PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Considering the Nimitz class ships all have a starboard list, I can't see these shelters being something that will make a final design. They look like something that can clobber the deck with debris from battle damage, and impair the operation of the elevators too should they be damaged. Last, aircraft are packed in tightly on the flight deck. The ability to move them off the landing area and to spot them quickly is critical during landing ops. Physically dividing the flight deck like that will limit the number and placement of aircraft that can be spotted on the flight deck.
I still like tri-hull carriers however, assuming hull volume is sufficient or can be made so.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Considering the Nimitz class ships all have a starboard list, I can't see these shelters being something that will make a final design. They look like something that can clobber the deck with debris from battle damage, and impair the operation of the elevators too should they be damaged. Last, aircraft are packed in tightly on the flight deck. The ability to move them off the landing area and to spot them quickly is critical during landing ops. Physically dividing the flight deck like that will limit the number and placement of aircraft that can be spotted on the flight deck.
I still like tri-hull carriers however, assuming hull volume is sufficient or can be made so.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Considering the Nimitz class ships all have a starboard list, I can't see these shelters being something that will make a final design. They look like something that can clobber the deck with debris from battle damage, and impair the operation of the elevators too should they be damaged. Last, aircraft are packed in tightly on the flight deck. The ability to move them off the landing area and to spot them quickly is critical during landing ops. Physically dividing the flight deck like that will limit the number and placement of aircraft that can be spotted on the flight deck.
I still like tri-hull carriers however, assuming hull volume is sufficient or can be made so.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Not sure what Nimitz's list has to do with it sir.

Agree those are all issues to consider, and seek to mitigate, but life is a compromise and none of those seem to be show-stoppers.

The debris concern is interesting but thinking about it I'd expect no more debris than exposed aircraft on the flightdeck would produce. Depending on expense, weight and other practicality issues the hangers could also have limited anti-splinter/soft-armour linings to reduce the debris and flying debris damage to the aircraft within, and in some cases containing fires, fuel spillage and similar risks. I'm not seeing these as armoured boxes or anything, but I don't think the debris concern is particularly strong. Whatever you have on deck, if you suffer direct hits in combat there is likely to be debris which needs clearing.

Deck parking flexibility is more of an issue but something I'd mulled before. Within the confines of the unmodified deck plan, I tried to shape, size and place them to minimise disruption. They are exactly where you'd expect to park aircraft. Taking the RN carrier program as a lead, the deck handling would be optimised during design by computer simulation, and training plans developed accordingly. Routine deck handling would follow set processes with computer assisted coordination from the bridge. Added to the fact that operational tempo is not intended to out-pace the larger USN CVNs (I see these as medium carriers) I can't see too much of a prob. Here's a quick view with 8 x J-11K/Su-33CNs parked (in addition to 6 in the shelters) without compromising the lifts or on-deck hanger doors. Note that the land safety boundary is very generous anyway. The forward parking next to the ski-jump would more likely be a helicopter. If the ski-jump was narrowed to single aircraft (as per most ski-jump carriers) then even more could be parked. But parking so many jets on the deck is not a sign of an efficient deck handling process!


The main aim of these hangers is to reduce the IR/radar signature of the carrier to reduce the likelihood of successful targeting in many situations. Maintaining a low signature with aircraft parked on deck is almost impossible, so this is an attempt to tackle that problem first and foremost.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Not sure what Nimitz's list has to do with it sir.

Agree those are all issues to consider, and seek to mitigate, but life is a compromise and none of those seem to be show-stoppers.

The debris concern is interesting but thinking about it I'd expect no more debris than exposed aircraft on the flightdeck would produce. Depending on expense, weight and other practicality issues the hangers could also have limited anti-splinter/soft-armour linings to reduce the debris and flying debris damage to the aircraft within, and in some cases containing fires, fuel spillage and similar risks. I'm not seeing these as armoured boxes or anything, but I don't think the debris concern is particularly strong. Whatever you have on deck, if you suffer direct hits in combat there is likely to be debris which needs clearing.

Deck parking flexibility is more of an issue but something I'd mulled before. Within the confines of the unmodified deck plan, I tried to shape, size and place them to minimise disruption. They are exactly where you'd expect to park aircraft. Taking the RN carrier program as a lead, the deck handling would be optimised during design by computer simulation, and training plans developed accordingly. Routine deck handling would follow set processes with computer assisted coordination from the bridge. Added to the fact that operational tempo is not intended to out-pace the larger USN CVNs (I see these as medium carriers) I can't see too much of a prob. Here's a quick view with 8 x J-11K/Su-33CNs parked (in addition to 6 in the shelters) without compromising the lifts or on-deck hanger doors. Note that the land safety boundary is very generous anyway. The forward parking next to the ski-jump would more likely be a helicopter. If the ski-jump was narrowed to single aircraft (as per most ski-jump carriers) then even more could be parked. But parking so many jets on the deck is not a sign of an efficient deck handling process!


The main aim of these hangers is to reduce the IR/radar signature of the carrier to reduce the likelihood of successful targeting in many situations. Maintaining a low signature with aircraft parked on deck is almost impossible, so this is an attempt to tackle that problem first and foremost.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Not sure what Nimitz's list has to do with it sir.

Agree those are all issues to consider, and seek to mitigate, but life is a compromise and none of those seem to be show-stoppers.

The debris concern is interesting but thinking about it I'd expect no more debris than exposed aircraft on the flightdeck would produce. Depending on expense, weight and other practicality issues the hangers could also have limited anti-splinter/soft-armour linings to reduce the debris and flying debris damage to the aircraft within, and in some cases containing fires, fuel spillage and similar risks. I'm not seeing these as armoured boxes or anything, but I don't think the debris concern is particularly strong. Whatever you have on deck, if you suffer direct hits in combat there is likely to be debris which needs clearing.

Deck parking flexibility is more of an issue but something I'd mulled before. Within the confines of the unmodified deck plan, I tried to shape, size and place them to minimise disruption. They are exactly where you'd expect to park aircraft. Taking the RN carrier program as a lead, the deck handling would be optimised during design by computer simulation, and training plans developed accordingly. Routine deck handling would follow set processes with computer assisted coordination from the bridge. Added to the fact that operational tempo is not intended to out-pace the larger USN CVNs (I see these as medium carriers) I can't see too much of a prob. Here's a quick view with 8 x J-11K/Su-33CNs parked (in addition to 6 in the shelters) without compromising the lifts or on-deck hanger doors. Note that the land safety boundary is very generous anyway. The forward parking next to the ski-jump would more likely be a helicopter. If the ski-jump was narrowed to single aircraft (as per most ski-jump carriers) then even more could be parked. But parking so many jets on the deck is not a sign of an efficient deck handling process!


The main aim of these hangers is to reduce the IR/radar signature of the carrier to reduce the likelihood of successful targeting in many situations. Maintaining a low signature with aircraft parked on deck is almost impossible, so this is an attempt to tackle that problem first and foremost.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Ambivalent said:

Considering the Nimitz class ships all have a starboard list, I can't see these shelters being something that will make a final design. They look like something that can clobber the deck with debris from battle damage, and impair the operation of the elevators too should they be damaged. Last, aircraft are packed in tightly on the flight deck. The ability to move them off the landing area and to spot them quickly is critical during landing ops. Physically dividing the flight deck like that will limit the number and placement of aircraft that can be spotted on the flight deck.
I still like tri-hull carriers however, assuming hull volume is sufficient or can be made so.

Click to expand...

Monohulls provide more volume for the size involved; that's why you see supertankers, cargo ships, and cruise ships built and designed as monohulls. More interior space = more stuff that can be carried. You only want to go to a multihull configuration if stability is more of a concern, or high speed is of importance.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Ambivalent said:

Considering the Nimitz class ships all have a starboard list, I can't see these shelters being something that will make a final design. They look like something that can clobber the deck with debris from battle damage, and impair the operation of the elevators too should they be damaged. Last, aircraft are packed in tightly on the flight deck. The ability to move them off the landing area and to spot them quickly is critical during landing ops. Physically dividing the flight deck like that will limit the number and placement of aircraft that can be spotted on the flight deck.
I still like tri-hull carriers however, assuming hull volume is sufficient or can be made so.

Click to expand...

Monohulls provide more volume for the size involved; that's why you see supertankers, cargo ships, and cruise ships built and designed as monohulls. More interior space = more stuff that can be carried. You only want to go to a multihull configuration if stability is more of a concern, or high speed is of importance.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Ambivalent said:

Considering the Nimitz class ships all have a starboard list, I can't see these shelters being something that will make a final design. They look like something that can clobber the deck with debris from battle damage, and impair the operation of the elevators too should they be damaged. Last, aircraft are packed in tightly on the flight deck. The ability to move them off the landing area and to spot them quickly is critical during landing ops. Physically dividing the flight deck like that will limit the number and placement of aircraft that can be spotted on the flight deck.
I still like tri-hull carriers however, assuming hull volume is sufficient or can be made so.

Click to expand...

Monohulls provide more volume for the size involved; that's why you see supertankers, cargo ships, and cruise ships built and designed as monohulls. More interior space = more stuff that can be carried. You only want to go to a multihull configuration if stability is more of a concern, or high speed is of importance.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I think that's misleading. Ships of equal displacement will have virtually identical below-waterline volumes. A multi-hull will generally have more above-waterline volume per given displacement.

So, in general terms, a 30,000 tons displacement carrier can easily have a larger hanger than a 60,000 ton monohull carrier. This is why many modern ferries are multi-hulls. The one that comes to mind is:



Where multi-hulls have a trade-off is in the limited weight that can be stored in the relatively spacious upper structure. Fortunately hangers are mostly air, which is free.

Going back to what Popeye and others have pointed out, the true compromise is in heavy stores/munitions/fuel because these are normally stored near/below waterline. All other things being equal, the 30,000 ton multi-hull carrier can only carry about 50-70% the amount of these items as the equivalent 60,000 ton monohull carrier. You could get a bit more by mounting the engines higher (I'd rather not, prefer a larger hanger deck) or using lighter materials.

I'd advocate alloys and composites for many internal 'non-structural' elements and parts of the hull above waterline. The usual cries are about fire issues but these are hotly disputed and alloys are receiving a revival. Much of the anti-aluminum rants are actually off the mark, for example HMS Sheffield in 1982.

The deck would not be armoured. Controversial but realistic.