PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
In the last days I played around a little with my initial design. I came up with the following:
The first inddigenous build carrier resembles the Varyag rather closely. It has a skyjump a one cat on the angled deck for AEW planes. It's slightly shorter and somewhat narrower than Varyag, and the island size has decreased. However, there are no missile silos in the hull. Instead there are HH-16 VLS in outside hull extension that also carry the deck.
If the chinese really start building it rather fast, this one may come online in 2012 perhaps.
The next one built is already a flattop. 310m long and the deck 70m wide. It now has four cats, an even smaller island and three lifts. It also further supports the idea to put VLS and CIWS on sponsons.
When the former CV gets commissioned and tested, this one may start building in 2015 perhaps and be ready for ops in 2020. It should be at 60k t perhaps.
These are both conventionally powered.
After that I could imagine a supercarrier will follow and be in service maybe 2027.
If PLAN decides to go to a flattop at once and only built one middle sized, perhaps the supercarrier can come online between 2020 and 2025. But I then doubt it would be fully mature.
In the last days I played around a little with my initial design. I came up with the following:
The first inddigenous build carrier resembles the Varyag rather closely. It has a skyjump a one cat on the angled deck for AEW planes. It's slightly shorter and somewhat narrower than Varyag, and the island size has decreased. However, there are no missile silos in the hull. Instead there are HH-16 VLS in outside hull extension that also carry the deck.
If the chinese really start building it rather fast, this one may come online in 2012 perhaps.
The next one built is already a flattop. 310m long and the deck 70m wide. It now has four cats, an even smaller island and three lifts. It also further supports the idea to put VLS and CIWS on sponsons.
When the former CV gets commissioned and tested, this one may start building in 2015 perhaps and be ready for ops in 2020. It should be at 60k t perhaps.
These are both conventionally powered.
After that I could imagine a supercarrier will follow and be in service maybe 2027.
If PLAN decides to go to a flattop at once and only built one middle sized, perhaps the supercarrier can come online between 2020 and 2025. But I then doubt it would be fully mature.
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
In the last days I played around a little with my initial design. I came up with the following:
The first inddigenous build carrier resembles the Varyag rather closely. It has a skyjump a one cat on the angled deck for AEW planes. It's slightly shorter and somewhat narrower than Varyag, and the island size has decreased. However, there are no missile silos in the hull. Instead there are HH-16 VLS in outside hull extension that also carry the deck.
If the chinese really start building it rather fast, this one may come online in 2012 perhaps.
The next one built is already a flattop. 310m long and the deck 70m wide. It now has four cats, an even smaller island and three lifts. It also further supports the idea to put VLS and CIWS on sponsons.
When the former CV gets commissioned and tested, this one may start building in 2015 perhaps and be ready for ops in 2020. It should be at 60k t perhaps.
These are both conventionally powered.
After that I could imagine a supercarrier will follow and be in service maybe 2027.
If PLAN decides to go to a flattop at once and only built one middle sized, perhaps the supercarrier can come online between 2020 and 2025. But I then doubt it would be fully mature.
In the last days I played around a little with my initial design. I came up with the following:
The first inddigenous build carrier resembles the Varyag rather closely. It has a skyjump a one cat on the angled deck for AEW planes. It's slightly shorter and somewhat narrower than Varyag, and the island size has decreased. However, there are no missile silos in the hull. Instead there are HH-16 VLS in outside hull extension that also carry the deck.
If the chinese really start building it rather fast, this one may come online in 2012 perhaps.
The next one built is already a flattop. 310m long and the deck 70m wide. It now has four cats, an even smaller island and three lifts. It also further supports the idea to put VLS and CIWS on sponsons.
When the former CV gets commissioned and tested, this one may start building in 2015 perhaps and be ready for ops in 2020. It should be at 60k t perhaps.
These are both conventionally powered.
After that I could imagine a supercarrier will follow and be in service maybe 2027.
If PLAN decides to go to a flattop at once and only built one middle sized, perhaps the supercarrier can come online between 2020 and 2025. But I then doubt it would be fully mature.
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
In the last days I played around a little with my initial design. I came up with the following:
The first inddigenous build carrier resembles the Varyag rather closely. It has a skyjump a one cat on the angled deck for AEW planes. It's slightly shorter and somewhat narrower than Varyag, and the island size has decreased. However, there are no missile silos in the hull. Instead there are HH-16 VLS in outside hull extension that also carry the deck.
If the chinese really start building it rather fast, this one may come online in 2012 perhaps.
The next one built is already a flattop. 310m long and the deck 70m wide. It now has four cats, an even smaller island and three lifts. It also further supports the idea to put VLS and CIWS on sponsons.
When the former CV gets commissioned and tested, this one may start building in 2015 perhaps and be ready for ops in 2020. It should be at 60k t perhaps.
These are both conventionally powered.
After that I could imagine a supercarrier will follow and be in service maybe 2027.
If PLAN decides to go to a flattop at once and only built one middle sized, perhaps the supercarrier can come online between 2020 and 2025. But I then doubt it would be fully mature.
In the last days I played around a little with my initial design. I came up with the following:
The first inddigenous build carrier resembles the Varyag rather closely. It has a skyjump a one cat on the angled deck for AEW planes. It's slightly shorter and somewhat narrower than Varyag, and the island size has decreased. However, there are no missile silos in the hull. Instead there are HH-16 VLS in outside hull extension that also carry the deck.
If the chinese really start building it rather fast, this one may come online in 2012 perhaps.
The next one built is already a flattop. 310m long and the deck 70m wide. It now has four cats, an even smaller island and three lifts. It also further supports the idea to put VLS and CIWS on sponsons.
When the former CV gets commissioned and tested, this one may start building in 2015 perhaps and be ready for ops in 2020. It should be at 60k t perhaps.
These are both conventionally powered.
After that I could imagine a supercarrier will follow and be in service maybe 2027.
If PLAN decides to go to a flattop at once and only built one middle sized, perhaps the supercarrier can come online between 2020 and 2025. But I then doubt it would be fully mature.
Re: What will the 1st PLAN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) look like?
This is wat I think. But I dont think the PLAN will do it anywhere.
1 Aircraft Carrier
2 DDG Type 052C
4 DDG Type 52B or DDG Type 051C
1 DDG Proj 956E
4 FFG Type 054A
4 or 6 SSN Type 093
2 or 3 Qiandaohu class Fuchi Class (That's the Supply Ship)
This is a Chinese military forum. No need to troll
This is wat I think. But I dont think the PLAN will do it anywhere.
1 Aircraft Carrier
2 DDG Type 052C
4 DDG Type 52B or DDG Type 051C
1 DDG Proj 956E
4 FFG Type 054A
4 or 6 SSN Type 093
2 or 3 Qiandaohu class Fuchi Class (That's the Supply Ship)
This is a Chinese military forum. No need to troll
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
To scratch, nice drawings
But if you master the catabult, then why just fitting it to the angled deck in the first version instead of fitting it to the bow as well? STOBAR provides no advantages towards CATOBAR other than the fact that you don't have to use the complicated catabult (with the benefit for great penalty to aircraft operations). So if in your design the catabult is already fitted, why limiting the ships aircapability with forcing the main combat aircraft use decreased playloads to get off from the skijump?
And to ami...
Exactly, and that very same modern shipbuilding industry is just starting to emerge and take more solid steps. But to get it started doesen't mean that its now ready for the biggest task any shipbuilding industry could have, to design and build workable super carrier.
Thats basicly "flowered" way to say (or more properly, an excuse) the same thing, they weren't capable to design more modern hull design. And whats wrong with the old hull? Well its old and outdated for starters. Luda class hulls were outdated even when the chinese strated to build them in the first place. Other navies in the world were building warships that were far more modern and cabaple and in facto generations ahead of the Ludas. For example the Type 42 class DDGs of UK, first unit launched in 1971, year before the first Luda was commisioned was basicly technologically the same class as the Chinese first modern destroyer Luhu class which was commisioned in early 90's!!. Only difference was that Type 42 had the Sea dart long range SAM, a feature that PLAN recieved first time with the 052C 40years later...
So whats wrong with outdated hulls? They have no change with other naval players..
Without enetering too much to the wonderfull world of road-designs (I've try to avoid it in my free time as much as possiple ) few things I wish to point out however. Like you said I wouldn't be able to design a motorway without first learning with smaller projects. That means I would have to succesfully design and build smaller roads and moving steadily to larger and more complicated roads. After mastering the basics of vertical and horizontal geography and the structure designing, I would start adding bridges, tunnels, multible driving lane-junctions and so on. And perhaps after years of of experience, I would be tasked to desing a multilane motorway.
But if you try to demostrate a 93,000 ton super carrier in road-designing world, it would resamble pretty much a 8-lane motorway build over a bridge for several dozen kilometers, goes above a metropol, and trough pretty large mountain...
If building supercarriers would be as easy as you make it look, why isen't there any other supercarriers, or even smaller conventional carriers being build in other countries than in those with decades of expereince in modern and large warship desinging?
To scratch, nice drawings
But if you master the catabult, then why just fitting it to the angled deck in the first version instead of fitting it to the bow as well? STOBAR provides no advantages towards CATOBAR other than the fact that you don't have to use the complicated catabult (with the benefit for great penalty to aircraft operations). So if in your design the catabult is already fitted, why limiting the ships aircapability with forcing the main combat aircraft use decreased playloads to get off from the skijump?
And to ami...
Exactly, and that very same modern shipbuilding industry is just starting to emerge and take more solid steps. But to get it started doesen't mean that its now ready for the biggest task any shipbuilding industry could have, to design and build workable super carrier.
Thats basicly "flowered" way to say (or more properly, an excuse) the same thing, they weren't capable to design more modern hull design. And whats wrong with the old hull? Well its old and outdated for starters. Luda class hulls were outdated even when the chinese strated to build them in the first place. Other navies in the world were building warships that were far more modern and cabaple and in facto generations ahead of the Ludas. For example the Type 42 class DDGs of UK, first unit launched in 1971, year before the first Luda was commisioned was basicly technologically the same class as the Chinese first modern destroyer Luhu class which was commisioned in early 90's!!. Only difference was that Type 42 had the Sea dart long range SAM, a feature that PLAN recieved first time with the 052C 40years later...
So whats wrong with outdated hulls? They have no change with other naval players..
Without enetering too much to the wonderfull world of road-designs (I've try to avoid it in my free time as much as possiple
) few things I wish to point out however. Like you said I wouldn't be able to design a motorway without first learning with smaller projects. That means I would have to succesfully design and build smaller roads and moving steadily to larger and more complicated roads. After mastering the basics of vertical and horizontal geography and the structure designing, I would start adding bridges, tunnels, multible driving lane-junctions and so on. And perhaps after years of of experience, I would be tasked to desing a multilane motorway.But if you try to demostrate a 93,000 ton super carrier in road-designing world, it would resamble pretty much a 8-lane motorway build over a bridge for several dozen kilometers, goes above a metropol, and trough pretty large mountain...
If building supercarriers would be as easy as you make it look, why isen't there any other supercarriers, or even smaller conventional carriers being build in other countries than in those with decades of expereince in modern and large warship desinging?
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
To scratch, nice drawings
But if you master the catabult, then why just fitting it to the angled deck in the first version instead of fitting it to the bow as well? STOBAR provides no advantages towards CATOBAR other than the fact that you don't have to use the complicated catabult (with the benefit for great penalty to aircraft operations). So if in your design the catabult is already fitted, why limiting the ships aircapability with forcing the main combat aircraft use decreased playloads to get off from the skijump?
And to ami...
Exactly, and that very same modern shipbuilding industry is just starting to emerge and take more solid steps. But to get it started doesen't mean that its now ready for the biggest task any shipbuilding industry could have, to design and build workable super carrier.
Thats basicly "flowered" way to say (or more properly, an excuse) the same thing, they weren't capable to design more modern hull design. And whats wrong with the old hull? Well its old and outdated for starters. Luda class hulls were outdated even when the chinese strated to build them in the first place. Other navies in the world were building warships that were far more modern and cabaple and in facto generations ahead of the Ludas. For example the Type 42 class DDGs of UK, first unit launched in 1971, year before the first Luda was commisioned was basicly technologically the same class as the Chinese first modern destroyer Luhu class which was commisioned in early 90's!!. Only difference was that Type 42 had the Sea dart long range SAM, a feature that PLAN recieved first time with the 052C 40years later...
So whats wrong with outdated hulls? They have no change with other naval players..
Without enetering too much to the wonderfull world of road-designs (I've try to avoid it in my free time as much as possiple ) few things I wish to point out however. Like you said I wouldn't be able to design a motorway without first learning with smaller projects. That means I would have to succesfully design and build smaller roads and moving steadily to larger and more complicated roads. After mastering the basics of vertical and horizontal geography and the structure designing, I would start adding bridges, tunnels, multible driving lane-junctions and so on. And perhaps after years of of experience, I would be tasked to desing a multilane motorway.
But if you try to demostrate a 93,000 ton super carrier in road-designing world, it would resamble pretty much a 8-lane motorway build over a bridge for several dozen kilometers, goes above a metropol, and trough pretty large mountain...
If building supercarriers would be as easy as you make it look, why isen't there any other supercarriers, or even smaller conventional carriers being build in other countries than in those with decades of expereince in modern and large warship desinging?
To scratch, nice drawings
But if you master the catabult, then why just fitting it to the angled deck in the first version instead of fitting it to the bow as well? STOBAR provides no advantages towards CATOBAR other than the fact that you don't have to use the complicated catabult (with the benefit for great penalty to aircraft operations). So if in your design the catabult is already fitted, why limiting the ships aircapability with forcing the main combat aircraft use decreased playloads to get off from the skijump?
And to ami...
Exactly, and that very same modern shipbuilding industry is just starting to emerge and take more solid steps. But to get it started doesen't mean that its now ready for the biggest task any shipbuilding industry could have, to design and build workable super carrier.
Thats basicly "flowered" way to say (or more properly, an excuse) the same thing, they weren't capable to design more modern hull design. And whats wrong with the old hull? Well its old and outdated for starters. Luda class hulls were outdated even when the chinese strated to build them in the first place. Other navies in the world were building warships that were far more modern and cabaple and in facto generations ahead of the Ludas. For example the Type 42 class DDGs of UK, first unit launched in 1971, year before the first Luda was commisioned was basicly technologically the same class as the Chinese first modern destroyer Luhu class which was commisioned in early 90's!!. Only difference was that Type 42 had the Sea dart long range SAM, a feature that PLAN recieved first time with the 052C 40years later...
So whats wrong with outdated hulls? They have no change with other naval players..
Without enetering too much to the wonderfull world of road-designs (I've try to avoid it in my free time as much as possiple
) few things I wish to point out however. Like you said I wouldn't be able to design a motorway without first learning with smaller projects. That means I would have to succesfully design and build smaller roads and moving steadily to larger and more complicated roads. After mastering the basics of vertical and horizontal geography and the structure designing, I would start adding bridges, tunnels, multible driving lane-junctions and so on. And perhaps after years of of experience, I would be tasked to desing a multilane motorway.But if you try to demostrate a 93,000 ton super carrier in road-designing world, it would resamble pretty much a 8-lane motorway build over a bridge for several dozen kilometers, goes above a metropol, and trough pretty large mountain...
If building supercarriers would be as easy as you make it look, why isen't there any other supercarriers, or even smaller conventional carriers being build in other countries than in those with decades of expereince in modern and large warship desinging?
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
To scratch, nice drawings
But if you master the catabult, then why just fitting it to the angled deck in the first version instead of fitting it to the bow as well? STOBAR provides no advantages towards CATOBAR other than the fact that you don't have to use the complicated catabult (with the benefit for great penalty to aircraft operations). So if in your design the catabult is already fitted, why limiting the ships aircapability with forcing the main combat aircraft use decreased playloads to get off from the skijump?
And to ami...
Exactly, and that very same modern shipbuilding industry is just starting to emerge and take more solid steps. But to get it started doesen't mean that its now ready for the biggest task any shipbuilding industry could have, to design and build workable super carrier.
Thats basicly "flowered" way to say (or more properly, an excuse) the same thing, they weren't capable to design more modern hull design. And whats wrong with the old hull? Well its old and outdated for starters. Luda class hulls were outdated even when the chinese strated to build them in the first place. Other navies in the world were building warships that were far more modern and cabaple and in facto generations ahead of the Ludas. For example the Type 42 class DDGs of UK, first unit launched in 1971, year before the first Luda was commisioned was basicly technologically the same class as the Chinese first modern destroyer Luhu class which was commisioned in early 90's!!. Only difference was that Type 42 had the Sea dart long range SAM, a feature that PLAN recieved first time with the 052C 40years later...
So whats wrong with outdated hulls? They have no change with other naval players..
Without enetering too much to the wonderfull world of road-designs (I've try to avoid it in my free time as much as possiple ) few things I wish to point out however. Like you said I wouldn't be able to design a motorway without first learning with smaller projects. That means I would have to succesfully design and build smaller roads and moving steadily to larger and more complicated roads. After mastering the basics of vertical and horizontal geography and the structure designing, I would start adding bridges, tunnels, multible driving lane-junctions and so on. And perhaps after years of of experience, I would be tasked to desing a multilane motorway.
But if you try to demostrate a 93,000 ton super carrier in road-designing world, it would resamble pretty much a 8-lane motorway build over a bridge for several dozen kilometers, goes above a metropol, and trough pretty large mountain...
If building supercarriers would be as easy as you make it look, why isen't there any other supercarriers, or even smaller conventional carriers being build in other countries than in those with decades of expereince in modern and large warship desinging?
To scratch, nice drawings
But if you master the catabult, then why just fitting it to the angled deck in the first version instead of fitting it to the bow as well? STOBAR provides no advantages towards CATOBAR other than the fact that you don't have to use the complicated catabult (with the benefit for great penalty to aircraft operations). So if in your design the catabult is already fitted, why limiting the ships aircapability with forcing the main combat aircraft use decreased playloads to get off from the skijump?
And to ami...
Exactly, and that very same modern shipbuilding industry is just starting to emerge and take more solid steps. But to get it started doesen't mean that its now ready for the biggest task any shipbuilding industry could have, to design and build workable super carrier.
Thats basicly "flowered" way to say (or more properly, an excuse) the same thing, they weren't capable to design more modern hull design. And whats wrong with the old hull? Well its old and outdated for starters. Luda class hulls were outdated even when the chinese strated to build them in the first place. Other navies in the world were building warships that were far more modern and cabaple and in facto generations ahead of the Ludas. For example the Type 42 class DDGs of UK, first unit launched in 1971, year before the first Luda was commisioned was basicly technologically the same class as the Chinese first modern destroyer Luhu class which was commisioned in early 90's!!. Only difference was that Type 42 had the Sea dart long range SAM, a feature that PLAN recieved first time with the 052C 40years later...
So whats wrong with outdated hulls? They have no change with other naval players..
Without enetering too much to the wonderfull world of road-designs (I've try to avoid it in my free time as much as possiple
) few things I wish to point out however. Like you said I wouldn't be able to design a motorway without first learning with smaller projects. That means I would have to succesfully design and build smaller roads and moving steadily to larger and more complicated roads. After mastering the basics of vertical and horizontal geography and the structure designing, I would start adding bridges, tunnels, multible driving lane-junctions and so on. And perhaps after years of of experience, I would be tasked to desing a multilane motorway.But if you try to demostrate a 93,000 ton super carrier in road-designing world, it would resamble pretty much a 8-lane motorway build over a bridge for several dozen kilometers, goes above a metropol, and trough pretty large mountain...
If building supercarriers would be as easy as you make it look, why isen't there any other supercarriers, or even smaller conventional carriers being build in other countries than in those with decades of expereince in modern and large warship desinging?
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
Well, the idea was that they perhaps want to build a carrier for experiance/ training/ ideological purposes without having mastered the cat tech to a sufficient degree to rely completely on it.
Things like they can't produce enough steam or electricity to operate four cats while still making sufficient headway. Or the reliability is poor, so it won't work every time when needed.
So, I could have made two cats on the angled deck. AEW planes or Su-33 in strike roles could use the cats, while A-A/ CAP fighters take off the skyjump.
That's a way to speed up air-ops when you can only operate two cats anyway or to have an emergency reserve in case the cats won't work properly.
To scratch, nice drawings
But if you master the catabult, then why just fitting it to the angled deck in the first version instead of fitting it to the bow as well? STOBAR provides no advantages towards CATOBAR other than the fact that you don't have to use the complicated catabult (with the benefit for great penalty to aircraft operations). So if in your design the catabult is already fitted, why limiting the ships aircapability with forcing the main combat aircraft use decreased playloads to get off from the skijump?
Well, the idea was that they perhaps want to build a carrier for experiance/ training/ ideological purposes without having mastered the cat tech to a sufficient degree to rely completely on it.
Things like they can't produce enough steam or electricity to operate four cats while still making sufficient headway. Or the reliability is poor, so it won't work every time when needed.
So, I could have made two cats on the angled deck. AEW planes or Su-33 in strike roles could use the cats, while A-A/ CAP fighters take off the skyjump.
That's a way to speed up air-ops when you can only operate two cats anyway or to have an emergency reserve in case the cats won't work properly.
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread
Well, the idea was that they perhaps want to build a carrier for experiance/ training/ ideological purposes without having mastered the cat tech to a sufficient degree to rely completely on it.
Things like they can't produce enough steam or electricity to operate four cats while still making sufficient headway. Or the reliability is poor, so it won't work every time when needed.
So, I could have made two cats on the angled deck. AEW planes or Su-33 in strike roles could use the cats, while A-A/ CAP fighters take off the skyjump.
That's a way to speed up air-ops when you can only operate two cats anyway or to have an emergency reserve in case the cats won't work properly.
To scratch, nice drawings
But if you master the catabult, then why just fitting it to the angled deck in the first version instead of fitting it to the bow as well? STOBAR provides no advantages towards CATOBAR other than the fact that you don't have to use the complicated catabult (with the benefit for great penalty to aircraft operations). So if in your design the catabult is already fitted, why limiting the ships aircapability with forcing the main combat aircraft use decreased playloads to get off from the skijump?
Well, the idea was that they perhaps want to build a carrier for experiance/ training/ ideological purposes without having mastered the cat tech to a sufficient degree to rely completely on it.
Things like they can't produce enough steam or electricity to operate four cats while still making sufficient headway. Or the reliability is poor, so it won't work every time when needed.
So, I could have made two cats on the angled deck. AEW planes or Su-33 in strike roles could use the cats, while A-A/ CAP fighters take off the skyjump.
That's a way to speed up air-ops when you can only operate two cats anyway or to have an emergency reserve in case the cats won't work properly.