PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Obi Wan...you have rendered my response wholly un-necessary. The vessels are conversions, meant to get as effective a platform on the seas as possible at as low a cot as possible so that many of them could be built in the fictional war scenario.

All you have said were considerations in coming up with the admittedly fictitous design. Thanks for articulating it so directly and clinically...better than I could have doen becaue of my emotional attachment through five years of work on the book series.

BTW, on the aft port and aft starboard sides, on the superstructure, there are CIWS...one on each side, in addition to the two up front...and yes, their are VLS cells forward, one set for AA work at flight deck level, and one below the level of the flight deck for the larger ASMs.

Click to expand...

Ah, CV wind limits. Raise your hand if you ever flew any naval aircraft from a real live warship at sea. Thought so. Here is a quote from the Natops Landing Signal Office Manual NAVAIR 00-80T-104 discussing wind over the deck requirements for landing on a CV. It should give you a flavor of some of the considerations the non experienced cannot even imagine.

"Turbulence and ramp burble increase significantly
with RHW values in excess of optimum, resulting in an
increased frequency of high landing gear loading.
Winds starboard of the angle also adversely affect
recovery conditions. The burble, aft of the ramp, becomes
stronger and moves closer to the ship as the magnitude
of recovery crosswind is increased. The airflow
disturbance requires corrective pilot technique if the recovery
crosswind exceeds 7 knots for all carriers. Even
with correctivep pilot technique, sinking speeds of 3 to 6 feet
per second in excess of those experienced during normal
(no recovery crosswind) operations can be expected. For
these reasons, recovery headwind should be maintained
as closely as possible to the optimum .velocity and the
centerline of the landing area. Shipboard aircraft recovery
operations with recovery crosswinds in excess of
those specified should be avoided. Refer to Aircraft Recovery
Bulletin No. 10-10."

Here is the link, read page 79 of the pdf:



Now if you look at the arrangement of the cats on most US carriers you will see the port bias. A CATOBAR carrier places the relative wind right down the angle deck. Any significant crosswind over the angle deck makes the trap extremely difficult and dangerous. There are a host of sources of turbulence aft of a carrier, including the shape of the "round down" at the aft edge of the landing area and the position of the superstructure. Nothing sticks up above the deck except the island and associated nearby masts. Notice too that the cats are either pointed directly forward or angled slightly to port. An aircraft launching is basically in extremis when it leaves the ship. There is a 10 to 20 foot drop in altitude as the aircraft leaves the ship. It is barely flying. Crosswind at this critical stage must be avoided. Jeff's design will not be able to launch while aircraft are being recovered as the cross wind component would be prohibitive. The carrier will always conduct flight ops with the landing area aligned with realtive wind so only one landing area is necessary. There is a reason the Nimitz class has been built the way it has for over three decades and that is because it is functional and efficient. Deck space is premium on any carrier and the arrangement of Nimitz elevators has been tuned over the years to maximize the speed with which aircraft may be moved from the landing area and struck below after a trap, or armed and brought to a cat for launch.
As for cost, Jeff's design duplicates all the expensive arrestor gear and would require two FLOLS, two ACLS's and two AMOAC's, basically all the approach guidance and automatic landing features would have to be duplicated as each of these are specific to an extended landing area centerline. This saves money???
Another way to approach an inexpensive carrier, and one I think the PLAN would be smart to adopt, is STOVL. China could fund the completion of the Yak-41 Freestyle for this purpose. Below is a discussion of the various condsiderations the RN had to examine when determining the shape and size of their flight and hanger decks. It is not a guessing game! Flight deck and ship size have a profound effect on the possible daily sortie rate obtainable, probably the most critical metric in a carrier's design. If the ship cannot support a high sortie rate for it's embarked air wing the ship fails. Period. There is also a discussion of hanger deck height, which in US carriers is around 7.5 meters. Have fun. This is the real deal, not fantasy.



A STOVL design built on a merchant ship hull makes a lot of sense and would be economical to do compared to a CATOBAR design.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

Here is a quote from the Natops Landing Signal Office Manual NAVAIR 00-80T-104 discussing wind over the deck requirements for landing on a CV. It should give you a flavor of some of the considerations the non experienced cannot even imagine...

Click to expand...

You make good points, as you did on the last post.

My point is not that those points your are making are inaccurate in the least.

For example, the portions from NAVAIR 00-80T-104 that you quote are not arguable and I do not attempt to argue them...but I believe they can be mitigated to one extent or another by the use the vessel and the operational technique developed for particular conditions. Clealry not to the optimal extent of a full carrier.

Clearly, there will be conditions where take-offs and landings will not be possible simultaneoulsy, perhaps far too many to make such a design usable. There will also be conditions where they are.

In addition the two sets of landing systems you describe would be a relative small cost compared to the whole.

Finally, and most importantly, the whole concept is for a fictional novel. I believe I responded on this thread initially to another posters request regarding the picture from the novel.

Let me make it clear, the specific X-Deck design was certainly not meant to be any kind of firm, set-in-concrete design requirement or consideraion for true life operations. It is interesting to talk about those consideration and weigh the pros and cons...but it is fairly academic.

But the concept of taking a container vessel and using it to develop a modular manufacturing methodology for potentially producing operational sea-control carriers is something that has been, and probably will continue to be, discussed.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

Here is a quote from the Natops Landing Signal Office Manual NAVAIR 00-80T-104 discussing wind over the deck requirements for landing on a CV. It should give you a flavor of some of the considerations the non experienced cannot even imagine...

Click to expand...

You make good points, as you did on the last post.

My point is not that those points your are making are inaccurate in the least.

For example, the portions from NAVAIR 00-80T-104 that you quote are not arguable and I do not attempt to argue them...but I believe they can be mitigated to one extent or another by the use the vessel and the operational technique developed for particular conditions. Clealry not to the optimal extent of a full carrier.

Clearly, there will be conditions where take-offs and landings will not be possible simultaneoulsy, perhaps far too many to make such a design usable. There will also be conditions where they are.

In addition the two sets of landing systems you describe would be a relative small cost compared to the whole.

Finally, and most importantly, the whole concept is for a fictional novel. I believe I responded on this thread initially to another posters request regarding the picture from the novel.

Let me make it clear, the specific X-Deck design was certainly not meant to be any kind of firm, set-in-concrete design requirement or consideraion for true life operations. It is interesting to talk about those consideration and weigh the pros and cons...but it is fairly academic.

But the concept of taking a container vessel and using it to develop a modular manufacturing methodology for potentially producing operational sea-control carriers is something that has been, and probably will continue to be, discussed.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

Here is a quote from the Natops Landing Signal Office Manual NAVAIR 00-80T-104 discussing wind over the deck requirements for landing on a CV. It should give you a flavor of some of the considerations the non experienced cannot even imagine...

Click to expand...

You make good points, as you did on the last post.

My point is not that those points your are making are inaccurate in the least.

For example, the portions from NAVAIR 00-80T-104 that you quote are not arguable and I do not attempt to argue them...but I believe they can be mitigated to one extent or another by the use the vessel and the operational technique developed for particular conditions. Clealry not to the optimal extent of a full carrier.

Clearly, there will be conditions where take-offs and landings will not be possible simultaneoulsy, perhaps far too many to make such a design usable. There will also be conditions where they are.

In addition the two sets of landing systems you describe would be a relative small cost compared to the whole.

Finally, and most importantly, the whole concept is for a fictional novel. I believe I responded on this thread initially to another posters request regarding the picture from the novel.

Let me make it clear, the specific X-Deck design was certainly not meant to be any kind of firm, set-in-concrete design requirement or consideraion for true life operations. It is interesting to talk about those consideration and weigh the pros and cons...but it is fairly academic.

But the concept of taking a container vessel and using it to develop a modular manufacturing methodology for potentially producing operational sea-control carriers is something that has been, and probably will continue to be, discussed.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff is not the only one who drew up the x-deck design, here's another one:


Realistically, the chance of China, or any other country building a X-Deck carrier today or in this century is probably zero.

Quick merchant ship refits/conversions are usable with rotary aircraft and possibly light VTOL aircraft (as seen in Falklands War). But as merchant ships they're not built to military specs.

Pre-WW2 the Japanese had purpose-built some fleet oilers for possible future conversion to light aircraft carriers. This would be an exception.

The difference between fiction vs. reality is, fiction explores "what if" and reality, in military matters, is measured by the actual beef patty on the burger and not what's advertised.

The PLAAF/PLAN has no VTOL or V/STOL fixed-wing combat aircraft in deployment, nor have we heard of any development projects. What we have heard, is possible sale of Su-33's. That's a burger patty with much more substance than what you see on an ad flyer.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff is not the only one who drew up the x-deck design, here's another one:


Realistically, the chance of China, or any other country building a X-Deck carrier today or in this century is probably zero.

Quick merchant ship refits/conversions are usable with rotary aircraft and possibly light VTOL aircraft (as seen in Falklands War). But as merchant ships they're not built to military specs.

Pre-WW2 the Japanese had purpose-built some fleet oilers for possible future conversion to light aircraft carriers. This would be an exception.

The difference between fiction vs. reality is, fiction explores "what if" and reality, in military matters, is measured by the actual beef patty on the burger and not what's advertised.

The PLAAF/PLAN has no VTOL or V/STOL fixed-wing combat aircraft in deployment, nor have we heard of any development projects. What we have heard, is possible sale of Su-33's. That's a burger patty with much more substance than what you see on an ad flyer.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff is not the only one who drew up the x-deck design, here's another one:


Realistically, the chance of China, or any other country building a X-Deck carrier today or in this century is probably zero.

Quick merchant ship refits/conversions are usable with rotary aircraft and possibly light VTOL aircraft (as seen in Falklands War). But as merchant ships they're not built to military specs.

Pre-WW2 the Japanese had purpose-built some fleet oilers for possible future conversion to light aircraft carriers. This would be an exception.

The difference between fiction vs. reality is, fiction explores "what if" and reality, in military matters, is measured by the actual beef patty on the burger and not what's advertised.

The PLAAF/PLAN has no VTOL or V/STOL fixed-wing combat aircraft in deployment, nor have we heard of any development projects. What we have heard, is possible sale of Su-33's. That's a burger patty with much more substance than what you see on an ad flyer.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The cost of A-gear and duplicate landing aids is not as insignificant as you imagine. The A gear takes up considerable under deck space and requires heavy machinery. This is not a trivial part of the design or the cost of a carrier.
The ability to launch and recover is essential. The do-all end-all of a carrier is it's daily sortie rate. All else is secondary. Go back and have a look at the RN analysis of their carrier in the CATOBAR and STOVL versions. Their original design with two small superstructures was adopted to maximize deck space for servicing and arming aircraft utilizing STOVL operations. Since the F-35B wil perform a vertical landing all the way aft, the rest of the runway area can be used for a rolling take off over the ski jump. In this manner aircraft may be launched and recovered similtaneously and over 100 sorties per day ( depending of airgroup size ) may be launched and recovered. When the ship is configured for cats and A-gear, if you look at the diagrams in that link I provided, you will see that both cats intrude on the landing area. Because of the placement of the forward island of the Queen Mary, the bow cat cannot be placed on the starboard side of the flight deck ( keep in mind the C-13B cat is 95 meters long, a shorter cat cuts into payload as the French discovered with their Charles de Gaulle class ). The double island configuration of the RN design forces the forward cat to port, and thus the JBD and part of the cat intrude into the landing area. This configuration will never permit launches and recoveries at the same time. The RN analysis of this states that the sortie rate of the CATOBAR version is only around 60% of the STOVL version. What saddens me about this is that had the RN adopted a single island aft, they could have built a flight deck much like the similarly sized USS Midway. On that old girl, neither bow cat intrudes into the landing area and it can conduct similtaneous launches and recoveries. The RN will be ok with it's STOVL ops on that design, but the French version with cats and A-gear will not support the pace of opertions of it's RN sisters.
This is why I will tell any who are interested that unless you have the resources to build something the size of a Kitty Hawk or Nimitz with enough flight deck acreage to accomdate full length cats that do not intrude into the landing area, and a long enough landing area to recover a modern twin engined fighter with it's ordinance ( so you do not have to throw away good ordinance to make landing weight ) it is more productive to build a good STOVL design. With STOVL you can land on a spot and use the bulk of the flight deck for your free deck take off. It is an easier technique to learn as well. RAF pilots picked it up in a few days during the Falklands Island war. China and any new carrier operator will be fully occupied just trying to sort out the many othere details of operating airplanes at sea. Flying instrument approaches to a moving navigation aid, where the "Marshalls" or holding patterns move in space along with the ship is a new skill for the land based pilot. Managing the flow of airplanes out of their marshalls onto fiinal approach ( deciding the "push time" for each aircraft ) that does not overwhelm the flight deck crew takes time to develop the necessary judgement. There are details like designing magazines and ordinance elevators that can move ordinance from the mags to weapons assembly areas ( usually a mess deck ) where fins and fuses are applied, then move the weapons up to the flight and hanger decks in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of an airwing. You do NOT want the ordinance department slowing your sortie rate simply because there is gridlock in the ordinance handling process, but you never want to take ordinance out of the protection of the magazine until right before it is needed ( Midway anyone ). There will be lots to learn about the job of "Mr Hands", the crew that has a mock up of the flight and hanger decks with models of the different aircraft who move these around to simulate recovering or launching aircraft. When a plane returns Mr Hands will already know where that plane must go to clear the landing area for the next recovery ( a plane who will now be low on fuel because they just dumped their fuel to make landing weight ). Mr Hands will give the yellow shirts on the flight deck directions on where to spot the plane after landing to prevent gridlock. You have no idea how crowded a flight deck is and how easy it is for planes to bump into each other if the process is not well thought out. These are tough skills to learn, and are more easily and safely accomplished on a STOVL design.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The cost of A-gear and duplicate landing aids is not as insignificant as you imagine. The A gear takes up considerable under deck space and requires heavy machinery. This is not a trivial part of the design or the cost of a carrier.
The ability to launch and recover is essential. The do-all end-all of a carrier is it's daily sortie rate. All else is secondary. Go back and have a look at the RN analysis of their carrier in the CATOBAR and STOVL versions. Their original design with two small superstructures was adopted to maximize deck space for servicing and arming aircraft utilizing STOVL operations. Since the F-35B wil perform a vertical landing all the way aft, the rest of the runway area can be used for a rolling take off over the ski jump. In this manner aircraft may be launched and recovered similtaneously and over 100 sorties per day ( depending of airgroup size ) may be launched and recovered. When the ship is configured for cats and A-gear, if you look at the diagrams in that link I provided, you will see that both cats intrude on the landing area. Because of the placement of the forward island of the Queen Mary, the bow cat cannot be placed on the starboard side of the flight deck ( keep in mind the C-13B cat is 95 meters long, a shorter cat cuts into payload as the French discovered with their Charles de Gaulle class ). The double island configuration of the RN design forces the forward cat to port, and thus the JBD and part of the cat intrude into the landing area. This configuration will never permit launches and recoveries at the same time. The RN analysis of this states that the sortie rate of the CATOBAR version is only around 60% of the STOVL version. What saddens me about this is that had the RN adopted a single island aft, they could have built a flight deck much like the similarly sized USS Midway. On that old girl, neither bow cat intrudes into the landing area and it can conduct similtaneous launches and recoveries. The RN will be ok with it's STOVL ops on that design, but the French version with cats and A-gear will not support the pace of opertions of it's RN sisters.
This is why I will tell any who are interested that unless you have the resources to build something the size of a Kitty Hawk or Nimitz with enough flight deck acreage to accomdate full length cats that do not intrude into the landing area, and a long enough landing area to recover a modern twin engined fighter with it's ordinance ( so you do not have to throw away good ordinance to make landing weight ) it is more productive to build a good STOVL design. With STOVL you can land on a spot and use the bulk of the flight deck for your free deck take off. It is an easier technique to learn as well. RAF pilots picked it up in a few days during the Falklands Island war. China and any new carrier operator will be fully occupied just trying to sort out the many othere details of operating airplanes at sea. Flying instrument approaches to a moving navigation aid, where the "Marshalls" or holding patterns move in space along with the ship is a new skill for the land based pilot. Managing the flow of airplanes out of their marshalls onto fiinal approach ( deciding the "push time" for each aircraft ) that does not overwhelm the flight deck crew takes time to develop the necessary judgement. There are details like designing magazines and ordinance elevators that can move ordinance from the mags to weapons assembly areas ( usually a mess deck ) where fins and fuses are applied, then move the weapons up to the flight and hanger decks in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of an airwing. You do NOT want the ordinance department slowing your sortie rate simply because there is gridlock in the ordinance handling process, but you never want to take ordinance out of the protection of the magazine until right before it is needed ( Midway anyone ). There will be lots to learn about the job of "Mr Hands", the crew that has a mock up of the flight and hanger decks with models of the different aircraft who move these around to simulate recovering or launching aircraft. When a plane returns Mr Hands will already know where that plane must go to clear the landing area for the next recovery ( a plane who will now be low on fuel because they just dumped their fuel to make landing weight ). Mr Hands will give the yellow shirts on the flight deck directions on where to spot the plane after landing to prevent gridlock. You have no idea how crowded a flight deck is and how easy it is for planes to bump into each other if the process is not well thought out. These are tough skills to learn, and are more easily and safely accomplished on a STOVL design.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

The cost of A-gear and duplicate landing aids is not as insignificant as you imagine. The A gear takes up considerable under deck space and requires heavy machinery. This is not a trivial part of the design or the cost of a carrier.
The ability to launch and recover is essential. The do-all end-all of a carrier is it's daily sortie rate. All else is secondary. Go back and have a look at the RN analysis of their carrier in the CATOBAR and STOVL versions. Their original design with two small superstructures was adopted to maximize deck space for servicing and arming aircraft utilizing STOVL operations. Since the F-35B wil perform a vertical landing all the way aft, the rest of the runway area can be used for a rolling take off over the ski jump. In this manner aircraft may be launched and recovered similtaneously and over 100 sorties per day ( depending of airgroup size ) may be launched and recovered. When the ship is configured for cats and A-gear, if you look at the diagrams in that link I provided, you will see that both cats intrude on the landing area. Because of the placement of the forward island of the Queen Mary, the bow cat cannot be placed on the starboard side of the flight deck ( keep in mind the C-13B cat is 95 meters long, a shorter cat cuts into payload as the French discovered with their Charles de Gaulle class ). The double island configuration of the RN design forces the forward cat to port, and thus the JBD and part of the cat intrude into the landing area. This configuration will never permit launches and recoveries at the same time. The RN analysis of this states that the sortie rate of the CATOBAR version is only around 60% of the STOVL version. What saddens me about this is that had the RN adopted a single island aft, they could have built a flight deck much like the similarly sized USS Midway. On that old girl, neither bow cat intrudes into the landing area and it can conduct similtaneous launches and recoveries. The RN will be ok with it's STOVL ops on that design, but the French version with cats and A-gear will not support the pace of opertions of it's RN sisters.
This is why I will tell any who are interested that unless you have the resources to build something the size of a Kitty Hawk or Nimitz with enough flight deck acreage to accomdate full length cats that do not intrude into the landing area, and a long enough landing area to recover a modern twin engined fighter with it's ordinance ( so you do not have to throw away good ordinance to make landing weight ) it is more productive to build a good STOVL design. With STOVL you can land on a spot and use the bulk of the flight deck for your free deck take off. It is an easier technique to learn as well. RAF pilots picked it up in a few days during the Falklands Island war. China and any new carrier operator will be fully occupied just trying to sort out the many othere details of operating airplanes at sea. Flying instrument approaches to a moving navigation aid, where the "Marshalls" or holding patterns move in space along with the ship is a new skill for the land based pilot. Managing the flow of airplanes out of their marshalls onto fiinal approach ( deciding the "push time" for each aircraft ) that does not overwhelm the flight deck crew takes time to develop the necessary judgement. There are details like designing magazines and ordinance elevators that can move ordinance from the mags to weapons assembly areas ( usually a mess deck ) where fins and fuses are applied, then move the weapons up to the flight and hanger decks in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of an airwing. You do NOT want the ordinance department slowing your sortie rate simply because there is gridlock in the ordinance handling process, but you never want to take ordinance out of the protection of the magazine until right before it is needed ( Midway anyone ). There will be lots to learn about the job of "Mr Hands", the crew that has a mock up of the flight and hanger decks with models of the different aircraft who move these around to simulate recovering or launching aircraft. When a plane returns Mr Hands will already know where that plane must go to clear the landing area for the next recovery ( a plane who will now be low on fuel because they just dumped their fuel to make landing weight ). Mr Hands will give the yellow shirts on the flight deck directions on where to spot the plane after landing to prevent gridlock. You have no idea how crowded a flight deck is and how easy it is for planes to bump into each other if the process is not well thought out. These are tough skills to learn, and are more easily and safely accomplished on a STOVL design.