PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sczepan said:

Jeff, didn't you see the possibility of collissions by the "crossing x-deck"?
To reduce the risk, you have to wait in landing operations that the aircraft before passed the "collision-point" and than the next plane could touch down, but so you win no more capacity compared to conventionell angled-deck designs;
in starting operations you have two decks - thats the same as conventionell angled-decks can make available;
so - excuse my stupid question - where is the big advantage of this creation?

Click to expand...

The advantage is that the deck configuration gains the same advantage of conventional carrier operations just like you say, while doing so on a container ship hull, where the provisions for control and the superstructure are all located at the back of the ship in the middle of what would normally be a conventional carrier deck.

It wasn't a matter of somehow improving a conventional carrier design, it was a matter of working with a different hull and getting the same basic advantages available to a conventional configuration.

So, this design allows carrier operations to be conducted like a conventional carrier...and give some flexability for wind conditions with the crossing configuration, while doing all of that on a smaller, less expensive hull that can be produced modularly very quickly. Those are the advantages and hope I that helps the explanationand understanding.

Your question wasn't a stupid question at all, thanks for asking and allowing me to clarify.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:

The USN has been operating CV's since 1923. You'd think they may know a little something about it. The USN never sends a CV to sea alone. Even a CV emerging from a re-fit has an escort when it goes to sea. This has been and will continue to be the USN policy. A CV was designed to launch, recover, store aircraft and assoicated equipment. The CV's AAW is provided by it's own aircraft and escorts. As well as it's ASW.

Each navy world over operates diffrently. I do not expect the PLAN to operate like the USN. I'm sure they are developing their own doctrine.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between sending a CV unescorted and making it RELIANT on escorts.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:

The USN has been operating CV's since 1923. You'd think they may know a little something about it. The USN never sends a CV to sea alone. Even a CV emerging from a re-fit has an escort when it goes to sea. This has been and will continue to be the USN policy. A CV was designed to launch, recover, store aircraft and assoicated equipment. The CV's AAW is provided by it's own aircraft and escorts. As well as it's ASW.

Each navy world over operates diffrently. I do not expect the PLAN to operate like the USN. I'm sure they are developing their own doctrine.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between sending a CV unescorted and making it RELIANT on escorts.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

bd popeye said:

The USN has been operating CV's since 1923. You'd think they may know a little something about it. The USN never sends a CV to sea alone. Even a CV emerging from a re-fit has an escort when it goes to sea. This has been and will continue to be the USN policy. A CV was designed to launch, recover, store aircraft and assoicated equipment. The CV's AAW is provided by it's own aircraft and escorts. As well as it's ASW.

Each navy world over operates diffrently. I do not expect the PLAN to operate like the USN. I'm sure they are developing their own doctrine.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between sending a CV unescorted and making it RELIANT on escorts.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

well, I see, you studied a lot of this thing;
what do you think about an "<>" deck instead of the "x"-deck;
its like an reflection of the traditional carrier design with an secound angled deck at the right hand and the island in the middle of this rhombus-design;
(cut Jeffs idea in the middle and put the front part to the back, changing catapulte in front and the arrestor gears back - so you see what I mean)

the landing deck is back, created like a "V" from the stern and so there are two different landing stripes which could be used nearly simultan; if any planes crash or have to continue they have nothing in front and can do so without collision;

also the runways to start ar in (compared to landing stripes negative) "V" form, including one skijump (or lets be used two different catapultes instead) in the front of the ship; so these ship also could launch two planes nearly simultan, moved from left and right runway ....

edit:
and could launch 4 planes nearly simultan, if a catapulte is installed at the front of both "angled" landing decks ....
and could be used for simultan landing by using paralell land- and startways
:china:

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

well, I see, you studied a lot of this thing;
what do you think about an "<>" deck instead of the "x"-deck;
its like an reflection of the traditional carrier design with an secound angled deck at the right hand and the island in the middle of this rhombus-design;
(cut Jeffs idea in the middle and put the front part to the back, changing catapulte in front and the arrestor gears back - so you see what I mean)

the landing deck is back, created like a "V" from the stern and so there are two different landing stripes which could be used nearly simultan; if any planes crash or have to continue they have nothing in front and can do so without collision;

also the runways to start ar in (compared to landing stripes negative) "V" form, including one skijump (or lets be used two different catapultes instead) in the front of the ship; so these ship also could launch two planes nearly simultan, moved from left and right runway ....

edit:
and could launch 4 planes nearly simultan, if a catapulte is installed at the front of both "angled" landing decks ....
and could be used for simultan landing by using paralell land- and startways
:china:

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

well, I see, you studied a lot of this thing;
what do you think about an "<>" deck instead of the "x"-deck;
its like an reflection of the traditional carrier design with an secound angled deck at the right hand and the island in the middle of this rhombus-design;
(cut Jeffs idea in the middle and put the front part to the back, changing catapulte in front and the arrestor gears back - so you see what I mean)

the landing deck is back, created like a "V" from the stern and so there are two different landing stripes which could be used nearly simultan; if any planes crash or have to continue they have nothing in front and can do so without collision;

also the runways to start ar in (compared to landing stripes negative) "V" form, including one skijump (or lets be used two different catapultes instead) in the front of the ship; so these ship also could launch two planes nearly simultan, moved from left and right runway ....

edit:
and could launch 4 planes nearly simultan, if a catapulte is installed at the front of both "angled" landing decks ....
and could be used for simultan landing by using paralell land- and startways
:china:

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Large oil tankers are a lot larger than even the US carriers, about a quarter of the Nimitz's length extra plus nearly twice as wide:

The Hellespont Metropolis has a length of 380 metres a beam of 68m and 24.5m draft and weighs in just under 442,000 dwt. The ship was built by South Korea’s Daewoo Heavy Industries.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Large oil tankers are a lot larger than even the US carriers, about a quarter of the Nimitz's length extra plus nearly twice as wide:

The Hellespont Metropolis has a length of 380 metres a beam of 68m and 24.5m draft and weighs in just under 442,000 dwt. The ship was built by South Korea’s Daewoo Heavy Industries.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Large oil tankers are a lot larger than even the US carriers, about a quarter of the Nimitz's length extra plus nearly twice as wide:

The Hellespont Metropolis has a length of 380 metres a beam of 68m and 24.5m draft and weighs in just under 442,000 dwt. The ship was built by South Korea’s Daewoo Heavy Industries.