PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Launching Su-33 from a Catapult.

Is it a serious assumption that China had alreay determined to develop its own Steam-powered Catapult system, but was about to choose the imported Su-33 as its launching aircraft?

Here are the reasons to believe so:

First, from the technical perspective, the development of both shipboard aircraft and the Steam-powered Catapult system at the same time is going to be an insurmountable mountain for China to achieve. It would be more practical and promising to focus on one single subject in order to poure all the resources into its development to guarantee the success. And since the Su-33 has already been proven to be a high performance shipboard aircraft, there shall be no need to develop a new kind of fighter which is unlikely to outperfrom it. Besides, what the Su-33 really lacks of is its inability to take off from an aircraft with full fuel and maximum armaments configuration. Launching from a catapult could solve that dilemma almost immediately and could take off with the weight that has never been attempted in the past. Such an arrangement will enable China to organize a credible fleet air power in a relatively short time, both effectively and swiftly.

Second, the developing of Steam Catapult system also has its political significance, to symbolize China's determination and capacity to overtake the technical gaps caused by the decades' long embargo on all high-tech related products, to let the world know that China has already possessed many key technologies learned from the economic development in recent years and China will finally catch up with the Western powers in military terms whether or not there is an arms embargo exists.

Most recently, from virous talk show programs shown on CCTV-7, a state run military channel, the invited guests were all trying to give the audience a belief about their thinkings on naval aviation that the Stem Catapult is a far more better solution to an aircraft carrier launching system, the other choices such as ski-jump take-off or vertical take-off all got some major defects and only were substitute choices for those who were either lacking of the economic strength or technical capabilities. Somehow, as you were listening to those comments, you would just simply come to believe that China had already made up his mind and maybe had already been working on it to built an aircraft carrier equiped with the Stem Catapult system.

I have noticed that there were several major changes in the attitude towards how much the general public could get to know in the decision-making of China's defence strategy. I think these changes are in line with the CMC's promises to increase the transparency in China's military affairs. And I am glad to see such an improvement, not only because it is right, but also as an ordinary military fan, I could get much more in real than mere rumors in the future.

Mods note: Please do not post your email addres. After you make 15 post you may use your sinodefense mailbox to privately converse with other members. there you may post your email address.

Re: What will the 1st PLAN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) look like?

a real blue water navy can't be made with subs only - they need carriers and CBGs to protect the sea lines (threatened by planes to) ...

so my five cents:
1 Aircraft Carrier
2 DDG Type 051 C Luzhou Class
1 DDG Type 052 C Luyang-II Class
2 DDG Type 052 B Luyang Class
1 DDG Type 051 B Luhai Class
1 DDG Proj 956 or 956E Sovremenny Class
4 FFG Type 054 or 054A Jiangkai (-II) Class
2 or 3 SSN Type 093 Shang Class
1 or 2 Qiandaohu (Fuchi) Class (That's the Supply Ship)
1 Qinghaihu (Nancang Class) replenishment ship

I prefer the 051 C instead of 052 C for CBGs
- a carrier escort don't need hangar space (there is enough with the carrier) but more speed;
the 051 C will have a max speed of 30kts (like the 051B - NATO codename: Luhai - class) instead of the 29 kts, which is sad to be the speed of 052 C.

Re: Launching Su-33 from a Catapult.

"Is it a serious assumption that China had alreay determined to develop its own Steam-powered Catapult system, but was about to chose the imported Su-33 as its launching aircraft?"

I do not understand this statement. Please clearify.

Carriers vs Fixed Bases in the 21st Century

The US has a massive investment in its fixed overseas bases, which combined with its Carrier groups, are the main mechanisms for delivering power projection.

Is this however a military philosophy which is becoming increasingly obsolete and indeed, a relic of the thinking of the 18th Century. Is it now possible for a new Power, to achieve an approximate parity in Power Projection ability, but through a handful of regional supply bases and more modern Carriers?

We know that China is looking to open Bases in Burma and Pakistan to better facilitate its imports or raw materials and that it will need to have some forces based there in order to ensure those supply lines. But what will the actual structure be?

Both Bases and Carriers have advantages and drawbacks, but I begin to suspect that the costs of maintaining a large number of bases is going to be prohibitive and that "economic" competition in the ability to provide a military presence could well be a factor of this Century, especially if the "Service Providers" are looking to pass on an element of those costs to its Client states.

Using the Hub and Spokes system of a few bases and a larger number of Carriers, is the Military equivalent of "Just in Time" in so far that you have the capability to deploy your forces in the vicinities where they are needed at the time that they are required and can be redeployed when the crisis is over and without troubling the locals with a permanent intrusive presence.

As the emerging power, China has a real opportunity to pioneer such an approach, whilst the USA; whilst undoubtedly recognising the reality of the situation, will have huge political difficulty in effecting the structural changes to its Military Industrial Complex, that such recognition will require.

It could get very interesting.

Re: Carriers vs Fixed Bases in the 21st Century

I don't think that theory has a slightest chance to become ture for the time being. Because if it was really on the agenda, to station troops beyond its own territory, the Chinese government wouldn't constantly reiterate its defence policy as defensive and focused on interal affairs, of course, including Taiwan issue.

If what you said had become true in the near future, that would largely contradict the foreign policy which was upheld by Chinese government.

Besides, China doesn't have that large overseas interests which need military presence to protect it, On the other hand, that act would definitely further provoke that already sensitive nerve of the U.S. in fears of the increasing power of China, which was seen as a threat to U.S.

China wants to gain strength and power, thus he knows it would be unwise to stand against the U.S. at this very junction. To set overseas bases would serve nothing good for China more than an act of suicide.

Re: Launching Su-33 from a Catapult.

Sorry, my English expressing capability is limited. I mean China seems in favor of the U.S. prototype in aircraft carrier design, especially the catapult part, saw it as an indispensable part for its furture aircraft carrier designing. On the other hand, the Su-33 would be largely possible to be chosen as the designated shipboard aircraft.

I don't know if you could get it this time, after all I have tried my best.

Re: Carriers vs Fixed Bases in the 21st Century

Dont limit yourself to the here and now, but try and plan ahead for the next few decades.

As is mentioned in another thread, the Pakistan port of Gwadar is being used as a major hub/terminal for China's imports and exports linking to its Western Regions and Central Asia. It would certianly make sense as an Oil terminal from many parts of Africa, especially the Sudan.

You will also note that it represents an ideal supply point for a permenant Chinese/SCO Naval presence in the Arabian Sea, good for Aircraft Carriers and absolutely perfect for Submarines.

During the coming century I can see little reason whu China would not wish to combine a Regional Military mainly Naval presence with its major supply Hubs. Yes you are right China professes not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, but it also claims the right to defend its own interests, especially on the High Seas, so such a deployment of Naval Assets would not be a contradiction of its established long term Foriegn Policy.

Finally of course, my interest in exploring the attributes of a lighter and more mobile regional miltary structural presence against the more traditional ones are not restricted to the Chinese but also other emerging and established powers.

China is of course a Prime candidate for having the will, the means and the requirement to build such a network.

Re: Launching Su-33 from a Catapult.

Well, if you mean China would like a CATOBAR or flattop carrier instead of a skyjump/STOBAR version, it isn't suprising since the first one is the superior one. With catapults you can launch heavier loaded aircraft.
The Su-33 is a proven carrier aircraft design and therefore it makes sense for China to have an eye on it. Though the Su-33 was only used on skyjumps yet, I would think making it cat-capable should be quiet possible. I haven't spotted the bar on the front gear to hook up on the cat, but I think it could be applied.
I think in the early stages, the carrier version of the Su-27 was envisioned for a CATOBAR CV but that was dropped for obvious reasons.

Re: Launching Su-33 from a Catapult.

I've long believed that as the SU-33 was designed with a stronger airframe than the SU-27 for carrier landings, this strengthening process must have included stressing the airframe to with stand catapult launches (the third Soviet CV was scheduled to have steam catapults and these would most likely have been retrofitted to the first two ships). Since the nosewheel is a fairly standard (ie non nose tow type) then I would expect the wire bridle method to be used, this only requires two small spools to be fitted under the fuselage to strengthened parts of the airframe. Nose Tow would require the complete replacement of the SU-33s nose gear as it isn't just the tow bar, but the support strut (the one at 45 degrees leading back from the tow bar) which actually takes the strain of the launch. Models of earlier Soviet CV projects show catapults with bridle catchers attached, probably as a result of soviet spies gaining access to older catapult technology, still viable and more than adequate for the task. The PLANAF is buying SU-33s, so assuming they are designed for wire bridle catapult launches (I'm reaching here, bear with me) then it would be logical to assume the first chinese catapults would be wire bridle type too. Add to this the fact that the only complete catapult known to have been examined by the chinese was a wire bridle type (HMAS Melbourne) then it becomes more plausible. This does not preclude nose tow type from using the same catapults, as the USN did this for many years until the older types had been phased out of service (note the removal of bridle catchers from US CVNs in recent years).

Re: Carriers vs Fixed Bases in the 21st Century

SampanViking said:

As is mentioned in another thread, the Pakistan port of Gwadar is being used as a major hub/terminal for China's imports and exports linking to its Western Regions and Central Asia. It would certianly make sense as an Oil terminal from many parts of Africa, especially the Sudan.

Click to expand...

Mixing civilian and military shipping in crowded port areas is a bad idea. The Indians tried it in that part of the world and it didn't work out. Waiting for merchantmen to (un)load cargo is a pain in the rear.