PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Bltizo said:

Defence updates blog wrote a pretty good summary of the PLAN's likely carrier plans about a year ago. I don't often post extensive write ups from blogs, but this particular one seems to have very good entries for both Chinese and other nation's hardware. Its 052D VLS and Kolkata write ups among others are quite informative.
This article in particular I like how it takes a critical approach to the ski jump vs catapult debate.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China Building Additional Aircraft Carriers

According to several Chinese media reports, Wang Min, the Communist Party leader of the province Liaoning stated that the port city of Dalian in his province is now building an aircraft carrier for the Chinese Navy with at least two more being planned.

Dalian is the place where the former Varyag or Liaoning, currently China's only aircraft carrier, was refurbished after being bought from the Ukraine. The shipyard is also in the process of building two Type 052D destroyers to become the second shipyard to build the type, next to Shanghai where four

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

destroyers are under construction or fitting out.

While the reports are officially unconfirmed, there can be no doubt that China will eventually have

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

aircraft carriers next to the Liaoning. China has already developed its own J-15 aircraft, which is roughly similar to an improved Su-33, for service on carriers, not to mention other supporting infrastructure on land.

That kind of heavy investments would not have been made if there was no intent to build their own aircraft carriers. What remains to be seen are in the details, such as how many aircraft carriers are to be build by China, the time schedule for inducting them into service and their exact configuration.

STOBAR VS CATOBAR COMPARISON

The Liaoning is a STOBAR carrier with a ski-jump and the next carrier being build is almost certain to retain this configuration. There will probably be some minor improvements such as increasing deck space and hangar space, but the new carrier will retain the basic hull configuration to avoid potential difficulties.

STOBAR carriers with their ski-jump are often criticized for their alleged inferior performance by some people who prefer CATOBAR carriers that use a catapult to launch aircraft instead of a ski-jump. This criticism is very often exaggerated in mainstream media.

For instance, it's often stated that a ski-jump restricts the take-off weight of aircraft to such an extent that it reduces aircraft such as the Su-33 / J-15 to air-to-air missions only due to their inability to take off with heavy ordnance that is often required for air-to-ground missions.

However, extensive testing by the Russians aboard the Varyag's sister ship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has proven that the Su-33 is able to take off at up to 30 tons under certain conditions. This is more than enough to carry sufficient payload to carry out air-to-surface missions.

Both the ski-jump and the catapult are solutions to the same problem. Neither existed when aircraft carriers came of age during World War II. They became a necessity only after jet fighters were stationed aboard aircraft carriers. Both require that aircraft be explicitly designed for either type.

The catapult in general is the better solution because the ski-jump requires a longer deck than a catapult for similar aircraft. To compensate, an aircraft carrier would have to be made longer if a ski-jump were to be selected instead of a catapult.

Due to the fixed size of aircraft carriers which tend to have a length of 300 m more or less, it's not possible to have a sufficiently long deck to equal the performance of a catapult on a carrier.

However, the ski-jump is still adequate and can be used aboard an aircraft carrier. The catapult does offer significant advantages over the ski-jump, such as:

• Greater take-off weight using an equivalent take-off run
• Shorter take-off run, all else being equal
• Frees up deck space to park aircraft

On the other hand, the ski-jump has its own advantages, which are often times not mentioned at all in contrast to the advantages offered by catapults, such as:

• The ski-jump requires no maintenance and cannot break down, unlike a catapult which would severely hamper operations during combat. This can be especially true in certain climatic conditions.
• A catapult puts severe stress on aircraft, which over time will significantly reduce the lifespan of an airframe. A STOBAR aircraft will last longer than CATOBAR aircraft, all else being equal.

One alternative configuration that's been floated is to use both a ski-jump at the bow and one or two catapults at the waist. The thinking is that the fighters would utilize the ski-jump, while other aircraft that require maximum take-off weight, such as AEW aircraft, would use the catapults.

Click to expand...

Totoro said:

Ulyanovsk was rumored to have a certain role in various chinese carriers at some point or another. While rumors may or may not be true - i don't think it's beyond reason to assume that ulyanovsk blueprints were acquired after the Cold war, just as with Kuznetsov's. Now the next carrier may not use most or any features from Ulyanovsk BUT it could serve as a starting point. Perhaps for the general hull shape, size, hull layout etc. Stuff like main deck and its layout, engine compartment, internal decks etc may be completely different even if they do use the blueprints.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

On the contrary I think hull layout, hull shape and size would be the easiest things for them to design if they were not deliberately constraining themselves to use a proven hull design (in the case of 001A). For one, the overall shape of a hull, and a ship's size can all be readily taken from photos even without need for blueprints.
I think the benefits of Ulyanovsk blue prints (if they were even acquired in the first place) are to provide a better foundation for designing the internals of a carrier.

I've always put rumours of the new chinese carrier looking like Ulyanovsk in thd same category as J-20 being an offshoot from Mig 1.44's design. It's one of those rumours which western observers seem to have created themselves with no input from standard chinese sources iirc

I suppose some of this depends on how conservative we expect the PLAN to be; even with their expected "clean sheet" 002, I suppose they may still choose to reduce risk by adopting a Ulyanovsk hull, but it seems so... Needless given designing the hull and dimensions of a ship is arguably one of the simpler things to do in the long process of designing a carrier.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Amen Bltizo.
.
.
.
The 1st indigenous Chinese carrier be very similar, but improved Liaoning design.
.
.
.
It is very possible, in my opinion, maybe even likely, that China will field two STOBAR carrier (I believe this is a given now),...
.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

Will PLA(N) experiment by adding a waist cat on Mac'Liaoning?

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Yep, agree with everything Jeff said -- something that many of us have begun wondering over the last year now regarding 002 is whether it will use EMALS or steam catapults, and that in turn makes us question what kind of propulsion arrangement we will see, namely whether the conventional powerplants will be arranged in an IEPS fashion to power the EMALS if there are any.

Click to expand...