PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

planeman said:

This is obviously drawn with a Royal Navy fit, but what about micro-carriers as escorts for the main carrier? 3-5 helicopters, 10,000 tons and full AAD capability.

Click to expand...

IMO the design is trying to do too many things in one small package. This ship is only slightly larger displacement vs. Osumi class:



It's way too small to operate rotatory, fixed wing aircraft, and have the main gun and VLS cels in the front.

I say increase the displacement to Dokdo Class or Hyuga Class level, use flat-top design, and use it as a multi-role helicopter & UAV carrier. Delete the gun and install 2 x CIWS and maybe 8 or 16 cel VLS for SAM and ASROC.

If you're looking for something like the FN Jean D'Arc, I say go with the Royal Danish Navy's Absalon class concept (or the 071) and enlarge it. For fixed wing aircraft carrier, I'd lean toward >30,000 tons.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

planeman said:

This is obviously drawn with a Royal Navy fit, but what about micro-carriers as escorts for the main carrier? 3-5 helicopters, 10,000 tons and full AAD capability.

Click to expand...

IMO the design is trying to do too many things in one small package. This ship is only slightly larger displacement vs. Osumi class:



It's way too small to operate rotatory, fixed wing aircraft, and have the main gun and VLS cels in the front.

I say increase the displacement to Dokdo Class or Hyuga Class level, use flat-top design, and use it as a multi-role helicopter & UAV carrier. Delete the gun and install 2 x CIWS and maybe 8 or 16 cel VLS for SAM and ASROC.

If you're looking for something like the FN Jean D'Arc, I say go with the Royal Danish Navy's Absalon class concept (or the 071) and enlarge it. For fixed wing aircraft carrier, I'd lean toward >30,000 tons.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

planeman said:

This is obviously drawn with a Royal Navy fit, but what about micro-carriers as escorts for the main carrier? 3-5 helicopters, 10,000 tons and full AAD capability.

Click to expand...

IMO the design is trying to do too many things in one small package. This ship is only slightly larger displacement vs. Osumi class:



It's way too small to operate rotatory, fixed wing aircraft, and have the main gun and VLS cels in the front.

I say increase the displacement to Dokdo Class or Hyuga Class level, use flat-top design, and use it as a multi-role helicopter & UAV carrier. Delete the gun and install 2 x CIWS and maybe 8 or 16 cel VLS for SAM and ASROC.

If you're looking for something like the FN Jean D'Arc, I say go with the Royal Danish Navy's Absalon class concept (or the 071) and enlarge it. For fixed wing aircraft carrier, I'd lean toward >30,000 tons.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sczepan said:

....
To minimize the risk, at first indegenious design I'll prefer a small Carrier, to operate JL-15 trainee and light weight ground attack fighters, WZ-10 attack and the Z-8 (SA 321Ja Super Frelon) Multirole Helicopter for support und transport operations. Also ASW and KA-31 AEW Helos [qimg]http://ram-home.com/ram-old/ka-31-prev.jpg[/qimg] to support a local air shield.
This would be a amphibious carrier.
The carrier could be a derivate of the proofed MELBOURNE design, including modern engines (diesels), catapulte and angled deck. This little carrier also in political view is no a big thread to SE-Asien neighbours, so they would accept this kind of carrier without political rejection.
To operate the JL-15 would be indeed also a training for using big fighters like the (suspected) SU-33 with the future "big stick".
I'll prefer 2 or 3 ships of that class, starting to be build in 2009/2010 and finished in 2014/2015 (production continuing).
.....

So in 2020 / 2025 the first chinese carrier fleet could include:
....
3 to 5 amphibous carriers (Melbourne derivate) - operating JL-15, WZ-10, Z-8, KA-31 AEW ....

Click to expand...

only to compare:


(right one is USS LHA)

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sczepan said:

....
To minimize the risk, at first indegenious design I'll prefer a small Carrier, to operate JL-15 trainee and light weight ground attack fighters, WZ-10 attack and the Z-8 (SA 321Ja Super Frelon) Multirole Helicopter for support und transport operations. Also ASW and KA-31 AEW Helos [qimg]http://ram-home.com/ram-old/ka-31-prev.jpg[/qimg] to support a local air shield.
This would be a amphibious carrier.
The carrier could be a derivate of the proofed MELBOURNE design, including modern engines (diesels), catapulte and angled deck. This little carrier also in political view is no a big thread to SE-Asien neighbours, so they would accept this kind of carrier without political rejection.
To operate the JL-15 would be indeed also a training for using big fighters like the (suspected) SU-33 with the future "big stick".
I'll prefer 2 or 3 ships of that class, starting to be build in 2009/2010 and finished in 2014/2015 (production continuing).
.....

So in 2020 / 2025 the first chinese carrier fleet could include:
....
3 to 5 amphibous carriers (Melbourne derivate) - operating JL-15, WZ-10, Z-8, KA-31 AEW ....

Click to expand...

only to compare:


(right one is USS LHA)

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sczepan said:

....
To minimize the risk, at first indegenious design I'll prefer a small Carrier, to operate JL-15 trainee and light weight ground attack fighters, WZ-10 attack and the Z-8 (SA 321Ja Super Frelon) Multirole Helicopter for support und transport operations. Also ASW and KA-31 AEW Helos [qimg]http://ram-home.com/ram-old/ka-31-prev.jpg[/qimg] to support a local air shield.
This would be a amphibious carrier.
The carrier could be a derivate of the proofed MELBOURNE design, including modern engines (diesels), catapulte and angled deck. This little carrier also in political view is no a big thread to SE-Asien neighbours, so they would accept this kind of carrier without political rejection.
To operate the JL-15 would be indeed also a training for using big fighters like the (suspected) SU-33 with the future "big stick".
I'll prefer 2 or 3 ships of that class, starting to be build in 2009/2010 and finished in 2014/2015 (production continuing).
.....

So in 2020 / 2025 the first chinese carrier fleet could include:
....
3 to 5 amphibous carriers (Melbourne derivate) - operating JL-15, WZ-10, Z-8, KA-31 AEW ....

Click to expand...

only to compare:


(right one is USS LHA)

Re: AWACS for future chinese carrier

hi all

Just my 0.02c worth here. I would assert that an AEW for a carrier would work well as an unmanned aircraft. The reasoning being that having an unmanned plane reduces weight and reduces maintenance. For example no cockpit, ejection seat etc is required. Having a composite unmanned aircraft results in greater simplicity for little things like inspection panels. As an unlikely structural failure will not lead to loss of life, things like spar inspection hatches can be eliminated.

The thinking behind the sketch is simplicity, getting the design back to its minimum in order to decrease structure weight, decrease overall weight and to lengthen endurance. The unusual configuration should allow for greater maneuverability in landing, lower landing speeds and shorter take off roll. Landings at high angle of attack might be possible. Have put my humble ideas here for comment.



regards,

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread




There, ideal chinese carrier. For the first decade or two of carrier operations, anyway. Everything is drawn to scale. Fighter is some variant of j10, bigger plane would be a custom designed aew&c plane, something in the vain of USN's S-3, only with different (shorter) wings, different position of the engines, erieye style radome etc...

beam 54 meters, length 240 meters, displacement should be between 25.000 and 30.000 tons.

Catapults are 75 meter ones, like on french CDG carrier, landing strip is of similar length, only narrower - both cause there's no as plane as wide as e-2 operating on it and cause hopefully computer guided landings will get implemented in the next decade or so. If USN can do succesful test landings with its F18s today, why not china as well in the near future?

Hangar is a bit oversized for the rest of the ship, which i think is doable since there will be a smaller crew operating the boat (than there would be today) with less space 'wasted' on supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, the whole concept of usage would allow a larger hangar as i envisioned part of it also being a storage area, for added fuel, supplies, etc.

Basically, a ship could go on a round the world missions where needed, with only several planes in the hangar and extra fuel and supplies... or it could be used as an extended safety buffer around chinese mainland, forcing other navies to stay clear some 1000 miles or so of the coast until they've dealt with the threat. That'd all be part of the doctrine not to really go way out into the open seas, as PLAN's fleet would still not be that strong... better to remain where conventional subs can lurk and PLAAF's and PLANAF's fleets can also come to aid, if needed.

Carriers could have different loadouts if operating alone or in groups... If there's two of them together, for example, each could have just 2 awacs planes and 3 helicopters, with rest being combat planes. Naturally, a big support fleet would still be needed.

As for the max loadout, since the hangar can accept some 17 j10 sized planes and 4 of the mentioned type of awacs, as well as 4 helos, (theres room for more but one has to have space for maintenance) max aircraft tally should be 24+8, meaning 24 combat planes and 8 support planes. Naturally, in less demanding missions, less aircraft could be carried.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread




There, ideal chinese carrier. For the first decade or two of carrier operations, anyway. Everything is drawn to scale. Fighter is some variant of j10, bigger plane would be a custom designed aew&c plane, something in the vain of USN's S-3, only with different (shorter) wings, different position of the engines, erieye style radome etc...

beam 54 meters, length 240 meters, displacement should be between 25.000 and 30.000 tons.

Catapults are 75 meter ones, like on french CDG carrier, landing strip is of similar length, only narrower - both cause there's no as plane as wide as e-2 operating on it and cause hopefully computer guided landings will get implemented in the next decade or so. If USN can do succesful test landings with its F18s today, why not china as well in the near future?

Hangar is a bit oversized for the rest of the ship, which i think is doable since there will be a smaller crew operating the boat (than there would be today) with less space 'wasted' on supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, the whole concept of usage would allow a larger hangar as i envisioned part of it also being a storage area, for added fuel, supplies, etc.

Basically, a ship could go on a round the world missions where needed, with only several planes in the hangar and extra fuel and supplies... or it could be used as an extended safety buffer around chinese mainland, forcing other navies to stay clear some 1000 miles or so of the coast until they've dealt with the threat. That'd all be part of the doctrine not to really go way out into the open seas, as PLAN's fleet would still not be that strong... better to remain where conventional subs can lurk and PLAAF's and PLANAF's fleets can also come to aid, if needed.

Carriers could have different loadouts if operating alone or in groups... If there's two of them together, for example, each could have just 2 awacs planes and 3 helicopters, with rest being combat planes. Naturally, a big support fleet would still be needed.

As for the max loadout, since the hangar can accept some 17 j10 sized planes and 4 of the mentioned type of awacs, as well as 4 helos, (theres room for more but one has to have space for maintenance) max aircraft tally should be 24+8, meaning 24 combat planes and 8 support planes. Naturally, in less demanding missions, less aircraft could be carried.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread




There, ideal chinese carrier. For the first decade or two of carrier operations, anyway. Everything is drawn to scale. Fighter is some variant of j10, bigger plane would be a custom designed aew&c plane, something in the vain of USN's S-3, only with different (shorter) wings, different position of the engines, erieye style radome etc...

beam 54 meters, length 240 meters, displacement should be between 25.000 and 30.000 tons.

Catapults are 75 meter ones, like on french CDG carrier, landing strip is of similar length, only narrower - both cause there's no as plane as wide as e-2 operating on it and cause hopefully computer guided landings will get implemented in the next decade or so. If USN can do succesful test landings with its F18s today, why not china as well in the near future?

Hangar is a bit oversized for the rest of the ship, which i think is doable since there will be a smaller crew operating the boat (than there would be today) with less space 'wasted' on supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, the whole concept of usage would allow a larger hangar as i envisioned part of it also being a storage area, for added fuel, supplies, etc.

Basically, a ship could go on a round the world missions where needed, with only several planes in the hangar and extra fuel and supplies... or it could be used as an extended safety buffer around chinese mainland, forcing other navies to stay clear some 1000 miles or so of the coast until they've dealt with the threat. That'd all be part of the doctrine not to really go way out into the open seas, as PLAN's fleet would still not be that strong... better to remain where conventional subs can lurk and PLAAF's and PLANAF's fleets can also come to aid, if needed.

Carriers could have different loadouts if operating alone or in groups... If there's two of them together, for example, each could have just 2 awacs planes and 3 helicopters, with rest being combat planes. Naturally, a big support fleet would still be needed.

As for the max loadout, since the hangar can accept some 17 j10 sized planes and 4 of the mentioned type of awacs, as well as 4 helos, (theres room for more but one has to have space for maintenance) max aircraft tally should be 24+8, meaning 24 combat planes and 8 support planes. Naturally, in less demanding missions, less aircraft could be carried.