They have made up their mind on what kind of carrier they want. The suppliers have already finished with much of the parts, the assembly should start next year.
About the aircraft carrier plan of China
- Thread starter bjskyhorse
- Start date
- Status
contedicavour
New Member
In the Sept edition of RID magazine (defence magazine published by Monch Group) there is yet another article detailing how advanced Varyag refurbishment now is. PLAN and shipyard's engineers must now have gathered enough experience on the ship to start copying it.
I'd expect SU27s to start landing on the Varyag in 1 or 2 years to start learning how to do basic carrier operations. That would be even more significant than steel cutting on a new carrier that wouldn't enter service before 2016 anyway (a new carrier takes at least 8 years to build).
cheers
No, they have to have made up their minds
nfloorl: Man, on this very forum 2 and half years ago, I said they had made up their mind to start refitting Varyag and then start building their own carrier berfore 2008. If they are still wondering about what size it should be, I personally would be very angry
Anyway, just kidding. Let's wait and see, shouldn't be long.
not sure about the 2016 part, but the amount of time it takes PLAN to make a carrier operational is really unknown at this point, since they've never had one before. However, they are building two and it looks like the launch is expected in 2012.
Maybe they want more than one kind- in any case, the real proof of concept will start after first watches will be set aboard those CV/CVNs. Their submarine building history is a case in point, IMHO. Again, the USN carriers underwent a long evolution, and the PLAN will be no exception. Even while they are being built some changes may be made.
Do you have inside information about parts and assembly? what are your sources?
What fleet air arm do people envisage deployed on any future Chinese CV?
To answer my own question, in the future that would ideally be navalised J-10's to replace any mid-term Russian aircraft that have been purchased. Which are what exactly? SU--33 or MIG-29K as well?
But what about the rest of the package?
Also would they go for Russian Ka-28 Helix A for ASW and Ka-29 Helix for AEW? What of the Chinese licenced Z-9A Dauphin?
How worthwhile is it to speculate the design would include typical Russian heavy missile loads, both AAW and AsuW? What of this Russian carrier design it may be based upon?
To answer my own question, in the future that would ideally be navalised J-10's to replace any mid-term Russian aircraft that have been purchased. Which are what exactly? SU--33 or MIG-29K as well?
But what about the rest of the package?
Also would they go for Russian Ka-28 Helix A for ASW and Ka-29 Helix for AEW? What of the Chinese licenced Z-9A Dauphin?
How worthwhile is it to speculate the design would include typical Russian heavy missile loads, both AAW and AsuW? What of this Russian carrier design it may be based upon?
navalization
Unless they come up with super J-10 (perhaps 2 engined?), IMO we may see navalized J-11 which will be a twin to Su-33, which they are going to get their hands on. You may want to read these treads - J-10 vs J-11B, All About the Chinese Su-33, and Potential PLANAF Carrier Aviation Alternatives.
Unless they come up with super J-10 (perhaps 2 engined?), IMO we may see navalized J-11 which will be a twin to Su-33, which they are going to get their hands on. You may want to read these treads - J-10 vs J-11B, All About the Chinese Su-33, and Potential PLANAF Carrier Aviation Alternatives.
Last edited:
Just my 2 cents:
Firstly, the Air Arm's combat aircraft:
Short term solution is Su33 on Varyag for training purpose. Whether more Su33s will be purchased depends on J11 naval version's progress. If it goes well, then the allegedly J11BJ will be the combat aircraft. Otherwise Su33 will be the fall back.
Mid term, a twin engine J10 (if you still call it J10) will compete with J11BJ's future variant.
Long term? it's any one's guess.
AEW:Ka29 as short term solution while a fixed wing AEW plane is being developed. I have a feeling that the new carrier borne AEW plane may only show up several years later than the launch of the carrier itself.
ASW: I can't see anything other than Ka28 and Z9 for the time being. Other Chinese heli projects are still too far away.
Finally, the design of china's own CV will definitely have many things learnt from Varyag, what to be and what not to be. The heavy missile load idea is surely the first thing to be dropped. My impression is that, after more than 2 decades of studying various CV designs and mssing out the opptunety to build a LHD, they think it'd be better to build a real full size aircraft carrier as the learning step; Learning bits and pieces from here and there may be more expensive and ineffiecient
Cheers for the links, some interesting reading to educate myself i'm sure.
Chinese build programs have historically been numerous classes of only very few actual ships, so would it not be more likely the PLAN would, as posted by another on this thread, start with the Class 08X conventionally powered mid-size carrier?
I don't think I said that their first CV would be a nuclear one. They would be extremely mad to do that.
As of mid size, it really depends on each navy's definition. And I think PLAN always use USN as a comparison. They consider 40-80KT CVs are mid sized ones. Considering it's their first attempt, it's easier to achieve their requirements on a larger platform (more room for errors). They can afford extra steels and they can build large ship hulls, but to put the same amount of planes and equipments into a 40-50 Kton ship is much more difficult than into a 70-80kton ship.
Also, after learning from all the other countries' theories, they have a conclusion on the Minimum no of all sorts of planes that a CV needs to carry to do any meaningful operations.
That's my impression on the technical reasons why they choose to go for a medium (large medium actually) sized CV.
Of course there are lots other reasons as well. For example, as many people pointed out, a 20-40K ton LHD type of heli carrire should be a less risky approach; actually china did think about that. That's why there were so much smoke on china building small carriers for more than a decade. But due to many things (cost, benefit, diplomacy etc...), it was delayed multiple times for many years. Now as we are passing the first decade of 21st century, PLAN seems to think that building a LHD is not as important as it used to be to gather CV experience. The most important thing they want to learn now is how to operate (not just taking off and landing) FIXED wing jet fighters and Fixed wing AEW planes on a CV. This is something they can only learn on a real CV ship. That's why now, as far as I know, the LHD project's priority has been pushed down below the first CV.
Posts #156 by Firehorse and #157 by Crobato seem to have information regarding the first carrier designated 085 displacing 48000 - 64000 t.
The latest French / American carriers have on-ship AAW systems, such as Aster15 and Evolved Sea Sparrow respectively. So what are current PLAN equivalents? Russian 'Grumbles'? Also what anti-ship missiles are they fielding? They have access to 'Sunburn' on their purchased Sovremenny Class destroyers but do they have 'Shipwreck'?
The latest French / American carriers have on-ship AAW systems, such as Aster15 and Evolved Sea Sparrow respectively. So what are current PLAN equivalents? Russian 'Grumbles'? Also what anti-ship missiles are they fielding? They have access to 'Sunburn' on their purchased Sovremenny Class destroyers but do they have 'Shipwreck'?
The article posted by Firehorse was originated from Korea with some rumors from India. it's a badly composed one with many contradicting rumors from non-china sources.
I choose to believe what I heard from China first, then Russia.
One isuse this comment ignores is propulsion technology. Propelling a 70,000 ot 80,000 fonne vessel is a vastly different isuue compare to a 40,000 tonne vessel. China ceraily have the ability to build bulk carriers and tanks in excess of this size but they are powered by slow speed diesels which, while efficeint, take up a massive amount of space and will not provide speeds in the order of 25 plus knots. Added to this these units are often manufactered outside China.
Gas turbines in combination can certainly have the high power output but gear boxes will be required and again I don't think China curently manufactures units of this capacilty. It is not as simple as simply bunging the together either. In addition these will not produce the high pressure steam output necesary for catapults even if combined cycle untis are used (which China does not produce as far as I know).
This leaves standard steam systems (burning HFO or MDO) or nuclear. Since they are fitting nuclear systems on their submarines there apepars to be some sense in suing this option given the lack of alterntives for a ship this size and the speeds required.
In my view it will be a major challenge for China to build such a vessel noting they have nother comparible (even wiht Varag) to work off.
Both large diesel engines and gearboxes are indeed being manufactured in China, at least under license. MAN is one of the licenses among others that include MTU and SMT Petrik. GTs on the other hand, have to be imported as of now, but that will be rectified soon enough.
But no need for gas turbines. Conventionally powered aircraft carriers are steam turbine powered, like the Kitty Hawk class and the Kiev class. The Chinese seems to have no problems using steam turbines. The shipyards where the Varyag is parked, are notable for their steam turbine production. The steam powered 051C destroyers came out from neighboring yards. They would probably go for nuclear-steam-turbine electric propulsion given all the nuclear subs coming out of the woodwork.
Since someone asked about AA systems, you can use HQ-7 for self defense or HH-16 or HQ-9 in VLS form, with Type 730 for CIWS. Respectively roughly equivalent to the Croatale, Shtil-1 and S-300.
But no need for gas turbines. Conventionally powered aircraft carriers are steam turbine powered, like the Kitty Hawk class and the Kiev class. The Chinese seems to have no problems using steam turbines. The shipyards where the Varyag is parked, are notable for their steam turbine production. The steam powered 051C destroyers came out from neighboring yards. They would probably go for nuclear-steam-turbine electric propulsion given all the nuclear subs coming out of the woodwork.
Since someone asked about AA systems, you can use HQ-7 for self defense or HH-16 or HQ-9 in VLS form, with Type 730 for CIWS. Respectively roughly equivalent to the Croatale, Shtil-1 and S-300.
steam engine is definitely the likely path, since they are going to put a steam catapult on the future carriers, so they will have to get steam propulsion anyhow. Nuclear propulsion is possible, but to go for nuclear carrier in the first generation is simply too huge of a leap.
As for gas turbine, they currently can produce GT-25000 under license. Also, they have domestic options in QC-260 and QC-185. It's all dependent on what they want to do and how much they are willing to pay.
As for air defense, a 64 unit HH-16 (shouldn't take that much space) + that new MFR they are testing on 891 + the latest Sea Eagle + 4 FCR should be plenty, add in 3-4 Type 730 and you got quite the air defense, especially since it will have numerous air defense ships around it.
thats what the french thought as well......
If you want to use LM2500 you are going to have issues with steam generation for catapults. If CPP are used then the gear box is going to be quite complex as well. Finally the inlet air and exhuat trunking will take up a got of space and will drive the island design. The latest USN LHD being a case in point.
Speam is the way to go for China but it will be interesting to see what steam generation system they use. I don't think putting together a steam plant of this capacity is going to be as simple as many seem to think.
The large engines would be worthless for an aircarft carrier being large slow speed engines which take a large amount of space and deliver a poor power to weight ration compare to othe alterunatives (they are, however, very efficient). The MTU and SMT do not have the capacity to propel a vessel of this size as direct propulsion unless you wish to combine a number of them though a gear box. This would be maintencae would be a nightmare. Diesel electric drive is an optionis you want to use high and medium speed engines....... however unless you have developed an electric linear dirve for your catapult you are still going to need steam.
- Status