PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

alwaysfresh said:

I have never design anything, so I know this is going to get bashed. Used your idea of dual jumps. All I wanted to add was helicopter pads on the sides with ramps. Also I put the jumps going around and above the tower. I know I shouldn't add cause I don't have any experience but this looks like fun and it was fun.

Click to expand...

Pretty cool idea though a bit dangerous I'd expect given that the helicopters might suck personel and other non-attached items off the flight deck into their rotors.

Skorzeny said:

Really cool concept, but just one quick question:
Why would you put land attack or anti ship cruise missiles on your carrier? You would get more flexibility with just storing extra ALCMs for your aircraft.
If you try to pile to many "nice to have" weapon systems, you are using space that could have been used to support air ops

just my five cents

Click to expand...

This is where I differ with many people here. The way I see it a carrier cannot rely on its airwing as its only means of offense/defence. This appproach has been adopted by several navies though notably not the USN.

I also think that the carrier shouldn't rely too much on escorts for area-air defence SAM coverage, and for close-in ASW defence. Saying that a carrier doesn't need medium/ heavy SAMs because it will always be escorted, and has air-defence aircraft, is foolhardy IMO.

Stealth is another aspect of differing views. In my view the carrier should have a low enough RCS to be easily mistaken for an escort in the missile's eye view. Obviously the RCS is never going to be as small as the similar measures on a corvette.

Here's a 3-D view of my basic layout. The bridge structure is at the extreme front of the ship between the two ski-jumps. A bit like putting an air-defence destroyer onto the front of a CV, giving it excellent fields of fire. I haven't drawn the weapons fit although the YJ-62s would be under the ski-jumps.


Although I think it needs better looks, I am quite happy with the advantages of this layount and guess I'll get going on the scale diagrams.

Skorzeny said:

Really cool concept, but just one quick question:
Why would you put land attack or anti ship cruise missiles on your carrier? You would get more flexibility with just storing extra ALCMs for your aircraft.
If you try to pile to many "nice to have" weapon systems, you are using space that could have been used to support air ops

just my five cents

Click to expand...

This is where I differ with many people here. The way I see it a carrier cannot rely on its airwing as its only means of offense/defence. This appproach has been adopted by several navies though notably not the USN.

I also think that the carrier shouldn't rely too much on escorts for area-air defence SAM coverage, and for close-in ASW defence. Saying that a carrier doesn't need medium/ heavy SAMs because it will always be escorted, and has air-defence aircraft, is foolhardy IMO.

Stealth is another aspect of differing views. In my view the carrier should have a low enough RCS to be easily mistaken for an escort in the missile's eye view. Obviously the RCS is never going to be as small as the similar measures on a corvette.

Here's a 3-D view of my basic layout. The bridge structure is at the extreme front of the ship between the two ski-jumps. A bit like putting an air-defence destroyer onto the front of a CV, giving it excellent fields of fire. I haven't drawn the weapons fit although the YJ-62s would be under the ski-jumps.


Although I think it needs better looks, I am quite happy with the advantages of this layount and guess I'll get going on the scale diagrams.

Skorzeny said:

Really cool concept, but just one quick question:
Why would you put land attack or anti ship cruise missiles on your carrier? You would get more flexibility with just storing extra ALCMs for your aircraft.
If you try to pile to many "nice to have" weapon systems, you are using space that could have been used to support air ops

just my five cents

Click to expand...

This is where I differ with many people here. The way I see it a carrier cannot rely on its airwing as its only means of offense/defence. This appproach has been adopted by several navies though notably not the USN.

I also think that the carrier shouldn't rely too much on escorts for area-air defence SAM coverage, and for close-in ASW defence. Saying that a carrier doesn't need medium/ heavy SAMs because it will always be escorted, and has air-defence aircraft, is foolhardy IMO.

Stealth is another aspect of differing views. In my view the carrier should have a low enough RCS to be easily mistaken for an escort in the missile's eye view. Obviously the RCS is never going to be as small as the similar measures on a corvette.

Here's a 3-D view of my basic layout. The bridge structure is at the extreme front of the ship between the two ski-jumps. A bit like putting an air-defence destroyer onto the front of a CV, giving it excellent fields of fire. I haven't drawn the weapons fit although the YJ-62s would be under the ski-jumps.


Although I think it needs better looks, I am quite happy with the advantages of this layount and guess I'll get going on the scale diagrams.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

This is where I differ with many people here. The way I see it a carrier cannot rely on its airwing as its only means of offense/defence. This appproach has been adopted by several navies though notably not the USN.

I also think that the carrier shouldn't rely too much on escorts for area-air defence SAM coverage, and for close-in ASW defence. Saying that a carrier doesn't need medium/ heavy SAMs because it will always be escorted, and has air-defence aircraft, is foolhardy IMO.

Click to expand...

The USN has been operating CV's since 1923. You'd think they may know a little something about it. The USN never sends a CV to sea alone. Even a CV emerging from a re-fit has an escort when it goes to sea. This has been and will continue to be the USN policy. A CV was designed to launch, recover, store aircraft and assoicated equipment. The CV's AAW is provided by it's own aircraft and escorts. As well as it's ASW.

Each navy world over operates diffrently. I do not expect the PLAN to operate like the USN. I'm sure they are developing their own doctrine.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

This is where I differ with many people here. The way I see it a carrier cannot rely on its airwing as its only means of offense/defence. This appproach has been adopted by several navies though notably not the USN.

I also think that the carrier shouldn't rely too much on escorts for area-air defence SAM coverage, and for close-in ASW defence. Saying that a carrier doesn't need medium/ heavy SAMs because it will always be escorted, and has air-defence aircraft, is foolhardy IMO.

Click to expand...

The USN has been operating CV's since 1923. You'd think they may know a little something about it. The USN never sends a CV to sea alone. Even a CV emerging from a re-fit has an escort when it goes to sea. This has been and will continue to be the USN policy. A CV was designed to launch, recover, store aircraft and assoicated equipment. The CV's AAW is provided by it's own aircraft and escorts. As well as it's ASW.

Each navy world over operates diffrently. I do not expect the PLAN to operate like the USN. I'm sure they are developing their own doctrine.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

This is where I differ with many people here. The way I see it a carrier cannot rely on its airwing as its only means of offense/defence. This appproach has been adopted by several navies though notably not the USN.

I also think that the carrier shouldn't rely too much on escorts for area-air defence SAM coverage, and for close-in ASW defence. Saying that a carrier doesn't need medium/ heavy SAMs because it will always be escorted, and has air-defence aircraft, is foolhardy IMO.

Click to expand...

The USN has been operating CV's since 1923. You'd think they may know a little something about it. The USN never sends a CV to sea alone. Even a CV emerging from a re-fit has an escort when it goes to sea. This has been and will continue to be the USN policy. A CV was designed to launch, recover, store aircraft and assoicated equipment. The CV's AAW is provided by it's own aircraft and escorts. As well as it's ASW.

Each navy world over operates diffrently. I do not expect the PLAN to operate like the USN. I'm sure they are developing their own doctrine.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:

Here's my thoughts on how the PLAN's first carriers will look.

Click to expand...

Obi, those are gorgous pics. My hat's off to you. Always very good posts and very well stated and professionally done.

You inspired me to make a better representation of my X-Deck design for the PLAN as described in my novel series.

So, here is the new pic...the 50-60,000 ton x-deck (conventional carrier takeoff and landing) design from my book, with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls.

A 50-60,000 ton design with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls. (Just click on the thumbnail for a larger image)

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:

Here's my thoughts on how the PLAN's first carriers will look.

Click to expand...

Obi, those are gorgous pics. My hat's off to you. Always very good posts and very well stated and professionally done.

You inspired me to make a better representation of my X-Deck design for the PLAN as described in my novel series.

So, here is the new pic...the 50-60,000 ton x-deck (conventional carrier takeoff and landing) design from my book, with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls.

A 50-60,000 ton design with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls. (Just click on the thumbnail for a larger image)

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:

Here's my thoughts on how the PLAN's first carriers will look.

Click to expand...

Obi, those are gorgous pics. My hat's off to you. Always very good posts and very well stated and professionally done.

You inspired me to make a better representation of my X-Deck design for the PLAN as described in my novel series.

So, here is the new pic...the 50-60,000 ton x-deck (conventional carrier takeoff and landing) design from my book, with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls.

A 50-60,000 ton design with up to 48 aircraft, modularly constructed on the top of large, modern, container ship hulls. (Just click on the thumbnail for a larger image)