PLAN Carrier Construction

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Of course China could build two carriers in different yard concurrently - technically. But money is also an issue, carriers are not cheap. The Chinese defense budget has never seen any single procurement that expensive ( not even SSBN's).

Not just the building of the carrier that is expensive. Are the Chinese equipped with enough fighters to be placed on top of both carriers (new one + Liaoning), are the Chinese already equipped with enough knowledge and skills in operating a carrier (its SOP from cooking meals to firefighting to whatever), do the Chinese have enough escort for all their carriers, do the Chinese have comprehensive training with the entire fleet?

Of course the Chinese had the money now, but they might need more time with training of the crews and pilots and the overall system before comfortably launching more carrier.

But since there are evidence (not sure how accurate) that the Chinese are already building the next carrier, I have this feeling that at least 1 batch of trained crews are about to be completed, and these crews could be put on the new carrier.

As of such, i have this nagging feeling that the newest carrier will be an update of the Liaoning, so that the crew needed less time to be familiarise with the latest carrier operation, while catapults will be installed into this new carrier to train more crews and pilots on the catapult operation, so that the third carrier can removed the ski jump and progress to pure catapults only. Just my 2 cents though.
 

Xian

New Member
A Question to the specialists here:
Some speculations are about the possibility that the first indigenious carrier could be in consept like the Ulyanovsk - a ski-ramp at the bow AND one or two cats at the angled deck.
So, what is the reason for such ah configuration?
The ski-ramp has the benefit that you need no cats including the whole infrastructure for there operation with the contra that you are limited in the max Take-Off weight of your aircrafts.
But if you already HAVE cats on your carrier, why put a ramp on the bow instead of 2 additional cats?
Is it such ah big issue to modify the J-15 for cat-usage?
 

chuck731

Banned Idiot
For the Ulysnovsk, I think a major reason could simply be internal political. The fraction that wanted the big carrier would find it easier to get what they want if the big carrier seem to fully leverage the R&D already done for the medium sized carrier, instead of appearing to thumb their noses at the proponents of the already approve medium carrier by suggesting ramp carrier had been a wrong and half asses approach to start with.
 

pendragon

Junior Member
If this new carrier is going to be significantly smaller than the existing one, it might wel be to small to operate the j-15 safely in any useable number, leave alone the necessary accompanying aircaft and helo's! The hangar also appears to be to low for larger aircraft. So what on earth are the Chinese hoping to operate from it? ...

Or is it that is meant to be a LHA after all; but then ... even helo's are relatively high constructions [you can't fold down :)] and what's that construction we suppose to be part of the catapult-system?
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
LOL...this is in no offense to you Asif, but try to be more careful on your typing next time!:p;) It's that darn tricky naughty English language again.

I apologise equation very bad grammar! ;) in the current climate fists can be very offensive indeed

But we all know what I meant really! :D
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
A Question to the specialists here:
Some speculations are about the possibility that the first indigenious carrier could be in consept like the Ulyanovsk - a ski-ramp at the bow AND one or two cats at the angled deck.
So, what is the reason for such ah configuration?
The ski-ramp has the benefit that you need no cats including the whole infrastructure for there operation with the contra that you are limited in the max Take-Off weight of your aircrafts.
But if you already HAVE cats on your carrier, why put a ramp on the bow instead of 2 additional cats?
Is it such ah big issue to modify the J-15 for cat-usage?

issue is not J-15.. issue is redesigning the entire bow of the Kunetsov design (liaoning) which we all think China's first indigenous carrier will be based off of.
 

Xian

New Member
issue is not J-15.. issue is redesigning the entire bow of the Kunetsov design (liaoning) which we all think China's first indigenous carrier will be based off of.

Why is that such an issue?
I understand that it is to difficult do rebuild a STOBAR Carrier to a CATOBAR Carrier...
But what is the issue to REDESIGN a STOBAR to a CATOBAR before construction begins?
It is work... sure... but is it such an issue that they go fore a concept without any operational aspects and only because the bow needs no redesign?
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Why is that such an issue?
I understand that it is to difficult do rebuild a STOBAR Carrier to a CATOBAR Carrier...
But what is the issue to REDESIGN a STOBAR to a CATOBAR before construction begins?
It is work... sure... but is it such an issue that they go fore a concept without any operational aspects and only because the bow needs no redesign?

I don't think it is too difficult especially when you are designing the new carrier from scratch. The only issue is... all your crew members now are trained with STOBAR as their primary and only operation. It make sense that the first carrier be STOBAR based with one or two catapult so as to allow crews to learn CATOBAR operation from it.

The crews will then get a first hand on operating a CATOBAR carrier and these will allowed their third aircraft carriers to be full CATOBAR.

So from what I believe the new carrier will be mainly based on the Liaoning but with one or two catapults in it. And if you ask me... I think it will be pretty ugly :p
 
Last edited:
Top