PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Yeah it's only about 12-15m from the landing strip centre to the tower. Agree that a larger margin might be prudent. Moving it 5m forward and narrower will reduce forward jet parking by one aircraft but might be an idea.

Also, re the engines. When I say on hanger deck, I don't mean in the hanger, just on the same level. The engines would be at extreme forward end of outriggers. 3 or 4 turbines. The engines would be aligned across-ship so that generators are over central hull (generator is heavier than the engine?). A smaller diesel would provide in-port power.

Not sure how modern catapults could work but if steam is required then the boilers could be heated by the exhausts of the jets similar to the COGAS idea used on some ships (and suggested as an upgrade on COGAG ships like the Al'Bs. This essentially 'recycles' the heat from the jet engines.

Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?

This sketch has Royal Navy fit but imagine it with PLAN fit.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread




Another proposition, since we're going wild here. Perhaps a bit less radical than planeman's carrier in so much that i opted for a somewhat traditional catamaran hull as i believe it may prove to be structurally stronger to have two large hulls and very little deck overhang around them. I believe there's plenty of stability with this sort of hull as it is, boat being large as it is, so no need for SWATH hull as it'd just increase fuel consumption and/or require larger engines. I went with wave piercing bow though, realistically, it might not be needed with a ship of this size. There might be issues with planes just falling off deck and hitting the bow... hopefully not, but if so, then a conventional, slightly shorter hull might be in order.

Speaking of the size, it's 264 meters long and has a beam of 96 meters. displacement is a bit hard to asses for me but i'd say its somewhere around 70.000 tons, give or take 15%. (probably give )

Everything is drawn to scale (except the hullform which is a rough sketch so excuse the sharp lines and no fine curves), so i hope everything is self explanatory. Catapults are some 95 meters long, hangar area is 7800 square meters. Please disregard the blue grid drawn inside the hangar. If we go with s-3 sized awacs plane, j-10 sized fighters and nh90 sized helos, hangar should be able to hold some 6 helos, 4 awacs planes and 30 fighters, hopefully with enough room left for maintenance and reshuffling of the aircraft under the deck.

I am not too happy with the position of the weapons elevators, but couldn't think of better spots that wouldn't come in way of more important things. I've toyed with the idea of a smaller bow elevator for aircraft and a longer hangar leading to it, but ultimately decided it's not needed.

There are two command bridges, large aft one for deck operations and a smaller one on the bow for navigation of the ship itself. (though, realistically, both could be be used for everything, if there's an urgent need for it)

Those spaces on the deck at the stern could be semi-dedicated for helo operations, but if we're to crowd the deck with as many aircraft as we can (so we don't hinder the deck operations) one could place at least 14-15 more j-10 sized aircraft around the deck. That's with elevators being free. So, realistically, I don't see why the carrier couldn' operate some 4 squadrons of 12 j-10 sized planes, some 6 or so helos and 4 awacs planes.

Planeman, that solution with engines up on the hangar level sounds great, (all electric drive is definitely the way to go) but how much top weight would that add? Sure, fuel or water ballast could be placed below decks to compensate but it's always better to use as less dead ballast as one can afford to carry around.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread




Another proposition, since we're going wild here. Perhaps a bit less radical than planeman's carrier in so much that i opted for a somewhat traditional catamaran hull as i believe it may prove to be structurally stronger to have two large hulls and very little deck overhang around them. I believe there's plenty of stability with this sort of hull as it is, boat being large as it is, so no need for SWATH hull as it'd just increase fuel consumption and/or require larger engines. I went with wave piercing bow though, realistically, it might not be needed with a ship of this size. There might be issues with planes just falling off deck and hitting the bow... hopefully not, but if so, then a conventional, slightly shorter hull might be in order.

Speaking of the size, it's 264 meters long and has a beam of 96 meters. displacement is a bit hard to asses for me but i'd say its somewhere around 70.000 tons, give or take 15%. (probably give )

Everything is drawn to scale (except the hullform which is a rough sketch so excuse the sharp lines and no fine curves), so i hope everything is self explanatory. Catapults are some 95 meters long, hangar area is 7800 square meters. Please disregard the blue grid drawn inside the hangar. If we go with s-3 sized awacs plane, j-10 sized fighters and nh90 sized helos, hangar should be able to hold some 6 helos, 4 awacs planes and 30 fighters, hopefully with enough room left for maintenance and reshuffling of the aircraft under the deck.

I am not too happy with the position of the weapons elevators, but couldn't think of better spots that wouldn't come in way of more important things. I've toyed with the idea of a smaller bow elevator for aircraft and a longer hangar leading to it, but ultimately decided it's not needed.

There are two command bridges, large aft one for deck operations and a smaller one on the bow for navigation of the ship itself. (though, realistically, both could be be used for everything, if there's an urgent need for it)

Those spaces on the deck at the stern could be semi-dedicated for helo operations, but if we're to crowd the deck with as many aircraft as we can (so we don't hinder the deck operations) one could place at least 14-15 more j-10 sized aircraft around the deck. That's with elevators being free. So, realistically, I don't see why the carrier couldn' operate some 4 squadrons of 12 j-10 sized planes, some 6 or so helos and 4 awacs planes.

Planeman, that solution with engines up on the hangar level sounds great, (all electric drive is definitely the way to go) but how much top weight would that add? Sure, fuel or water ballast could be placed below decks to compensate but it's always better to use as less dead ballast as one can afford to carry around.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread




Another proposition, since we're going wild here. Perhaps a bit less radical than planeman's carrier in so much that i opted for a somewhat traditional catamaran hull as i believe it may prove to be structurally stronger to have two large hulls and very little deck overhang around them. I believe there's plenty of stability with this sort of hull as it is, boat being large as it is, so no need for SWATH hull as it'd just increase fuel consumption and/or require larger engines. I went with wave piercing bow though, realistically, it might not be needed with a ship of this size. There might be issues with planes just falling off deck and hitting the bow... hopefully not, but if so, then a conventional, slightly shorter hull might be in order.

Speaking of the size, it's 264 meters long and has a beam of 96 meters. displacement is a bit hard to asses for me but i'd say its somewhere around 70.000 tons, give or take 15%. (probably give )

Everything is drawn to scale (except the hullform which is a rough sketch so excuse the sharp lines and no fine curves), so i hope everything is self explanatory. Catapults are some 95 meters long, hangar area is 7800 square meters. Please disregard the blue grid drawn inside the hangar. If we go with s-3 sized awacs plane, j-10 sized fighters and nh90 sized helos, hangar should be able to hold some 6 helos, 4 awacs planes and 30 fighters, hopefully with enough room left for maintenance and reshuffling of the aircraft under the deck.

I am not too happy with the position of the weapons elevators, but couldn't think of better spots that wouldn't come in way of more important things. I've toyed with the idea of a smaller bow elevator for aircraft and a longer hangar leading to it, but ultimately decided it's not needed.

There are two command bridges, large aft one for deck operations and a smaller one on the bow for navigation of the ship itself. (though, realistically, both could be be used for everything, if there's an urgent need for it)

Those spaces on the deck at the stern could be semi-dedicated for helo operations, but if we're to crowd the deck with as many aircraft as we can (so we don't hinder the deck operations) one could place at least 14-15 more j-10 sized aircraft around the deck. That's with elevators being free. So, realistically, I don't see why the carrier couldn' operate some 4 squadrons of 12 j-10 sized planes, some 6 or so helos and 4 awacs planes.

Planeman, that solution with engines up on the hangar level sounds great, (all electric drive is definitely the way to go) but how much top weight would that add? Sure, fuel or water ballast could be placed below decks to compensate but it's always better to use as less dead ballast as one can afford to carry around.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Planeman, just for understanding, do your hull drawings show the hull dimensions at the waterline, or directly beneath the deck?

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Planeman, just for understanding, do your hull drawings show the hull dimensions at the waterline, or directly beneath the deck?

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Planeman, just for understanding, do your hull drawings show the hull dimensions at the waterline, or directly beneath the deck?

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

After doing all the comparison plan-views for the carrier threads, this is my thinking for an ideal "starter carrier" for any large navy (eg PLAN).

About 35,000 tons. Built as STOBAR but with provision for single waist position cat for experimental developments towards a CTOL carrier.



Main features are that the landing run is at a much shallower angle than most (like RN's aborted CVA-01 design). This allows for a more deck parking. Also, absolutely no parking on port side of landing strip (not an optimal place anyway).

The carrier would be a monohull and slightly lower than most carriers to allow a wider flight deck for tonnage.

Single run ski-jump but with three take-off positions one behind the other. Primary (first) one does not obstruct landing strip but second two do (compromises!!!). Third one would allow "heavies" like AEW fixed-wing or fully laden Su-33s to take-off(?).

The island superstructure is very far forward to minimise flightdeck distruption. VLS area-air defence SAM (HHQ-16??) next to ski-jump (I can't see the bow being an optimum place to park aircraft!).

3 FL-3000N CIWS give 360 degree coverage. Light crewed and/or remote 20/30mm operated cannon also fitted in hull sides or on outrider positions for GP defence. -maybe adapt remote operate IFV turrets?

Ideal fighter would be lighter than Su-33 but Flanker ops would be possible to cater for cross-decking with Varyag.

COGAG-ASAD(!!!) - i.e. COGAG with experimental steam after-boilers off the exhaust for the catapult. Also substantial diesel back-up and port-power. Exhausts on starboard side below flightdeck level behind second lift, to reduce island structure and IR signature.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

After doing all the comparison plan-views for the carrier threads, this is my thinking for an ideal "starter carrier" for any large navy (eg PLAN).

About 35,000 tons. Built as STOBAR but with provision for single waist position cat for experimental developments towards a CTOL carrier.



Main features are that the landing run is at a much shallower angle than most (like RN's aborted CVA-01 design). This allows for a more deck parking. Also, absolutely no parking on port side of landing strip (not an optimal place anyway).

The carrier would be a monohull and slightly lower than most carriers to allow a wider flight deck for tonnage.

Single run ski-jump but with three take-off positions one behind the other. Primary (first) one does not obstruct landing strip but second two do (compromises!!!). Third one would allow "heavies" like AEW fixed-wing or fully laden Su-33s to take-off(?).

The island superstructure is very far forward to minimise flightdeck distruption. VLS area-air defence SAM (HHQ-16??) next to ski-jump (I can't see the bow being an optimum place to park aircraft!).

3 FL-3000N CIWS give 360 degree coverage. Light crewed and/or remote 20/30mm operated cannon also fitted in hull sides or on outrider positions for GP defence. -maybe adapt remote operate IFV turrets?

Ideal fighter would be lighter than Su-33 but Flanker ops would be possible to cater for cross-decking with Varyag.

COGAG-ASAD(!!!) - i.e. COGAG with experimental steam after-boilers off the exhaust for the catapult. Also substantial diesel back-up and port-power. Exhausts on starboard side below flightdeck level behind second lift, to reduce island structure and IR signature.