PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

If you look around, you will found different types of carriers all over the world.
There are the "big sticks", like US CVN Carriers (up to 90 000 ts and more)
and also smaller ones like the US LH (Tarawa for example), with arround 40 000 ts or smaller, like italy (Cavour: 27 000 ts, Giuseppe Garbaldi: 13 000 ts), Spain (Principe de Asturias, 17 000 ts), Thailand (Chakri Naruebet, 12 000 ts) and so on ... which are for amphibious and escort operations.

I prefer the smaller design for the first indegenious chinese carrier.
1. To minimize the risk (crawl, walk, run - one undesirable trend would be very expansiv by big sticks)
2. Small amphibious carriers are a "must", more than needed - more needed as the big sticks
3. In politcal relations this small carriers ar not seen as "threat" to chinese neighbours (indeed, they are, but optical ...)
4. China studied the Melbourne, a small carrier including catapult - which is a proofed design;

So I think the first indegenious chinese carrier will be a modern "Melbourne like" derivat, including angled deck and catapult to support amphibious operations and to escort chinese trading ships

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sczepan said:

If you look around, you will found different types of carriers all over the world.
There are the "big sticks", like US CVN Carriers (up to 90 000 ts and more)
and also smaller ones like the US LH (Tarawa for example), with arround 40 000 ts or smaller, like italy (Cavour: 27 000 ts, Giuseppe Garbaldi: 13 000 ts), Spain (Principe de Asturias, 17 000 ts), Thailand (Chakri Naruebet, 12 000 ts) and so on ... which are for amphibious and escort operations.

I prefer the smaller design for the first indegenious chinese carrier.
1. To minimize the risk (crawl, walk, run - one undesirable trend would be very expansiv by big sticks)
2. Small amphibious carriers are a "must", more than needed - more needed as the big sticks
3. In politcal relations this small carriers ar not seen as "threat" to chinese neighbours (indeed, they are, but optical ...)
4. China studied the Melbourne, a small carrier including catapult - which is a proofed design;

So I think the first indegenious chinese carrier will be a modern "Melbourne like" derivat, including angled deck and catapult to support amphibious operations and to escort chinese trading ships

Click to expand...

well with current technology and funding i think an attack helo carrier is viable. it doesnt require much funding as carriers, and requires less experience and know how. crawl, walk and run. with china is more like crawl and run. aviation jumped from cold war era to modern era. ground units from world war 2 to modern-advance. naval lagging abit behind the other 2 fighting units but recieving larger proportion of funding.

as for first carrier (domestic) not refit, i personally think a smaller version of the varyag with removable ski jump, holding one squadron of 24 fixed wing aircraft.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sczepan said:

If you look around, you will found different types of carriers all over the world.
There are the "big sticks", like US CVN Carriers (up to 90 000 ts and more)
and also smaller ones like the US LH (Tarawa for example), with arround 40 000 ts or smaller, like italy (Cavour: 27 000 ts, Giuseppe Garbaldi: 13 000 ts), Spain (Principe de Asturias, 17 000 ts), Thailand (Chakri Naruebet, 12 000 ts) and so on ... which are for amphibious and escort operations.

I prefer the smaller design for the first indegenious chinese carrier.
1. To minimize the risk (crawl, walk, run - one undesirable trend would be very expansiv by big sticks)
2. Small amphibious carriers are a "must", more than needed - more needed as the big sticks
3. In politcal relations this small carriers ar not seen as "threat" to chinese neighbours (indeed, they are, but optical ...)
4. China studied the Melbourne, a small carrier including catapult - which is a proofed design;

So I think the first indegenious chinese carrier will be a modern "Melbourne like" derivat, including angled deck and catapult to support amphibious operations and to escort chinese trading ships

Click to expand...

well with current technology and funding i think an attack helo carrier is viable. it doesnt require much funding as carriers, and requires less experience and know how. crawl, walk and run. with china is more like crawl and run. aviation jumped from cold war era to modern era. ground units from world war 2 to modern-advance. naval lagging abit behind the other 2 fighting units but recieving larger proportion of funding.

as for first carrier (domestic) not refit, i personally think a smaller version of the varyag with removable ski jump, holding one squadron of 24 fixed wing aircraft.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sczepan said:

If you look around, you will found different types of carriers all over the world.
There are the "big sticks", like US CVN Carriers (up to 90 000 ts and more)
and also smaller ones like the US LH (Tarawa for example), with arround 40 000 ts or smaller, like italy (Cavour: 27 000 ts, Giuseppe Garbaldi: 13 000 ts), Spain (Principe de Asturias, 17 000 ts), Thailand (Chakri Naruebet, 12 000 ts) and so on ... which are for amphibious and escort operations.

I prefer the smaller design for the first indegenious chinese carrier.
1. To minimize the risk (crawl, walk, run - one undesirable trend would be very expansiv by big sticks)
2. Small amphibious carriers are a "must", more than needed - more needed as the big sticks
3. In politcal relations this small carriers ar not seen as "threat" to chinese neighbours (indeed, they are, but optical ...)
4. China studied the Melbourne, a small carrier including catapult - which is a proofed design;

So I think the first indegenious chinese carrier will be a modern "Melbourne like" derivat, including angled deck and catapult to support amphibious operations and to escort chinese trading ships

Click to expand...

well with current technology and funding i think an attack helo carrier is viable. it doesnt require much funding as carriers, and requires less experience and know how. crawl, walk and run. with china is more like crawl and run. aviation jumped from cold war era to modern era. ground units from world war 2 to modern-advance. naval lagging abit behind the other 2 fighting units but recieving larger proportion of funding.

as for first carrier (domestic) not refit, i personally think a smaller version of the varyag with removable ski jump, holding one squadron of 24 fixed wing aircraft.

Future PLAN Carrier Borne Aircraft

Chinese Military Aviation has just posted this doozy! An indigenous, navalised J-11! He's saying its called the J-13 (the original J-13 concept was also by Shenyang so I guess its fair that they can keep 'their' name ). It will have a 'semi-stealth design', WS-10A engine, and a navalised landing/navigational systems. But other than that its more or less the same as the J-11B. I posted this here since well, I wasn't really sure where else to put it. It certainly is carrier related though!

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

It's sort of like Christmas... Chinese style. I saw that drawing floating around last week but didn't think anything of it since it just looked like someone's doodle. Now if that engine chart in the WS-10 thread is real, some light has been shed on the J13 mentioned on it.

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

AssassinsMace said:

It's sort of like Christmas... Chinese style. I saw that drawing floating around last week but didn't think anything of it since it just looked like someone's doodle. Now if that engine chart in the WS-10 thread is real, some light has been shed on the J13 mentioned on it.

Click to expand...

Indeed, news is going really quickly now! I saw this image around for a couple of days as well but I didn't really know what it was until huitong said that it was the carrierborne 'J-13'. We all knew Shenyang was working on a navalised J-11 but I wasn't really expecting a whole new designation (something like J-11H or something would have been just as good but if they are going out of their way to call it the J-13 then there is probably more to it than just a new engine, landing gear and 'semi-stealth').

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

Well I just hope the J-11B has nothing to do with it. All that flack it being a rip-off should tell Beijing to go away from that direction.

I wondering if this pic of the supposed JH-7A upgrade or maybe JH-7B model is really the J-13. Maybe it's the angle, but aside from the cockpit, the area around the intakes look somewhat similar.

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

AssassinsMace said:

Well I just hope the J-11B has nothing to do with it. All that flack it being a rip-off should tell Beijing to go away from that direction.

I wondering if this pic of the supposed JH-7A upgrade or maybe JH-7B model is really the J-13. Maybe it's the angle, but aside from the cockpit, the area around the intakes look somewhat similar.

[qimg]http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1236/zhangwannianplusmodelsp8.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Well it is what it is. A licensed Flanker variant. That doesn't mean the Su-27/Su-30 is obsolete though, India's Su-30MKI is a very impressive aircraft with some Indian components in it. As long as it gets the job done it should be fine although in my opinion you are right, but the entire 'new' J-11 project came about during the early 90s when Russia was the only country really willing to sell anything to China. At the time there was only the J-9, J-10 and J-13 projects going on, all were light single seat fighter designs. A large twi-engine air-superiority fighter is some at the time China could not really produce itself, things have changed now obviously and we don't REALLY know how different the J-13 will be from the J-11B.Besides this is Shenyang we're talking about, they've never exactly been known as risk takers.

As fro the image itself, yah, the picture is sort of wonky, at first I wasn't sure if I was looking at normal J-11 intakes or some sort of J-10 style chin mounted intake until I realised what sort of perspective they were trying to show

Re: Latest Varyag Info and Photos

Does Huitong's pic of the supposed render of the J-13 displayed on CCTV have anything to do with the new cockpit display seen at the 2008 Zhuhai Airshow.