PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:

Here's a very viable LPD/LHD design I found at sin.com.cn

If someone desires to translate the Chinese please do so!

超猛：中国海军999泰山号两栖攻击舰现身了！图
顶不顶看着办

[qimg]http://i47.tinypic.com/2w4kzlg.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i50.tinypic.com/5ygok8.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i45.tinypic.com/301zzw9.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i50.tinypic.com/2q8dpfq.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i46.tinypic.com/15zk3d1.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Basically it is saying that the pics showed of the Chinese PLAN Type 999 Mount Tai class Amphibious Attack ship. The author is basically asking whether China actually need this ship.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Thanks for that translation rhino123.

I think the ship is of a generally good design. The two areas of concern for me are

1) The hangar deck is very small but probably adequate.

2) The placement of that elevator in the middle of the ship will eat up valuable deck space on the flight & hangar decks and all the decks below. I do however understand why the designer placed the elevator there. So it may be used for both vehicles and aircraft.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Thanks for that translation rhino123.

I think the ship is of a generally good design. The two areas of concern for me are

1) The hangar deck is very small but probably adequate.

2) The placement of that elevator in the middle of the ship will eat up valuable deck space on the flight & hangar decks and all the decks below. I do however understand why the designer placed the elevator there. So it may be used for both vehicles and aircraft.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Thanks for that translation rhino123.

I think the ship is of a generally good design. The two areas of concern for me are

1) The hangar deck is very small but probably adequate.

2) The placement of that elevator in the middle of the ship will eat up valuable deck space on the flight & hangar decks and all the decks below. I do however understand why the designer placed the elevator there. So it may be used for both vehicles and aircraft.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I am thinking... is it really that bad having better armed aircraft carriers - one with a number of air defence missiles and CWIS system in the ship other than aircrafts. Although, many has pointed out (in this thread and others) the disadvantage of heavily armed carriers and the reason why US navy didn't adopt such an approach.

But if we look at the US navy again, the US carriers are escorted and protected by large number of destroyers and other type of ships. Of course this is a good tactic, but it is extremely expensive and to maintain that vast amount of ships and a carrier is very difficult unless you are a nation that is very rich and had huge number of warships at your disposal.

I am wondering if the carrier of China should be better armed so herself could actually defend herself with all her weapons and so have smaller number of escort... plus her escort do not need to be huge destroyers. Coupled with the aircraft that she carried with her... I think she would still be very potent.

This type of arrangement would no doubt bring the maintenance of the carrier up... but the overall cost of maintaining the CBG would go down tremendously. Of course we couldn't then follow to the successful formula of the US navy, but I believe we could come up with a doctrine and operation procedure that suit this type of CBG.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I am thinking... is it really that bad having better armed aircraft carriers - one with a number of air defence missiles and CWIS system in the ship other than aircrafts. Although, many has pointed out (in this thread and others) the disadvantage of heavily armed carriers and the reason why US navy didn't adopt such an approach.

But if we look at the US navy again, the US carriers are escorted and protected by large number of destroyers and other type of ships. Of course this is a good tactic, but it is extremely expensive and to maintain that vast amount of ships and a carrier is very difficult unless you are a nation that is very rich and had huge number of warships at your disposal.

I am wondering if the carrier of China should be better armed so herself could actually defend herself with all her weapons and so have smaller number of escort... plus her escort do not need to be huge destroyers. Coupled with the aircraft that she carried with her... I think she would still be very potent.

This type of arrangement would no doubt bring the maintenance of the carrier up... but the overall cost of maintaining the CBG would go down tremendously. Of course we couldn't then follow to the successful formula of the US navy, but I believe we could come up with a doctrine and operation procedure that suit this type of CBG.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I am thinking... is it really that bad having better armed aircraft carriers - one with a number of air defence missiles and CWIS system in the ship other than aircrafts. Although, many has pointed out (in this thread and others) the disadvantage of heavily armed carriers and the reason why US navy didn't adopt such an approach.

But if we look at the US navy again, the US carriers are escorted and protected by large number of destroyers and other type of ships. Of course this is a good tactic, but it is extremely expensive and to maintain that vast amount of ships and a carrier is very difficult unless you are a nation that is very rich and had huge number of warships at your disposal.

I am wondering if the carrier of China should be better armed so herself could actually defend herself with all her weapons and so have smaller number of escort... plus her escort do not need to be huge destroyers. Coupled with the aircraft that she carried with her... I think she would still be very potent.

This type of arrangement would no doubt bring the maintenance of the carrier up... but the overall cost of maintaining the CBG would go down tremendously. Of course we couldn't then follow to the successful formula of the US navy, but I believe we could come up with a doctrine and operation procedure that suit this type of CBG.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I am wondering if the carrier of China should be better armed so herself could actually defend herself with all her weapons and so have smaller number of escort... plus her escort do not need to be huge destroyers. Coupled with the aircraft that she carried with her... I think she would still be very potent.

Click to expand...

The reason a USN CV is lightly armed is that her aircraft are her main armament. You can't be firing off missile etc and conducting flight operation. It just does not work well. That's why the USN has escorts with it's CVNs. They form the Carrier Strike Group...CSG.

An USN CSG consist of

1) 1 CVN
2) 1 Ticonderoga class CG
3) 2 or 3 Arleigh Burke class DDGs
4) 1 Los Angeles class SSN
5) 1 Supply class T-AOE or one Lewis & Clark class T-AKE
+ one Henry J. Kaiser Class T-AO (fleet oiler)

The USS George Washington (CVN-73) CSG has the ablity to operate with as many as nine Aegis equipped DDGs & CGs.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I am wondering if the carrier of China should be better armed so herself could actually defend herself with all her weapons and so have smaller number of escort... plus her escort do not need to be huge destroyers. Coupled with the aircraft that she carried with her... I think she would still be very potent.

Click to expand...

The reason a USN CV is lightly armed is that her aircraft are her main armament. You can't be firing off missile etc and conducting flight operation. It just does not work well. That's why the USN has escorts with it's CVNs. They form the Carrier Strike Group...CSG.

An USN CSG consist of

1) 1 CVN
2) 1 Ticonderoga class CG
3) 2 or 3 Arleigh Burke class DDGs
4) 1 Los Angeles class SSN
5) 1 Supply class T-AOE or one Lewis & Clark class T-AKE
+ one Henry J. Kaiser Class T-AO (fleet oiler)

The USS George Washington (CVN-73) CSG has the ablity to operate with as many as nine Aegis equipped DDGs & CGs.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

I am wondering if the carrier of China should be better armed so herself could actually defend herself with all her weapons and so have smaller number of escort... plus her escort do not need to be huge destroyers. Coupled with the aircraft that she carried with her... I think she would still be very potent.

Click to expand...

The reason a USN CV is lightly armed is that her aircraft are her main armament. You can't be firing off missile etc and conducting flight operation. It just does not work well. That's why the USN has escorts with it's CVNs. They form the Carrier Strike Group...CSG.

An USN CSG consist of

1) 1 CVN
2) 1 Ticonderoga class CG
3) 2 or 3 Arleigh Burke class DDGs
4) 1 Los Angeles class SSN
5) 1 Supply class T-AOE or one Lewis & Clark class T-AKE
+ one Henry J. Kaiser Class T-AO (fleet oiler)

The USS George Washington (CVN-73) CSG has the ablity to operate with as many as nine Aegis equipped DDGs & CGs.