PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Pointblank said:

You also forgot one more thing: such ships are expendable. There is a reason why the CVE had the nickname "Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable". There is no need for them to be built particularly well due to the missions they will perform and the mercantile construction the ships are based off of. Similar ships built in World War II only had small airwings attached to them. As such, a 50,000 ton ship will only have a small airwing of less than 40 aircraft, because the small hangar that comes from the smaller size of the ship, plus the difficulties in modifying such ships for wartime carrier usage. The ARAPAHO container ship conversions only carried a handful of VSTOL aircraft, the concept allowing for only 5 helicopters. For high tempo combat operations, the limited airwing is a liability, and as such, such ships are better off operating as auxiliaries, meant to free up the dedicated fleet carriers and light carriers for combat duties.

Click to expand...

48 aircraft...with a hangar designed specifically to accomodate them...but again...it is fictional.

I am well aware of the CVEs and what they represented and how they were used...it is an amazing story and they were very well utilized not only for what the intent was, but off Samar they proved their worth and valor in a most emphatic and dramatic way, preventing an absolute disaster.

Thanks for the conversation.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Pointblank said:

You also forgot one more thing: such ships are expendable. There is a reason why the CVE had the nickname "Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable". There is no need for them to be built particularly well due to the missions they will perform and the mercantile construction the ships are based off of. Similar ships built in World War II only had small airwings attached to them. As such, a 50,000 ton ship will only have a small airwing of less than 40 aircraft, because the small hangar that comes from the smaller size of the ship, plus the difficulties in modifying such ships for wartime carrier usage. The ARAPAHO container ship conversions only carried a handful of VSTOL aircraft, the concept allowing for only 5 helicopters. For high tempo combat operations, the limited airwing is a liability, and as such, such ships are better off operating as auxiliaries, meant to free up the dedicated fleet carriers and light carriers for combat duties.

Click to expand...

48 aircraft...with a hangar designed specifically to accomodate them...but again...it is fictional.

I am well aware of the CVEs and what they represented and how they were used...it is an amazing story and they were very well utilized not only for what the intent was, but off Samar they proved their worth and valor in a most emphatic and dramatic way, preventing an absolute disaster.

Thanks for the conversation.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The PLA should take into consideration the future of aircraft carriers and advancements in aircraft technology - it is highly likely that dangers against carrier battle groups from cruise and ballistic missiles will increase. More time should be invested in exploring light aircraft carrier possibilities, so the loss of one ship does not jeopardize an entire operation. The refurbishing of the light carrier Varyag is a great place to start. The Varyag will support and protect the main naval combatants against threats from fighter jets, which is what the PLAN really needs. If they are looking for land attack capability, then a catapult capable carrier is more suitable, but that is not what the PLA desires (at least for now) - air superiority is more important. Also, if UCAVs are going to become more important in the future, then light carriers will be more than enough to accomodate them.

I like the idea of catamaran carriers (or even trimaran), because they are faster, more stable, and do not require deep harbors. Speed is a very important aspect on the open seas, not only for escaping incoming threats, but also for chasing down opponents and rushing to areas where needed. A missile strike on a catamaran hull will deal significant damage, but the same thing goes for the monohull. Space shouldn't be a problem, depending on how large the carrier has to be and how many planes are expected to land.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The PLA should take into consideration the future of aircraft carriers and advancements in aircraft technology - it is highly likely that dangers against carrier battle groups from cruise and ballistic missiles will increase. More time should be invested in exploring light aircraft carrier possibilities, so the loss of one ship does not jeopardize an entire operation. The refurbishing of the light carrier Varyag is a great place to start. The Varyag will support and protect the main naval combatants against threats from fighter jets, which is what the PLAN really needs. If they are looking for land attack capability, then a catapult capable carrier is more suitable, but that is not what the PLA desires (at least for now) - air superiority is more important. Also, if UCAVs are going to become more important in the future, then light carriers will be more than enough to accomodate them.

I like the idea of catamaran carriers (or even trimaran), because they are faster, more stable, and do not require deep harbors. Speed is a very important aspect on the open seas, not only for escaping incoming threats, but also for chasing down opponents and rushing to areas where needed. A missile strike on a catamaran hull will deal significant damage, but the same thing goes for the monohull. Space shouldn't be a problem, depending on how large the carrier has to be and how many planes are expected to land.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The PLA should take into consideration the future of aircraft carriers and advancements in aircraft technology - it is highly likely that dangers against carrier battle groups from cruise and ballistic missiles will increase. More time should be invested in exploring light aircraft carrier possibilities, so the loss of one ship does not jeopardize an entire operation. The refurbishing of the light carrier Varyag is a great place to start. The Varyag will support and protect the main naval combatants against threats from fighter jets, which is what the PLAN really needs. If they are looking for land attack capability, then a catapult capable carrier is more suitable, but that is not what the PLA desires (at least for now) - air superiority is more important. Also, if UCAVs are going to become more important in the future, then light carriers will be more than enough to accomodate them.

I like the idea of catamaran carriers (or even trimaran), because they are faster, more stable, and do not require deep harbors. Speed is a very important aspect on the open seas, not only for escaping incoming threats, but also for chasing down opponents and rushing to areas where needed. A missile strike on a catamaran hull will deal significant damage, but the same thing goes for the monohull. Space shouldn't be a problem, depending on how large the carrier has to be and how many planes are expected to land.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

At 65,000tons Varyag could not be described as a 'light carrier', a term more usually used to refer to ships around the 20,000ton or less mark. At the very least Varyag is in the upper reaches of the 'medium sized carrier' range, with the US CVNs in the super carrier range obviously.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

At 65,000tons Varyag could not be described as a 'light carrier', a term more usually used to refer to ships around the 20,000ton or less mark. At the very least Varyag is in the upper reaches of the 'medium sized carrier' range, with the US CVNs in the super carrier range obviously.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

At 65,000tons Varyag could not be described as a 'light carrier', a term more usually used to refer to ships around the 20,000ton or less mark. At the very least Varyag is in the upper reaches of the 'medium sized carrier' range, with the US CVNs in the super carrier range obviously.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:

At 65,000tons Varyag could not be described as a 'light carrier', a term more usually used to refer to ships around the 20,000ton or less mark. At the very least Varyag is in the upper reaches of the 'medium sized carrier' range, with the US CVNs in the super carrier range obviously.

Click to expand...

I would even put the Varyag and the Kuznetrzov at the low end of the Supercarrier range...particularly if they had cats. QE class will be the same IMHO.

De Gaulle, Sao Paulo, Vikramaditya, Vikrant are mdeium sized carriers in my mind.

Invincible, Asturias, Garibaldi, Cavour are light carriers.

Just my opinion if they had to be broken out by super, medium and light.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:

At 65,000tons Varyag could not be described as a 'light carrier', a term more usually used to refer to ships around the 20,000ton or less mark. At the very least Varyag is in the upper reaches of the 'medium sized carrier' range, with the US CVNs in the super carrier range obviously.

Click to expand...

I would even put the Varyag and the Kuznetrzov at the low end of the Supercarrier range...particularly if they had cats. QE class will be the same IMHO.

De Gaulle, Sao Paulo, Vikramaditya, Vikrant are mdeium sized carriers in my mind.

Invincible, Asturias, Garibaldi, Cavour are light carriers.

Just my opinion if they had to be broken out by super, medium and light.