PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Ryz05 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ryz05 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ryz05 said:

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.

Click to expand...

adeptitus said:

Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.

Click to expand...

adeptitus said:

Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.

Click to expand...

adeptitus said:

Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.

Click to expand...

as USN carriers don't normally carry 90 aircraft these days????

Click to expand...

as USN carriers don't normally carry 90 aircraft these days????

Click to expand...

as USN carriers don't normally carry 90 aircraft these days????

Click to expand...

bd popeye said:

No they do not.. No more S-3's in most airwings and no Tomcats. Only one Super Hornet squadron has replaced the two Tomcat squadrons.

Typical make up of a present day USN CVW;

48 Hornets & Super Hornets
4 E/A-6B Prowlers
4 4 E-2C Hawkeyes
6-10 SH-60 Seahawks

62-66 total aircraft.

There may also be two C-2 Greyhound logistic suppourt aircraft on board.

Click to expand...