PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I think that the USN is making a compromise, which in their mind is optimum

Click to expand...

The reason for the reduced air wings is the improved storie rates because of PGM..Prescision guided munitions. Fewer stories required to perform the same missions because of the PGM destroy targets with much more accuracy.

If need be the USN CVNs could operate with an air wing similar to one I deployed with on the USS America CV-66 in 1981.

CVW-11 as deployed on CV-66 in 1981

14ac= VF-114 Aardvarks F-14A(TARPS)
12ac= VF-213 Black Lions F-14A
12ac= VA-192 Golden Dragons A-7E
12ac= VA-195 Dam Busters A-7E
15ac= VA-95 Green Lizards A-6E/KA-6D
04ac= VAW-123 Screwtops E-2C
04ac= VAQ-133 Wizards EA-6B
06ac= HS-12 Wyverns SH-3H
10ac= VS-33 Screwbirds S-3A
01ac= VQ-2DET. Batmen EA-3B
02ac= VR-24DET. Lifting Eagles C-2A
92 total aircraft.

Given those numbers an Nimitz class could carry 30+ additional aircraft if need be.

The air wing may look like this..

72 F/A18 Hornets & Super Hornets
8 E/A-6B Prowlers or E/F-18G Growlers
4 E2-C Hawkeyes
6 SH-60 Seahawks variants
1 or 2 C-2 Greyhounds

That equals 91/92 aircraft.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

A naval J-10 should be twin-engined for the safety factor, as the J-10C variant is supposed to be equipped.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

A naval J-10 should be twin-engined for the safety factor, as the J-10C variant is supposed to be equipped.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

A naval J-10 should be twin-engined for the safety factor, as the J-10C variant is supposed to be equipped.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Ok, here's my current thinking.


70,000t super-carrier
Length: 300m (shorter than Nimitz)
Beam: 112m (34m wider than Nimitz!)
Draught: 10m (2m less than Nimitz)
Propulsion: Nuclear (same reactors as latest SSBNs) driving 4 conventional props

Armaments:
64 x HHQ-16 medium range SAM
6 x Type-730 CIWS
3 x ASW MRLS
Possibly JY-62s.



Surge air-wing capability 110+ aircraft but typical air-wing 50 aircraft

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Ok, here's my current thinking.


70,000t super-carrier
Length: 300m (shorter than Nimitz)
Beam: 112m (34m wider than Nimitz!)
Draught: 10m (2m less than Nimitz)
Propulsion: Nuclear (same reactors as latest SSBNs) driving 4 conventional props

Armaments:
64 x HHQ-16 medium range SAM
6 x Type-730 CIWS
3 x ASW MRLS
Possibly JY-62s.



Surge air-wing capability 110+ aircraft but typical air-wing 50 aircraft

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Ok, here's my current thinking.


70,000t super-carrier
Length: 300m (shorter than Nimitz)
Beam: 112m (34m wider than Nimitz!)
Draught: 10m (2m less than Nimitz)
Propulsion: Nuclear (same reactors as latest SSBNs) driving 4 conventional props

Armaments:
64 x HHQ-16 medium range SAM
6 x Type-730 CIWS
3 x ASW MRLS
Possibly JY-62s.



Surge air-wing capability 110+ aircraft but typical air-wing 50 aircraft

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Intresting design. I'd like to see more drawings of this if you have them.

Very heavily armed. Humm?? Your choice. But you could not use those missiles and recover aircraft at the same time.

Beam: 112m (34m wider than Nimitz!)

Click to expand...

Thats 367ft..That is wide. Where are you going to berth that bad boy? Will it fit through the Suez canal?..Really..

I don't like the elevator in the center of the flight deck. As I have stated many times..Center deck elevators are a hinderance to flight operations. There's no advantage to having it there.

Does it have a catamaran hull? And have you figured out those hangar deck demension?

Intresting design..just needs a little tweaking IMO..

5min later..I see the hangar deck height demensions now...one last thing I don't understand the varring heights of the hangar deck.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Intresting design. I'd like to see more drawings of this if you have them.

Very heavily armed. Humm?? Your choice. But you could not use those missiles and recover aircraft at the same time.

Beam: 112m (34m wider than Nimitz!)

Click to expand...

Thats 367ft..That is wide. Where are you going to berth that bad boy? Will it fit through the Suez canal?..Really..

I don't like the elevator in the center of the flight deck. As I have stated many times..Center deck elevators are a hinderance to flight operations. There's no advantage to having it there.

Does it have a catamaran hull? And have you figured out those hangar deck demension?

Intresting design..just needs a little tweaking IMO..

5min later..I see the hangar deck height demensions now...one last thing I don't understand the varring heights of the hangar deck.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Intresting design. I'd like to see more drawings of this if you have them.

Very heavily armed. Humm?? Your choice. But you could not use those missiles and recover aircraft at the same time.

Beam: 112m (34m wider than Nimitz!)

Click to expand...

Thats 367ft..That is wide. Where are you going to berth that bad boy? Will it fit through the Suez canal?..Really..

I don't like the elevator in the center of the flight deck. As I have stated many times..Center deck elevators are a hinderance to flight operations. There's no advantage to having it there.

Does it have a catamaran hull? And have you figured out those hangar deck demension?

Intresting design..just needs a little tweaking IMO..

5min later..I see the hangar deck height demensions now...one last thing I don't understand the varring heights of the hangar deck.