PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Jeff Head said:

BINGO! Precisely.

I think it very likely that we will see the second carrier have both. A Ski-Jump at the bow, and two cats amidships coming off the angled deck. The Russians were building that very thing when the Soviet Union fell as their next step.

Click to expand...

　　据加拿大《汉和防务评论》报道，中国的航母舰载机训练中心可能引入了乌克兰的舰载机弹射系统。中国未来的航母编队不仅将包括像“辽宁”号这样的滑跃式航母，也将包括先进的弹射式航母，可以搭载重型舰载战斗机赴远洋作战。　　外国媒体称，从解放军航母航空兵的训练情况来看，中国可能开发建造加装弹射器的先进航母。解放军已建成两座航母舰载机训练中心，用于训练未来的舰载战斗机飞行员。这两座设施都模仿航母甲板而建，其长度与中国未来航母的起飞甲板相当，并配备有战机起降控制系统。中国建成的两座航母舰载机训练中应该有一座配备了舰载机弹射系统。

加拿大《汉和防务评论》指出，乌克兰的航母舰载机训练中心不仅建有滑跃式起飞装置，也有弹射式起飞装置。该装置配有完备的电力供应系统、锅炉和蒸汽舱，能以240千米的时速弹射舰载机。报道猜测，乌克兰可能已经向中国出口了同类设施，因此中国建成的航母舰载机训练中心可能已经加装了舰载机弹射系统，而解放军新近组建的航母航空兵可能已经开始训练弹射离舰，从而为未来登上配备弹射器的航线做好准备。（图片为解放军兴城舰载机训练基地卫星照片）　　《汉和》揣测，解放军可能已经开始为其未来航母开发舰载预警机，而大型舰载预警机只有在弹射型航母上才能起降，因此解放军未来装备的航母中肯定会有弹射式航母。利用这两座训练设施，解放军将强化训练其舰载机航空兵。

accprding to latest issue of kanwa, PLAN may already purchased ukrainian catapult system.already PLAN established 2 naval air training facilities.
facilities may included CAT.other hint possible installment of CAT was the development CV borne fix wing AWACS,since E-2C type aircraft needed CAT

hardware said:

...according to latest issue of kanwa, PLAN may already purchased ukrainian catapult system.already PLAN established 2 naval air training facilities.

Facilities may included CAT.other hint possible installment of CAT was the development CV borne fix wing AWACS,since E-2C type aircraft needed CAT

Click to expand...

We have a thread all about the main PLAN Naval Aviation Training facility.

PLAN Naval Aviation Training Facility

I seriously doubt that such a catapult has been installed there. It is a training facility and nothing I have heard indicates that the PLAN is to a point with any catapult system to start training its pilots with it.

If they have one installed anywhere (and that is an "if" I do not know about), then it would be at some testing facility where they are still testing it in order to understand it and learn how it works with their equipment and study it enough to be able to rebuild it to fit into their future aircraft carriers.

Coming years will be very interesting indeed

Not only will we now see Chinese carrier strike groups but also I believe we will see Chinese amphibious assault forces based around LHD and also surface action groups too

A Chinese carrier force would include up to 8 vessals and around 4 for a LHD or SAG group

As of now Pakistan is unable to deploy naval assets far away, any long range deployment West of Suez and India will try to take advantage of the gap in the PN defence even if that means sailing a DDG close to Pakistans waters that's enough

PN is very active in GCC region and frequently visit Jeddah on the West coast of Saudi Arabia in the red sea but really that's the limit, any tensions and we are talking weeks to get back to Pakistan too late if the situation is serious

However if we can fix the financial situation get 4 more F23P and 6 SSK from China without question this gives the PN the ability to deploy 2 X FFG, 1 x SSK and a replenishment tanker, that's 4 ships for long range deployments

PN has commanded and lead NATO CTF-150 nd CTF-151 frequently excercised with Turkish navy on many occasions, and while on the subject the Turkish built 15,000 replenishmnet tanker for the Pakistan navy is due to be laid down soon, which means two Replenisment tankers for the PN in the future

Now if PN can spare four ships, a Chinese carrier strike force has 8 ships that's 12 ships altogether in a combined task force! What a force that would look like!

It would give PN very good experience and also give China a chance to "break the ice" with many middleastern nations for port visits, and soft diplomacy

PNS Nasr is a Chinese built Fuqing Class tanker which can replenish F22P frigates, so I don't think it's out of the question that a Type 903 can replenish PN vessals, infact I think both China and Pakistan should work closely togther to integrate further along these lines to further close naval co-operation, cross decking, command and communication and joint escort duties, Karachi is the most frequently visited port by Chinese ships, a good location for Replenisment, repair and maintanence

I would envisage the following

Chinese aircraft carrier
2 x Type 052C/D DDG
3 x Type 054A FFG
1 x Type 903 replenishment tanker
1 x Type 095 SSN

PN adds
2 x F22/F23P FFG
1 x Replenishment tanker
1 x SSK

rolking said:

Please don't take it the wrong way. Everyone is either a pessimist, optimist or skeptic. I tend to be too optimistic. You are pretty accurate in my book. Just a friendly reminder so we can all made better predictions.

Click to expand...

Mostly teasing.

old article about Russian plan to upgrade Admiral K. parts are relevant to Chinese carrier program.


"The choice of catapults is linked with the choice of the ship's propulsion unit. Steam catapults require a nuclear propulsion unit, while a gas turbine propulsion unit leaves no choice but electromagnetic catapults. Moscow will either have to develop such catapults independently or buy them abroad, or ... copy them illegally."

Didn't realize this connection before. steam catapults actually require either nuclear or old fashion boiler, but i don't think China will want old fashion boiler for the next carrier. Russian are even thinking of converting Admiral K. to gas turbine.

Opinion-
1) The most efficient development of CV capability to decide what types of missions the ship needs to be able to support. This goes to the heart of outlook, missions and intentions. Then-

2) Evaluate the size/capability of the air group needed.

3) Create a basic hull form the can not only support the air group and command facilities but can also be improved. (See Nimitz class)

4) Focus needed yard resources to create this specific class of carriers in series instead of casting about with a bunch of experimental one offs.


5) A. Develop a conventional carrier power plant. B. After a period of testing-incorporate the nuclear propulsion later into series production.

I believe this method may limit the total size of the hull. However, 75k-85k is possible... more than enough ship for a very large and logistically supported/supportable air group. Also, this type of approach should allow a relatively rapid period of development and force construction. Once the program gets rolling-it should be possible to commission 1 carrier every four years.

The PLAN does not need a "perfect" carrier that can do everything. What they do need is a carrier that can be improved as they go and get the basic job done. Getting training, operations and logistics down and in line with doctrine will be much easier with common hull series and known flight deck size. I suppose the PLAN could also develop full carrier air wings with common size and composition.

cirvine11 said:

1) The most efficient development of CV capability to decide what types of missions the ship needs to be able to support. This goes to the heart of outlook, missions and intentions. Then-

2) Evaluate the size/capability of the air group needed.

3) Create a basic hull form the can not only support the air group and command facilities but can also be improved. (See Nimitz class)

4) Focus needed yard resources to create this specific class of carriers in series instead of casting about with a bunch of experimental one offs.


5) A. Develop a conventional carrier power plant. B. After a period of testing-incorporate the nuclear propulsion later into series production.

Click to expand...

Very simple: build it as large as you are able to ... it will never be large enough.

dingyibvs said:

That's a very good point, it certainly sounds like a safer strategy, and you're right that it'll depend on how much risk are they willing to take. Is the risk reduction worth its downside?

Click to expand...

I would argue that that depends on the security environment going forth. If there's no immediate threat or security pressure there's no reason to rush.

There is no reason to rush the carrier program period. The very existence of a Chinese carrier program is proof that China is not planning for a serious conflict with the United States. Carriers do not fit in the defensive anti-intervention Chinese strategy. If the United States gets serious with the dangerous AirSea Battle doctrine, then China needs to seriously prepare for conflict, which would mean a decreased priority for the carrier program.
But that doesn't mean China won't move to CVN without constructing several large conventional carriers first. Nuclear propulsion simply makes too much sense for carriers and there is no good reason for China not to move in that direction.

latenlazy said:

I would argue that that depends on the security environment going forth. If there's no immediate threat or security pressure there's no reason to rush.

Click to expand...

Security environment can change on a whim, rushing then may be too late. Who knows, maybe carriers will go the way of battleships and there might not be a reason to build them any longer within our lifetime!