PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

PanAsian said:

I think the main reason why China has not built any LHAs or LHDs yet is because their rotary wing aircraft industry is not yet capable of building products which fully meet the Chinese military's requirements, witness the Z-10 needing its equipment compromised to reduce its weight. Once all types of acceptably capable rotary assets are available, hopefully the Z-20 is a step towards that, then I am sure we will promptly see a Chinese LHA or LHD.

I think a LHD is a more capable and thereby a more cost-effective approach than a LHA, and I expect the PLAN to first build a single one to train or experiment with like the Liaoning. However I don't think there is a pressing military need for China for these types of assets and OOTW and humanitarian type missions are already being sufficiently covered by the 071s and hospital ships.

The only situation where a LHD with a well-rounded rotary airwing is truly needed is small-scale evacuations from hot zones, but this is a very niche need. To the point of what others have said China prefers diplomacy to avoid such situations and so far that has mostly worked.

Click to expand...

I think a LHD/LHA is much more suited to disaster relieve than a CV, it is not that threatening, can bring a lot of relief workers on the soil, integral with hospital facilities and water purification facilities.

These are awsome diplomatic tools.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

Pigsy said:

Stupid noob question here, but why do we need an island at all? The only reason I can think of is to get some height for the radars. But can't these be fitted by another method without sticking them on a big building that takes up valuable space? I don't think good observational vantage point is a good enough reason, just use a well placed network of HD cameras.

Click to expand...

I can answer this question with much authority. You've partly answered your own question actually. The island has four primary purposes. Location of sensors i.e radars, navigational sensors etc, you have the bridge, the pri-fly and in on nuclear power carriers the funnel and exhaust venting system to clear the smokes etc... and actually a good vantage point IS crucial!

What you suggest is thereotically possible however all the towers, antennas etc potruding out of the deck would make it very cluttered and doesn't really save much real estate so might as well go with an island where everything can be centralized and extended from.
Also I think you always need that human eye in the sky both in the bridge and the pri fly to direct traffic and assess deck handling and operations. A camera no matter how good can't replace a human eye and definitely can't be a substitute for situational awareness.
On non conventional carriers there is also the issue of smoke. If you have everything 'flat' that means the stack is flush with either the deck or of the side. This would cause major issues since the smoke would get in the way especially if the wind blows the wrong way not just in terms of visibility but it's hot!! and the area where the vent comes out from would be non use anyway so either way you're still losing real estate. If you vent them to the aft then what happens on landing? the last thing a pilot wants to see when landing on a flat top is a big cloud of smoke right in front of him!!!

Last but not least what if there are technical issues with the cameras? You're basically mission killed if you can drive the ship and launch aircrafts! It doesn't even have to be anything serious. Something as trivial as a couple of seagulls doing business on the camera lenses or housing would basically put the entire carrier at risk!
Driving a carrier with just cameras is like flying a drone. Can it be done?? sure.. can you fly and navigate a drone? obviously!
Can you knifefight in a drone against another fighter piloted by a human being inside the cockpit and win? NO WAY!

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

kwaigonegin said:

I can answer this question with much authority. You've partly answered your own question actually. The island has four primary purposes. Location of sensors i.e radars, navigational sensors etc, you have the bridge, the pri-fly and in on nuclear power carriers the funnel and exhaust venting system to clear the smokes etc... and actually a good vantage point IS crucial!

What you suggest is thereotically possible however all the towers, antennas etc potruding out of the deck would make it very cluttered and doesn't really save much real estate so might as well go with an island where everything can be centralized and extended from.
Also I think you always need that human eye in the sky both in the bridge and the pri fly to direct traffic and assess deck handling and operations. A camera no matter how good can't replace a human eye and definitely can't be a substitute for situational awareness.
On non conventional carriers there is also the issue of smoke. If you have everything 'flat' that means the stack is flush with either the deck or of the side. This would cause major issues since the smoke would get in the way especially if the wind blows the wrong way not just in terms of visibility but it's hot!! and the area where the vent comes out from would be non use anyway so either way you're still losing real estate. If you vent them to the aft then what happens on landing? the last thing a pilot wants to see when landing on a flat top is a big cloud of smoke right in front of him!!!

Last but not least what if there are technical issues with the cameras? You're basically mission killed if you can drive the ship and launch aircrafts! It doesn't even have to be anything serious. Something as trivial as a couple of seagulls doing business on the camera lenses or housing would basically put the entire carrier at risk!
Driving a carrier with just cameras is like flying a drone. Can it be done?? sure.. can you fly and navigate a drone? obviously!
Can you knifefight in a drone against another fighter piloted by a human being inside the cockpit and win? NO WAY!

Click to expand...

Ah, the cult of the eyeball thrives still.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

kwaigonegin said:

I can answer this question with much authority. You've partly answered your own question actually. The island has four primary purposes. Location of sensors i.e radars, navigational sensors etc, you have the bridge, the pri-fly and in on nuclear power carriers the funnel and exhaust venting system to clear the smokes etc... and actually a good vantage point IS crucial!

What you suggest is thereotically possible however all the towers, antennas etc potruding out of the deck would make it very cluttered and doesn't really save much real estate so might as well go with an island where everything can be centralized and extended from.
Also I think you always need that human eye in the sky both in the bridge and the pri fly to direct traffic and assess deck handling and operations. A camera no matter how good can't replace a human eye and definitely can't be a substitute for situational awareness.
On non conventional carriers there is also the issue of smoke. If you have everything 'flat' that means the stack is flush with either the deck or of the side. This would cause major issues since the smoke would get in the way especially if the wind blows the wrong way not just in terms of visibility but it's hot!! and the area where the vent comes out from would be non use anyway so either way you're still losing real estate. If you vent them to the aft then what happens on landing? the last thing a pilot wants to see when landing on a flat top is a big cloud of smoke right in front of him!!!

Last but not least what if there are technical issues with the cameras? You're basically mission killed if you can drive the ship and launch aircrafts! It doesn't even have to be anything serious. Something as trivial as a couple of seagulls doing business on the camera lenses or housing would basically put the entire carrier at risk!
Driving a carrier with just cameras is like flying a drone. Can it be done?? sure.. can you fly and navigate a drone? obviously!
Can you knifefight in a drone against another fighter piloted by a human being inside the cockpit and win? NO WAY!

Click to expand...

Well, I'm going to have to give you and the Eng five stars each on your posts, both very well written and to the point, I can't believe I learn something everytime you guys open your mouth,,,, or er??? plug in the data, keep it up, this could win the post of the day though, it is a keeper, one that could be stickied as a classic, I just never thought about how much thought had to put into building/operating an aircraft carrier, WOW! good job gentlemen,,,

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

Okay guys, this has gotten off topic and continues to head that way.

This thread is about actual PLAN projects and plans to construct an indegenous carrier. Pictures of that discussion, discussion of those projects actual plans. Discussions about the Liaoning refit as a part of that, etc. It is not about fan art of what a carrier might look like.

We have a thread for that:

Future Aircraft Carrier Design, Ideas, Brainstorm

I am moving these fanboy art discussions there. Please continue that discussion there if you so desire.

In the mean time:

​

Thanks.

Re: PLAN Carrier Construction

I felt the last five post were off topic including two of my own.. so I moved them..If your post is missing it is here;

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/plan-lhd-lph-lha-discussion-5644.html

bd popeye super moderator

Re: What will the 1st PLAN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) look like?

1 Aircraft Carrier
2 DDG Type 052C Luyang II
2 DDG Type 052D Luyang III?
4 FFG Type 054A Jiangkai II
2 SSN Type 093 Shang Class
1 Qiandaohu (Fuchi) Class (That's the Supply Ship)
1 Qinghaihu (Nancang Class) replenishment ship


The reason I did not put the following ship in the CSG are as follows
DDG Type 051 C Luzhou Class
DDG Type 051 B Luhai Class
These 2 ships were designed to provide air defense when PLAN had nothing beside Type 051 during the 90s(which only had anti-air guns and no SAMs), the type 051B/C were a development platform to mature Air Defense technology which eventually gave birth to the Type 52 and the new flag destroyers of the PLAN Type 52C/D

DDG Proj 956 or 956E Sovremenny Class
This particular ship was designed long range anti-surface combatant tasks. With the eventual commission of the carrier air wing, it have very little role in the strike group. Although it still may prove itself useful with its enormous arsenal of supersonic anti-ship missiles.

my source of this knowledge is strictly from Admiral/Prof. Zhang Zhaozhong's interview

Re: What will the 1st PLAN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) look like?

Which interview do you reference to?

I think there are enough ships in that list to escort more than a single aircraft carrier. Two 052C and 052D with another four 054As on top? That's literally an entire destroyer flotillas worth of ships.

Of course, one day the PLAN might be able to spare that many ships without draining the rest of their force, but not for a while yet. But even in fifteen years, I'd be surprised if a PLAN CSG has more than three destroyers and three frigates as part of its regular surface escort.

Basically something equivalent to what we saw with these pictures, only with newer and more modern ships.

I also wonder if they need two refuel/re supply ships, and if they need two SSNs as well.

Re: What will the 1st PLAN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) look like?

usaf0314 said:

1 Aircraft Carrier
2 DDG Type 052C Luyang II
2 DDG Type 052D Luyang III?
4 FFG Type 054A Jiangkai II
2 SSN Type 093 Shang Class

my source of this knowledge is strictly from Admiral/Prof. Zhang Zhaozhong's interview

Click to expand...

I do not believe that a single Carrier Strike Group for the PLAN or any other country would consist of ten escorts for one carrier. It is simple overkill...unless it is a part of a larger combined task force.

Once they have enough of the vessels together, the group will most probably consist of the following:

1 x CV
2 x Type 052D DDGs
2 x Type 054A FFGs
1 x Type 093 SSN

The maximum you might see in a very high threat environment would be three of each surface escort and two SSNs. That may happen on occasion, but it would be a rare occasion. There will be a separate replenishment group, that will meet up with the carrier when it needs to, that will most like consist of:

1 x AOR vessel
1 x Type 054A FFG

The escort for that vessel may also be a Type052C DDG, but usually would be a guided missile frigate.

Re: What will the 1st PLAN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) look like?

Bltizo said:

Which interview do you reference to?

I think there are enough ships in that list to escort more than a single aircraft carrier. Two 052C and 052D with another four 054As on top? That's literally an entire destroyer flotillas worth of ships.

Of course, one day the PLAN might be able to spare that many ships without draining the rest of their force, but not for a while yet. But even in fifteen years, I'd be surprised if a PLAN CSG has more than three destroyers and three frigates as part of its regular surface escort.

Basically something equivalent to what we saw with these pictures, only with newer and more modern ships.

I also wonder if they need two refuel/re supply ships, and if they need two SSNs as well.

Click to expand...

i agree, the number is a bit overkill. However doesn't U.S. Carrier group usually compose of 2 Ticon Cruisers and 2 Arleigh Burke Destroyers and a OHP class frigate? Also, the interview was talking about how the PLAN developed over the last 20 years and a touch on the composition of the Carrier Strike Group, no numbers were mentioned.

also Prof. Zhang speculate the next 2 052C/D will also be given to East Sea Fleet. guess there is little love for North Sea Fleet