PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

man overbored said:

There is at least five years of fitting out if China started today to make that ship operational. Carriers take a decade to build, and this one was only seventy percent complete when sold to China. Now this hull is so old it will require a lot of existing equipment to be ripped out to be overhauled or replaced and the entire electronics and armament package will have to created from scratch and installed. I seriously doubt China will be able to obtain the same equipment used on Kuznetsov, doing so would give it a weapons system fit unique in the Chinese Navy making the logistics support and training for this one ship a unique nightmare, so China will have to design and fit something very different from what the ship's original designers. This won't happen quickly.

Click to expand...

The PLAN has had it in their naval shipyards since 2003, and she was in for extensive dry dock work in 2005.

We do not know what has happened to her internally in that time, but we do know that work has gone on in her internal spaces throughout this time period.

Externally, they have completey re-outiftted the hull, painted her, and completely revitalized the deck, including what appeared to be a zinc chromate primer and then the final non-skid surface in 2006-2007.

Lots of work has been done...we just do not know how much, particularly internally.

Here's a good site I put together regarding it:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, I neve saw this response. I will respond now.

Having the approach come in from the angles as the aircraft do, the heading of the vessel to take advantage of the headwind, from whatever direction it was originating from, and the design of that aft superstructure itself, could all go a long ways in significantly reducing or eleminating any harmful turbulence to non-harmful levels.

[qimg]http://www.jeffhead.com/dragonsfury/PLAN-CV-DFS-XDeck.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Very interesting design. If this ship is based on container/tanker design, I guess it is possible (at least in the fiction world) to build larger versions of this ship. Some supertankers are over 300,000 tons in displacement. China's shipyards are capable of building really big oil tankers and container ships.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, I neve saw this response. I will respond now.

Having the approach come in from the angles as the aircraft do, the heading of the vessel to take advantage of the headwind, from whatever direction it was originating from, and the design of that aft superstructure itself, could all go a long ways in significantly reducing or eleminating any harmful turbulence to non-harmful levels.

[qimg]http://www.jeffhead.com/dragonsfury/PLAN-CV-DFS-XDeck.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Very interesting design. If this ship is based on container/tanker design, I guess it is possible (at least in the fiction world) to build larger versions of this ship. Some supertankers are over 300,000 tons in displacement. China's shipyards are capable of building really big oil tankers and container ships.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, I neve saw this response. I will respond now.

Having the approach come in from the angles as the aircraft do, the heading of the vessel to take advantage of the headwind, from whatever direction it was originating from, and the design of that aft superstructure itself, could all go a long ways in significantly reducing or eleminating any harmful turbulence to non-harmful levels.

[qimg]http://www.jeffhead.com/dragonsfury/PLAN-CV-DFS-XDeck.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Very interesting design. If this ship is based on container/tanker design, I guess it is possible (at least in the fiction world) to build larger versions of this ship. Some supertankers are over 300,000 tons in displacement. China's shipyards are capable of building really big oil tankers and container ships.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

F40Racer said:

Very interesting design. If this ship is based on container/tanker design, I guess it is possible (at least in the fiction world) to build larger versions of this ship. Some supertankers are over 300,000 tons in displacement. China's shipyards are capable of building really big oil tankers and container ships.

Click to expand...

There is one reason why warships, especially those that go into harm's way, are built to military specifications, and are totally different animals compared to civilian ships. On carriers, it is even more dangerous due to the vast quantities of aviation fuel onboard. The many carrier fires the USN had with their carriers over the past 50 years is perhaps a very vivid reminder of the dangers so much aviation spirits in such a confined hull.

You board any merchant ship out there and you see fewer hose stations, fewer water tight bulkheads, fewer escape hatches in all spaces, fewer first aid stations, fewer damage control and fewer life rafts compared to a military ship. Merchant ships are designed to be disposable; if the ship is on fire no matter how big, you abandon it and save the lives of the crew. Military ships are a different story.

One lesson that was learned the hard way was the HMCS Kootenay incident. She suffered a gearbox explosion back in 1969, causing many dead, and many more wounded. One of the determinations that the resulting board of enquiry found was that the vessel did not have near enough firefighting equipment onboard it required and that more watertight bulkheads should be kept closed while vessel was at sea.

With warships, the more overbuilt they are, the better.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

F40Racer said:

Very interesting design. If this ship is based on container/tanker design, I guess it is possible (at least in the fiction world) to build larger versions of this ship. Some supertankers are over 300,000 tons in displacement. China's shipyards are capable of building really big oil tankers and container ships.

Click to expand...

There is one reason why warships, especially those that go into harm's way, are built to military specifications, and are totally different animals compared to civilian ships. On carriers, it is even more dangerous due to the vast quantities of aviation fuel onboard. The many carrier fires the USN had with their carriers over the past 50 years is perhaps a very vivid reminder of the dangers so much aviation spirits in such a confined hull.

You board any merchant ship out there and you see fewer hose stations, fewer water tight bulkheads, fewer escape hatches in all spaces, fewer first aid stations, fewer damage control and fewer life rafts compared to a military ship. Merchant ships are designed to be disposable; if the ship is on fire no matter how big, you abandon it and save the lives of the crew. Military ships are a different story.

One lesson that was learned the hard way was the HMCS Kootenay incident. She suffered a gearbox explosion back in 1969, causing many dead, and many more wounded. One of the determinations that the resulting board of enquiry found was that the vessel did not have near enough firefighting equipment onboard it required and that more watertight bulkheads should be kept closed while vessel was at sea.

With warships, the more overbuilt they are, the better.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

F40Racer said:

Very interesting design. If this ship is based on container/tanker design, I guess it is possible (at least in the fiction world) to build larger versions of this ship. Some supertankers are over 300,000 tons in displacement. China's shipyards are capable of building really big oil tankers and container ships.

Click to expand...

There is one reason why warships, especially those that go into harm's way, are built to military specifications, and are totally different animals compared to civilian ships. On carriers, it is even more dangerous due to the vast quantities of aviation fuel onboard. The many carrier fires the USN had with their carriers over the past 50 years is perhaps a very vivid reminder of the dangers so much aviation spirits in such a confined hull.

You board any merchant ship out there and you see fewer hose stations, fewer water tight bulkheads, fewer escape hatches in all spaces, fewer first aid stations, fewer damage control and fewer life rafts compared to a military ship. Merchant ships are designed to be disposable; if the ship is on fire no matter how big, you abandon it and save the lives of the crew. Military ships are a different story.

One lesson that was learned the hard way was the HMCS Kootenay incident. She suffered a gearbox explosion back in 1969, causing many dead, and many more wounded. One of the determinations that the resulting board of enquiry found was that the vessel did not have near enough firefighting equipment onboard it required and that more watertight bulkheads should be kept closed while vessel was at sea.

With warships, the more overbuilt they are, the better.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

"The many carrier fires the USN had with their carriers over the past 50 years is perhaps a very vivid reminder of the dangers so much aviation spirits in such a confined hull."

Many? Only five that I'm aware of. Oriskany, Forrestal and Enterprise during the Vietnam War, and two on Nimitz. The first when an S-3 went over the foul line landing and impacted several parked aircraft, causing several Sparrow missiles to detonate and again in 1988 during our deployment with her when a tech inadvertantly fired an A-7's cannon on deck setting seven aircraft on fire. In that final incident two squadron techs died, but the ship itself benefitted from the lessons of all the previous mishaps. I saw the wreckage the next morning as Nimitz came close aboard our ship. Seven airplanes were toasted but the flight deck foaming system confined the damage to just those aircraft. Several other foamed aircraft were not flyable afterward since the AFFF is mixed with sea water and is highly corrosive, but that morning the burned A-7's were shoved overboard and flight ops commenced. The ship itself was undamaged. Enterprise, Forrestal and Oriskany did not have flight deck or hanger automatic foam systems. Those mishaps led to the development of the current fire fighting systems.
As for a tanker hull serving as an emergency carrier hull, not a chance. Much too slow. A far better choice would be a modern high speed container ship hull. Most of the current 8000TEU and higher container ships need speeds of 27kts or greater in order to maintain their shipper's published schedules. As the number of containers increase the time to unload and re-load these ships increases. To maintain the normal turn around time for their customers, transit time has had to be reduced, leading to increasingly fast container ships. Their hull forms are very fine with sheer bows compared to the rather blunt hulls of the typical tanker. Tankers are ten knots slower at least.

This is a beautiful ship:







Other modern container hulls:









Look at the beautiful hull form of this ship:



Now lets look at a tanker:









You get the picture

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

"The many carrier fires the USN had with their carriers over the past 50 years is perhaps a very vivid reminder of the dangers so much aviation spirits in such a confined hull."

Many? Only five that I'm aware of. Oriskany, Forrestal and Enterprise during the Vietnam War, and two on Nimitz. The first when an S-3 went over the foul line landing and impacted several parked aircraft, causing several Sparrow missiles to detonate and again in 1988 during our deployment with her when a tech inadvertantly fired an A-7's cannon on deck setting seven aircraft on fire. In that final incident two squadron techs died, but the ship itself benefitted from the lessons of all the previous mishaps. I saw the wreckage the next morning as Nimitz came close aboard our ship. Seven airplanes were toasted but the flight deck foaming system confined the damage to just those aircraft. Several other foamed aircraft were not flyable afterward since the AFFF is mixed with sea water and is highly corrosive, but that morning the burned A-7's were shoved overboard and flight ops commenced. The ship itself was undamaged. Enterprise, Forrestal and Oriskany did not have flight deck or hanger automatic foam systems. Those mishaps led to the development of the current fire fighting systems.
As for a tanker hull serving as an emergency carrier hull, not a chance. Much too slow. A far better choice would be a modern high speed container ship hull. Most of the current 8000TEU and higher container ships need speeds of 27kts or greater in order to maintain their shipper's published schedules. As the number of containers increase the time to unload and re-load these ships increases. To maintain the normal turn around time for their customers, transit time has had to be reduced, leading to increasingly fast container ships. Their hull forms are very fine with sheer bows compared to the rather blunt hulls of the typical tanker. Tankers are ten knots slower at least.

This is a beautiful ship:







Other modern container hulls:









Look at the beautiful hull form of this ship:



Now lets look at a tanker:









You get the picture

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

"The many carrier fires the USN had with their carriers over the past 50 years is perhaps a very vivid reminder of the dangers so much aviation spirits in such a confined hull."

Many? Only five that I'm aware of. Oriskany, Forrestal and Enterprise during the Vietnam War, and two on Nimitz. The first when an S-3 went over the foul line landing and impacted several parked aircraft, causing several Sparrow missiles to detonate and again in 1988 during our deployment with her when a tech inadvertantly fired an A-7's cannon on deck setting seven aircraft on fire. In that final incident two squadron techs died, but the ship itself benefitted from the lessons of all the previous mishaps. I saw the wreckage the next morning as Nimitz came close aboard our ship. Seven airplanes were toasted but the flight deck foaming system confined the damage to just those aircraft. Several other foamed aircraft were not flyable afterward since the AFFF is mixed with sea water and is highly corrosive, but that morning the burned A-7's were shoved overboard and flight ops commenced. The ship itself was undamaged. Enterprise, Forrestal and Oriskany did not have flight deck or hanger automatic foam systems. Those mishaps led to the development of the current fire fighting systems.
As for a tanker hull serving as an emergency carrier hull, not a chance. Much too slow. A far better choice would be a modern high speed container ship hull. Most of the current 8000TEU and higher container ships need speeds of 27kts or greater in order to maintain their shipper's published schedules. As the number of containers increase the time to unload and re-load these ships increases. To maintain the normal turn around time for their customers, transit time has had to be reduced, leading to increasingly fast container ships. Their hull forms are very fine with sheer bows compared to the rather blunt hulls of the typical tanker. Tankers are ten knots slower at least.

This is a beautiful ship:







Other modern container hulls:









Look at the beautiful hull form of this ship:



Now lets look at a tanker:









You get the picture