Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier
Not in my opinion. An airship is to large and to slow..making it a great target.
Not in my opinion. An airship is to large and to slow..making it a great target.
PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier
Well an airship doesn't necessarily have to have many metal parts which could help with stealth and make it more survivable but the main problem is that I don't think it could keep up with the fleet, and certainly not with fighter aircraft if that was required in a situation.
Well an airship doesn't necessarily have to have many metal parts which could help with stealth and make it more survivable but the main problem is that I don't think it could keep up with the fleet, and certainly not with fighter aircraft if that was required in a situation.
Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier
Good points! In addition where will it be based? If the CVSG(Carrier strike Group) deploys you need a foward base..something the PLAN sorely lacks.
ffSpeaking of carriers..A TV program named "Carriers" all about the USS Nimitz airs tonite on PBS(Public Broadcast System) in the US. Don't miss it!! True insight on the crew and inter workings of a CVN!
ff
Good points! In addition where will it be based? If the CVSG(Carrier strike Group) deploys you need a foward base..something the PLAN sorely lacks.
ffSpeaking of carriers..A TV program named "Carriers" all about the USS Nimitz airs tonite on PBS(Public Broadcast System) in the US. Don't miss it!! True insight on the crew and inter workings of a CVN!ff
Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier
An airship based AEW platform could be based aboard an auxilliary, eg a replenishment vessel with helo facilities provided the flight deck was large enough, as such it could keep within reach of the CVSG. Most airships around today have enough speed to patrol ahead of any warship but transit time to it's patrol area is far from ideal. It wouldn't have to keep pace with the fighters as they go ahead to investigate contacts and the airship would necessarily hang back out of harms way. American E-2s likewise stay out of harms way as much as possible , hence the need for long range radars. If an enemy aircraft gets within missile firing range of an AEW platform then something has gone seriously wrong somewhere, as it should be able to vector it's own fighters on to the threat long before it is in danger itself.
Having said that, I believe a ship based aircraft solution to AEW is best, and as a first step an exsisting aircraft design should be adapted, ie a twin turboprop preferrably with a degree of STOL performance. It doesn't have to be large, or even comparable in size to the Hawkeye necessarily, as it would be a first step to provide a degree of AEW cover to the fleet (which will always be better than no cover at all). A light STOL turboprop aircraft which could operate from a STOBAR carrier like Varyag without catapult assitance to launch (taking off from the angled deck, as propeller aircraft aren't usually considered suitable for ski jump launches) would be my first choice for this problem, which could then lead to something more substantial later on.
An airship based AEW platform could be based aboard an auxilliary, eg a replenishment vessel with helo facilities provided the flight deck was large enough, as such it could keep within reach of the CVSG. Most airships around today have enough speed to patrol ahead of any warship but transit time to it's patrol area is far from ideal. It wouldn't have to keep pace with the fighters as they go ahead to investigate contacts and the airship would necessarily hang back out of harms way. American E-2s likewise stay out of harms way as much as possible , hence the need for long range radars. If an enemy aircraft gets within missile firing range of an AEW platform then something has gone seriously wrong somewhere, as it should be able to vector it's own fighters on to the threat long before it is in danger itself.
Having said that, I believe a ship based aircraft solution to AEW is best, and as a first step an exsisting aircraft design should be adapted, ie a twin turboprop preferrably with a degree of STOL performance. It doesn't have to be large, or even comparable in size to the Hawkeye necessarily, as it would be a first step to provide a degree of AEW cover to the fleet (which will always be better than no cover at all). A light STOL turboprop aircraft which could operate from a STOBAR carrier like Varyag without catapult assitance to launch (taking off from the angled deck, as propeller aircraft aren't usually considered suitable for ski jump launches) would be my first choice for this problem, which could then lead to something more substantial later on.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier
I am thinking the PLAN will use helicopter-based AEW assets first to familiarize themselves with the tactics. They can either purchase the Kamov Ka-31 AEW from Russia, or develop their own based off the Z-8 platform.
From there, if the Chinese choose to pursue a true fleet carrier, they can develop a family of aircraft that can be modified for fixed wing ASW, AEW, and COD. They do need to develop the tactics and the experience of operating one off a carrier though.
I am thinking the PLAN will use helicopter-based AEW assets first to familiarize themselves with the tactics. They can either purchase the Kamov Ka-31 AEW from Russia, or develop their own based off the Z-8 platform.
From there, if the Chinese choose to pursue a true fleet carrier, they can develop a family of aircraft that can be modified for fixed wing ASW, AEW, and COD. They do need to develop the tactics and the experience of operating one off a carrier though.
Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier
Yes that's what I was getting at. What I meant was the issue with transit time; if you ever had to "take a peak" and extend your radar coverage in one direction by moving your AWACS, an airship would take much too long.
Yes that's what I was getting at. What I meant was the issue with transit time; if you ever had to "take a peak" and extend your radar coverage in one direction by moving your AWACS, an airship would take much too long.
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
The more I research them, the more the Horizon and Daring types impress me, but I think phased arrays are a better way forward for PLAN, and the HQ-9 should still form the focus of primary AD escorts. My design is slowly shaping up and looks very European. The rear HQ-9 complexes are removed, and it will have 1 or 2 76mm guns as CIWS, possibly with 35mm AAA with AHEAD ammo also.
I think I might make it multi-hull. There's space for SSMs but I don't think it'd carry them.
The more I research them, the more the Horizon and Daring types impress me, but I think phased arrays are a better way forward for PLAN, and the HQ-9 should still form the focus of primary AD escorts. My design is slowly shaping up and looks very European. The rear HQ-9 complexes are removed, and it will have 1 or 2 76mm guns as CIWS, possibly with 35mm AAA with AHEAD ammo also.
I think I might make it multi-hull. There's space for SSMs but I don't think it'd carry them.
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
the ones on 052C are phased array radars. They just happen to be 4 faced stationary type rather than rotating type. Actually, Sampson is 2 faced compared to single face for EMPAR, so it's more advanced. They also do have a sampson like radar testing on 891 right now.
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
Sorta type-022 influence on the outriggers (but in a layout hydro-dynamically tested and proposed by the french, so not completely ridiculous). Funnel removed because gas exhausts between hulls for much reduced IR signature.
I am tempted to put four or more Type-022 style stealthy missile bins on top of the outriggers but I'm resisting over-arming it. Instead, I think PLAN should concentrate on much improved facilities for surgery, command and living, so that the ship acts as a flagship. Along those lines of thinking I've resisted adding extra HHQ-9 positions aft.
Sorta type-022 influence on the outriggers (but in a layout hydro-dynamically tested and proposed by the french, so not completely ridiculous). Funnel removed because gas exhausts between hulls for much reduced IR signature.
I am tempted to put four or more Type-022 style stealthy missile bins on top of the outriggers but I'm resisting over-arming it. Instead, I think PLAN should concentrate on much improved facilities for surgery, command and living, so that the ship acts as a flagship. Along those lines of thinking I've resisted adding extra HHQ-9 positions aft.