Yeah, I thought so. It's just that in the post you were quoting Air Force brat was talking about the yak 141, and like you just said the 38 and 141 were completely different beasts.
Just pointing it out for anyone less familiar with the aircrafts
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I thought so. It's just that in the post you were quoting Air Force brat was talking about the yak 141, and like you just said the 38 and 141 were completely different beasts.
Just pointing it out for anyone less familiar with the aircrafts
At the time I replied, it was not clear to me he meant the Yak-141 specifically. His response alone did not make that clear. After looking back at the thread and the posts he was responding too, it was more clear.Yeah, I thought so. It's just that in the post you were quoting Air Force brat was talking about the yak 141, and like you just said the 38 and 141 were completely different beasts.
Just pointing it out for anyone less familiar with the aircrafts
But that's why I responded as I did, to make sure it was the Yak-38 I was talking about.
Actually, Lockheed bought the swiveling hot nozzle design from yakovlev, and used it on the f-35B. Yakovlev in turn stole the basic idea from Vought, who proposed it around 1970. But yakovlev did the actual engineering work to make the idea work.
The lift fan idea was developed by Rolls royce.
The lift fan idea was developed by Rolls royce.
FarkTypeSoldier
Junior Member
Hey there, you are not alone; at least to the two Kievs China bought, I too felt a miss.
But on a closer anaylsis, those vessels all had their core systems and powerplants removed before selling to China. I got to emphasize that China did not directly bought over Minsk, it was resold to the Chinese firm from S Korea. That era the 1990s also saw the ROKN wanted its own blue navy plan, bought the Minsk for studies but ultimately did not proceed with reasons unknown; I thought Hyundai or Hanjin Heavy Industries could have been built their indigenious carrier that time, it might also been a cash-strap SK govt didnt have the financial capabitlities to support such a project. Hence Minsk was resold to China eventually. Such a decision to resell might be approved perhaps due to the Amercian military advisors to SK might think China (or other nation buyers) didnt have the capabilities to refit Minsk during that era thus such a decision "was allowed".
Eventually China have both Kiev and Minsk which could be used for extensive research and studies, probably with two teams of experts and a cross studies could be made before turning the two Kievs into a casino/hotel and theme park. The Chinese shipbuilding industries alongside its other auxillary industries such as logistics, weapons and radar technology could not support such projects too. That period of time in the 90s China could not have built such a ship, much less to refit them. Thus the two Kievs were like a study subject. Another reason might be Russia might not even sell weapon systems to China to refit their former CVs.
However, with the introduction of indigenious production of core weapons systems as well as communications, Phase Array radar technology...etc as well as maturity of all the extensives supporting industries in China growing progressively after the Asian Financial Crisis, the studies from Kievs were turned into practical state in the refit of Varyag into Liaoning.
With the success of refitting Liaoning, it mean that indigeniously built CVs projects are like the "final exams" for the Chinese shipbuilding industries including all the auxillary support industries.
Last edited:
I fully agree with this. China is a country with ambitions AND capabilities to fulfill that ambition (albeit efforts must be made). In face some sources reveal that even the Liaoning was debated over and over again for her refurbishment as some high level navy officers were really really reluctant to start with a ski jump carrier. No matter it's the Chinese newspapers, media, or even CCTV military programmes, they all highly praise and compliment the American supercarriers and never fail to point out every time the disadvantages of having a carrier like the Varyag (or Liaoning). This is even more so on Chinese forums. Even prior to the purchase of the two Kiev classes the Chinese had purchased an Australian carrier with American catapults. And in the 1980s started the first and the only batch of "Pilot Captain Class" (飞行舰长班). Also, there was one J8 that was once equipped with a tail-hook and did a few flight tests. Admiral Liu Huaqing personally boarded an American supercarrier himself and he's one of the hardline carrier supporter within top Chinese officials.
The Chinese started their carrier programme long ago but was limited by the resources and technology we had at that time. Together with the deck crew we've seen on Liaoning, all evidences point to one conclusion: Chinese leaders and Chinese navy want American style supercarriers. Maybe not in the league of Enterprise Nimitz or Ford class soon, but Kitty Hawk class should be our next goal after doing one maybe two improved copies of the Liaoning.
For the Chinese the Kievs are far too inferior and had too little potential to be a full-fledged carrier. Also, at the time of purchasing the Kievs even if we can refurbish them there's not a decent escort and support force that we've seen today with the Liaoning.
Unlike SOME countries, the Chinese see the carrier programme as a whole. Carriers, aircrafts, escort forces, naval bases that support them, submarines, auxilary ships, ship-borne AWACS, catapults, carrier reactors, radars, the Beidou, all these are part and parcel of the full picture. The capabilities of a CBG is not determined by the best component, but the weakest. American supercarriers are formidable not only because they are the best of its kind in the world, also because the US navy has an entire huge system that’s behind it. This is where the true power of the carriers come from.
Hence there’s really no point to just rush the Kievs and claim you have three carriers. Without the system they’re nothing but a bunch of ships that happen to carrier a few fighters. Nothing less, nothing more.
usaf0314
Junior Member
[video=youtube;YozJFot-oM0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YozJFot-oM0[/video]
This episode say the 071 LPD was a spot holder for a replenishment ship in that strike group photo shoot. which would make so much sense... at least for me(not a big navy guy, but is very interested)
This episode say the 071 LPD was a spot holder for a replenishment ship in that strike group photo shoot. which would make so much sense... at least for me(not a big navy guy, but is very interested)
Right and the type of the improved aircraft was initially the Yak- 41, there were two flying prototypes, prototype #77 crashed on the carrier, but was rebuilt as #141, and with the infusion of some cash performed in several airshows. TerraN is right about the main engine nozzle, I had read somewhere that it was the lift fan technology, and that is incorrect. Chuck says that was Rolls Royce that had pioneered that technology...
Never the less, STOVL is a very difficult technology to play with, much less master, and the fact that LockMart bought and paid for the Nozzle is testament to that. The Harrier and the Yak were novel aircraft for their day, the 141 was showing good progress and the Harrier was a very succesfull, if extremely complex concept, it served with great distinction, by its very being and deployment. I'm sure the British Airmen were at the same time relieved and disappointed to see it go, and probably more disappointed to see the US Marines continue the rich heritage of the Harrier.
I am certain they are equally relieved and Happy to get the F-35B, and see the ramps on the Queen Elizabeth, and the Prince of Wales, as they have a very long and distinguished STOVL culture, which I'm sure the B model will fit right in to. They have every right to claim a mastery of the STOVL culture, but as Master Delft will remind us, this will carry a little extra cost, STOVL is a pricey option, difficult to master and maintain, but very kool at the same time.
Exactly. Any discussion to re-furbish those ships was just fan boi speculation..
In this forum some years ago we had a discussion this subject..starting with this post..just read on.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/all-about-chinese-aircraft-carrier-thread-43-264.html#post49290
And in the original SDF(2005) we had a discussion about this same subject...I'm an unregistared user.
Those years when you guys had that discussion I'm still in primary school learning how to read and write and now I'm here discussing these matters with you fine people.
Time really flies I guess
Converting one of the two Kievs in China's possession would only make sense and be useful as a stepping stone and a training carrier. It can host a air wing of navalized JL-9 trainers and helicopters. Lets say that they did convert one of the Kievs to a Vikramaditya like platform and it was finished in 2005. Then China by now would already have more than 8 years of experience operating an aircraft carrier and would be in a much firmer footing in its development of carrier ops. Not to mention that the pilots would be able to land JL-9's on the converted Kiev to supplement their training on simulators and on land based facilities. It will simply be used as the USS Lexington in the USN before her decommissioning. And the experience gained from refitting one of the Kievs would have made the refit of the Liaoning come much faster and easier and potentially make it even a better ship then what she is today based on the lessons learned from operating that converted Kiev carrier.
But in the end the question is the cost benefit comparrison. Are those experiences worth more than a billion dollars for the refit and even more costs operating that carrier in the subsequent years ? And would such a refit in the 1990's endanger the purchase plan of the Varyag ? And we also have to remember that China in the 1990's and early 2000's didn't have the financial resources it has today and the cost of refiting and operating that carrier would have come at the expense of other projects and programs.
But in the end the question is the cost benefit comparrison. Are those experiences worth more than a billion dollars for the refit and even more costs operating that carrier in the subsequent years ? And would such a refit in the 1990's endanger the purchase plan of the Varyag ? And we also have to remember that China in the 1990's and early 2000's didn't have the financial resources it has today and the cost of refiting and operating that carrier would have come at the expense of other projects and programs.
Last edited:
- Status