PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

if they're really going to build two simultaneously then that's a rush programme. the two have to perform well, therefore they would be known designs and technologies. i do expect really a liaoning-like carriers in such a case. no electric propulsion, no high tech stuff.

if they want high tech carrier and new design, they'd go with a single carrier, test it out, then continue with production some 5+ years later when stuff is proven.

if all this is true, then j15 is going to serve on these first three carriers and some next gen plane (as well as plane based awacs) may be reserved for next gen carriers in 2020s and 2030s. we might then indeed see j15 to be built in over a 100 airframes.

Does anyone know if the Liaoning is back at sea ?

If true, that's crazy to built TWO carriers simultaneous especially if the two are not even the same same of ships... assuming one is improved Liaoning the other a 80K+ ton CATOBAR. If they follow the same timetable it means they will have 5 fleet carriers by 2025 maybe sooner!
If this news is true that means PLAN is VERY VERY serious about their timetable and it also means my prediction is wrong LOL .
I'm starting to wonder if Obama's Asia pivot and Abe's strong posture really pissed the Chinese off.

kwaigonegin said:

If this news is true that means PLAN is VERY VERY serious about their timetable and it also means my prediction is wrong LOL.

I'm starting to wonder if Obama's Asia pivot and Abe's strong posture really pissed the Chinese off.

Click to expand...

We've talked a lot about this on SD over the years.

I believe that this has been the PRCs long term plan for some time.

The article says that both will be like the Liaoning, only improved. I expect those improvements will focus on:

1. A larger hanger and more complete facilities for it.
2. Improved handling of, and number of aircraft that can be spotted and handled on the deck.
3. A smaller island.
4. They may provide for a single waist cat, but not install it.

But that last is a more major change that I believe is less likely on these two carriers...but may be worthwhile enough to get for the future sake.

Anyhow, this will afford them a number of very positive things.

A. Logisitical supply chain cost reduction on a per carrier basis.
B. Training and operational efficiencies for all three carriers.
C. Standardization of policy and procedure.
D. Standardization of airframes across all three carriers.

Having one of these carriers available for each fleet is a signficant move...and points to their intial intent for their carrier arm.

Rather than having a seperate carrier group or "fleet," they intend to use thes carrier principely for the implementation of, and achieving of, the specific goals included in each fleet's AO (Area of Operation)...and then make use of them as needed for other strategic needs outside of that.

Jeff Head said:

We've talked a lot about this on SD over the years.

I believe that this has been the PRCs long term plan for some time.

The article says that both will be like the Liaoning, only improved. I expect those improvements will focus on:

1. A larger hanger and more complete facilities for it.
2. Improved handling of, and number of aircraft that can be spotted and handled on the deck.
3. A smaller island.
4. They may provide for a single waist cat, but not install it.

But that last is a more major change that I believe is less likely on these two carriers...but may be worthwhile enough to get for the future sake.

Anyhow, this will afford them a number of very positive things.

A. Logisitical supply chain cost reduction on a per carrier basis.
B. Training and operational efficiencies for all three carriers.
C. Standardization of policy and procedure.
D. Standardization of airframes across all three carriers.

Having one of these carriers available for each fleet is a signficant move...and points to their intial intent for their carrier arm.

Rather than having a seperate carrier group or "fleet," they intend to use thes carrier principely for the implementation of, and achieving of, the specific goals included in each fleet's AO (Area of Operation)...and then make use of them as needed for other strategic needs outside of that.

Click to expand...

Jeff, I know and I've predicted such possible paring as well however what got me was the simultaneous part and the aggressive timeline.. (again assuming report is true to word)

I expect the next Chinese carrier to be:

1. Based on Liaoning/Kuznetsov on the inside

2. Extensively recontoured hull and reshaped island on the outside for signiture reduction.

3. Fitted for, but not necessarily with, catapaults

4. Ski ramp is now a fitting, and no longer integral to hull structure, at the bow.

5. Flight deck layout based on Liaoning, but fitted with aircraft tied downs everywhere instead of only at predesignated parking spots as on Kuznetsov/Liaoning.

kwaigonegin said:

Jeff, I know and I've predicted such possible paring as well however what got me was the simultaneous part and the aggressive timeline.. (again assuming report is true to word)

Click to expand...

I agree. It will be agressive, but it will also be pretty exciting to watch. Keep your popcorn handy.

Also, it is not too surprising or out of character.

When the PLAN built the Type 052B and then right after, the Type 052C for the first time, they built two ships at once of each.. At the time they were both built, they were consecutively the largest, most modern, and most powerful destroyers the Chinese had ever produced indegenously.

chuck731 said:

I expect the next Chinese carrier to be:

1. Based on Liaoning/Kuznetsov on the inside (agrees with my opening paragraph)

2. Extensively recontoured hull and reshaped island on the outside for signiture reduction. (agrees with my #3 wrt the island)

3. Fitted for, but not necessarily with, catapaults (agrees with my #4)

4. Ski ramp is now a fitting, and no longer integral to hull structure, at the bow. (very good additional point)

5. Flight deck layout based on Liaoning, but fitted with aircraft tied downs everywhere instead of only at predesignated parking spots as on Kuznetsov/Liaoning. (agree with my #2)

Click to expand...

Very good commetns and forecast.

I believe all of those are very possible and have pointed out where they agree completely with my own thoughts. Although I am a little more skeptical about any major structural changes to the hull.

Remaining with steam power means accepting a heavy and inefficient plant. The use of an integrated power system using gas turbines would provide a considerable saving in weight and space as well as in fuel consumption while providing power for cats and possible, much later, as yet still experimental weapon systems. Is a ship now building, either for PLAN or Coast Guard that tests such an IPS?
I wonder if the hurry apparently shown by PLAN has anything to do with the highly unstable economic situation in many large developed countries. But perhaps PLAN has found Liaoning exactly as she was intended and now has sufficient confidence in one of the many designs that no doubt were developed during the last ten years to commit to building two. As indeed happened with Types 052B and 052C.

I'm still not sure whether this report of building 2 (!) STOBAR carriers at the same time is accurate. There have been so many rumours that I won't get my popcorn ready unless I see some steel cut, or because we're talking about PLAN, a more vague, but more reliable statement.

In the article of WantChinaTimes there were some errors with regards to the J-15 and J-31 introduction date. One way or another, if you can't get these basic facts straight, you'll lose my sense of credibility really fast.

Awaiting further confirmation I'd like to ask: if true, why STOBAR carriers?

STOBAR
Assuming that previous calculations were right and that J-15s can take off from STOBAR with decent AtG loads, I can see that China opts for a relatively low risk option for having a carrier capable of conducting ground attacks. If the catapult technology turns out to be unreliable, you are just as or even more restricted compared to a STOBAR carrier because you don't have the ski-jump to help you (unless you design the bow long enough). Furthermore, the crew(s) is/ are already training with a STOBAR carrier so you could introduce those carriers to your fleets pretty fast.

With these carriers, you'd only sacrifice the capability of operating a E2 type of AEW aircraft (and C2 Greyhound type of aircraft), but given the lack of consistent proof that these aircrafts are under development then this wouldn't influence the decision very much

Also, it is likely that STOBAR carriers are relatively more susceptible to environmental conditions like windspeeds and ship movement so this may influence the take off restrictions of the J-15.

CATOBAR
Assuming that calculations are wrong, or restricted to certain conditions (if I remember correctly, Harriers didn't take off from the Invincible class if the movement of the ship was more than x degrees. I saw that on a documentary on Discovery channel (?), but couldn't find the episode anymore. If anyone know more about this, please post), why doesn't China go for CATOBAR? With catapults, you can launch heavier (loaded) aircraft and/ or depend less on environmental conditions. It's probably a little bit riskier as you need to also develop the knowledge of designing, working with and maintaining of such a catapult and so far there's no evidence that China is doing so (?)

A downside of CATOBAR would be that you'll need to train your crew to work with catapults. This would also mean that it has a negative impact on planning etc. as you can't cross-operate crews and carriers as efficiently. However, if China wants to go to CATOBAR one day, it'll need to incur this "cost" of inefficient planning sooner or later so why not now?

Totoro said:

if they're really going to build two simultaneously then that's a rush programme. the two have to perform well, therefore they would be known designs and technologies. i do expect really a liaoning-like carriers in such a case. no electric propulsion, no high tech stuff.

if they want high tech carrier and new design, they'd go with a single carrier, test it out, then continue with production some 5+ years later when stuff is proven.

if all this is true, then j15 is going to serve on these first three carriers and some next gen plane (as well as plane based awacs) may be reserved for next gen carriers in 2020s and 2030s. we might then indeed see j15 to be built in over a 100 airframes.

Click to expand...

More likely that one will be a low risk while the other would be a high risk.