Maj Gen (Ret). Xu Guangyu. He comments that;

1) this escort group is an initial test of communications and coordination between ships;

2) training and experimential now have to shift from East China Sea to South China Sea due to the tide conditions and demands of all the weapon systems onboard CV-16;

3) the lack of auxillary ships and submarines shows that this is not a formal CBG although it can be shuffled around on the types of ships for the type of mission;

4) a further extensive training and coordination exerises will be conducted judging from the period of the training;

5) this "so-called" carrier grp is not a show of force;

6) China still have a long way to have an actual carrier battle group;

7) China would have to customise its own carrier task force or carrier battle group in accordance to her strategic needs and tactical missions.

FarkTypeSoldier said:

Dear all,

Basically it introduces the "so-called" CV-16 carrier battle group. You can watch it as a leisure during breaktime.

It's in Chinese but I will translate after I watched.

After-notes:

The military analysis is Maj Gen (Ret). Xu Guangyu. He comments that;

1) this escort group is an initial test of communications and coordination between ships;

2) training and experimential now have to shift from East China Sea to South China Sea due to the tide conditions and demands of all the weapon systems onboard CV-16;

3) the lack of auxillary ships and submarines shows that this is not a formal CBG although it can be shuffled around on the types of ships for the type of mission;

4) a further extensive training and coordination exerises will be conducted judging from the period of the training;

5) this "so-called" carrier grp is not a show of force;

6) China still have a long way to have an actual carrier battle group;

7) China would have to customise its own carrier task force or carrier battle group in accordance to her strategic needs and tactical missions.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing! And for the translation too.

I am guessing they could very well have send the Liaoning south by herself, but decided that it is an opportunity to practice communication and coordination between her and an escort group. That's good use of her time! Perhaps when she is heading north (next?), they might use that opportunity to give SSF ships a chance to practice the same thing. Realistically, she doesn't need any "protection" at this point since there is nothing to protect her against; being in home water, in peace time, and all.

BTW, where are the "escort" ships now? Are they back at NSF ports?

I am not familiar with the East China Sea and South China Sea conditions at various time in a year. What is the condition that prompted them to shift her to SCS for further training and experiment? No sailor myself, so pretty much clueless in this regard.


Cheers,
Jovian

Jovian said:

Thanks for sharing! And for the translation too.

I am guessing they could very well have send the Liaoning south by herself, but decided that it is an opportunity to practice communication and coordination between her and an escort group. That's good use of her time! Perhaps when she is heading north (next?), they might use that opportunity to give SSF ships a chance to practice the same thing. Realistically, she doesn't need any "protection" at this point since there is nothing to protect her against; being in home water, in peace time, and all.

Click to expand...

Hi Jovian,

Nevertheless, Peacetime is the best time to exercise the troops and train for full alertness and readiness.

The counter-survelliance is deemed as an opportunity by many mainland military analysts as a good timing for counter-measures too.

Like Gen. Xu has mentioned in the program, any problem discovered during training is also a time to ratify the short-comings.

Jovian said:

BTW, where are the "escort" ships now? Are they back at NSF ports?

I am not familiar with the East China Sea and South China Sea conditions at various time in a year. What is the condition that prompted them to shift her to SCS for further training and experiment? No sailor myself, so pretty much clueless in this regard.

Click to expand...

I would pretty much want to know too the exact locations of these escorts.

As for the weather conditions, I thought it may have something to do with climatic changes in weather causing the tidal waves to behave differently from the North!

Jovian said:

Cheers,
Jovian

Click to expand...

You are most welcome!