Russia helps China build new aircraft carrier
- Thread starter yasin_khan
- Start date
Your response to my post:Am sure thts was saucy for all of u, and if u had laugh then good. But allow me to point it out tht I did not state tht the landing deck was underground i was merely stating tht China built an underground (in a cave system) nuclear submarine base and this missed attention it till was almost complete (at least in the public domain). Now again allow me to make a claim tht China will soon have carriers sooner than most of us expect and am sure all of us will have a good laugh when they announce it too
Seriously guys cant anyone say tht - hey maybe they can build it and then again maybe they can hid it for some time - but no am sure its impossible right
"For about 5 years I've asked people who claim this to give me even a general location of where this simulated deck is. Not one has to date.
Even a general location within a 100km arc would let us get cameras over the top.
It's claimed ad infinitum, but I'd like to see "proof of life"'. I've seen too many photos of USN Carriers done up as PLAN assets, even US Shipyards done up as chinese yards.
I'll be convinced when I get a loc and can see for myself."
was this:
it seems pretty damn clear to me what you were responding to.
again - if you had bothered to research any of the comments that some of us have made over the issue of chinese carriers, we have come up with specific timeframes and indicated as to exactly why we have made those time frames
Your response to my reply was about a simulated carrier deck being made underground - which is technically as useful as ice in hell.
Nobody in here is challenging that china wants carriers - we've given dates and we've stated why. Those comments are based on what we know is needed to not only build a Forrestal sized carrier, but to also get it certified on sea trials, work up fleet support and then work as a carrier led fleet. NONE of us have said that they can't do it - so I am unsure as to why we are contesting that notion.
If you think that the PLAN can accelerate the build and deploy cycle of a tactically useful fleet in a shorter time - then we'd love to see the logic.
Logic - not "feeling"
the shape and dimensions of the keel starts to be a clue - eg there is a view that they are building 3 x LHA's at the moment due to hull shape.
dragonfire
New Member
Taking a risk of sounding argumentative with a senior member - I did not say the above - i.e.. I did not say they have hid a simulated carrier deck underground - i was mearly requesting this forum to consider tht perhaps they are capable of constructing this and hiding it from prying eyes - I do understand tht a carrier deck is not usefull underground - i mean even a kindergarten kid would understand tht
Ok - with this goin on unecessarily long in wht i consider a serious forum - i request us to stop discussing this and to move ahead in constructive debates regarding the thread topic - tnks in advance
Sampanviking
Banned Member
Well I understood what you ment dragonfire, even though it could have been phrased a bit better (is English your first language? if not its a bit poor for other posters to use it to try and ridicule a valid point).
Yes China is good at hiding things and the Underground Naval Base at Sanya is a very good example, not only for what it is, but where it is, namely just a few miles up the road from one of China's busiest and most popular International tourist destinations!! so not even anything remotely like the back end of beyond.
Are China already building Carriers? well based on past experience I would have to say on balance that I suspect so. It is so unlike them to say they intend to do anything until they are sure of their ability to do so. Afterall, the first we knew about their manned Space Program was a "Ni Ha Gwilo" from high orbit. The first we knew about their ASAT weapons was "Wham Bam thankyou Maam!" Further if you look at how new major systems have introduced, ie J10, 093 and 094 Subs, new surface ships etc, theser have always been done on a drip with dodgy Photoshop pics etc etc right up until images of the finished real McKoy have been produced when they are in active service.
The PLA has incorporated Modularity as a core feature in many of its weapon system designs and a Carrier (especially as the US Nimitz class have been built this way for decades) is hardly likely to prove an exception. As Individual Modules can be prepared to a high degree of finish inside realtively small covered facilities, youa re unlikely to see anything remotely ship shape until quite late in the construction process when the modules are brought together for assembly.
What makes you think you would be able to recognise such a facility even if you saw it? Do you think they would build a camp little concrete carrier just for your convenience?
One thing can be taken as read, if the go ahead has been given to build Carriers then the training for Marine Aviation will have started some time ago. China is also very good at hiding things in plain sight!!
At its most basic, you are looking for a short landing strip and an easy place to hide one of those is as a part of a normal length landing strip. If you then want to train for more realistic "at Sea" conditions I guess you might want a large raised platform, maybe even a hydraulic ramp to simulate Sea Swells etc, bit of a giveaway? only if you found it in actual use. Otherwise stick a railway line along the edge of it, plus a couple of derricks and a container or two on top and you would never tell it from just another Railway Freight loading yard.
Ultimatly, the PLAN have had Varyag and its Blueprints for a long time now and they sure as hell have been doing something with it, maybe just not what a lot of you guys have been anticipating
Sampanviking said:
gee, up until then I had no trouble understanding Dragonfire in a multitude of posts.
But, I see that you want to do the Florence Nightingale thing and put in anyway.
Where in any of the history og my posts throughout this forum - or the numerous others of evidence have I said that china is not intent on makinmg carriers? make the effort to read my responses over time before prancing in here to make your own case.
We know they build in modules, and we know that they do some of it over 1000km away from the nearest coast
you also make the mistake that public announcements as OSINT are unimpeachable and first evidence of knowledge - thats plain silly, and anyone who has worked in this industry knows that OSINT announcements are hardly proof of first life.
see above - it was pretty obvious that they were using modules when they were building merchant ships larger than the dockyards capability.Sampanviking said:
err, the original input was that a facsimile of melbourne was used to simulate carrier training.Sampanviking said:What makes you think you would be able to recognise such a facility even if you saw it? Do you think they would build a camp little concrete carrier just for your convenience?
One thing can be taken as read, if the go ahead has been given to build Carriers then the training fro Marine Aviation will have started some time ago. China is also very good at hiding things in plain sight!!
At its most basic, you are looking for a short landing strip and an easy place to hide one of those is as a part of a normal length landing strip. If you then want to train for more realistic at Sea conditions I guess you might want a large raised platform, maybe even a hydraulic ramp to simulate Sea Swells etc, bit of a giveaway? only if you found in actual use. Otherwise stick a railway line along the edge of it, plus a couple of derricks and a container or two on top and you would never tell it from just another Railway Freight loading yard.
Ultimatly, the PLAN have had Varyag and its Blueprints for a long time now and they sure as hell have been doing something with it, maybe just not what a lot of you guys have been anticipating
enlighten me and tell me how a short CATOBAR carrier with a deck length unsuitable for anything bigger than a grumman piston engined tracker can be used for training the heaviest STOBAR jets in service?
tell me what STOBAR jets in service are even remotely able to be used on a deck length that could only take A4's? how and where is a deck like melbourne going to be able to simulate the final ramp lift - you think that the US is not going to make the effort to map every bit of real estate in sat path to see whos who in the zoo?
its a rhetorical question, because obviously you think that you have a clue - but explain how on a hydraulic controlled 150ft deck you are going to simulate sufficient roll and wind over deck issues? How are you going to hide a solution that requires trap and launch etc etc.... the fact that anyone thinks that a CATOBAR solution with no relevance to STOBAR heavy jet fighter launches would be used to train pilots beggars belief. None of the CCCP assets, HMAS Melb, Varyag, Kiev and her sister Minsk are sisters in an operational sense. You can't use any of that trio of design types to train pilots on the other.
you seem to be oblivious to the fact that modern sat technology can show how long ago a jet took off from a runway - and that it can measure things like take off distance from residual IR plume.
Before you come riding in throwing in scenarios, it pays to understand the basics.
As for your comment that some of us might not be looking in the right spots - that may well be true - but a couple of us are on a closed forum where chinas move to carriers has been a considered topic of discussion for more than 4 years. Considering that the other bloke is a Sino analyst in real life - well I guess I have a bit more faith in his views than someone who has just flown in and got the basics wrong....
btw, Dragonfire can look after himself, he doesn't need you to try and help him out.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
well pardon me for registering and joining in
actually I would love to be able to read every post of every thread and know everything there is to nknow about all you guys, but as a time limited married man with a business to run, I have to make do with skimming the last few pages of interestign topics and just taking a plunge.Hey I am just a dumb mut on the net who dont know Jack!! I do enjoy listening and talking to experts in a variety of fields though and my experience of them is that their first instinct is to illuminate and educate, not denigrate and humiliate. Sadly the inverse is invariably also equally the case
My point though is that if even a Dumb Mut with 10 minutes and the back of a fag packet can start thinking through some of these problems, then real experts; charged and resourced by one of the worlds richest and most powerful goverments to protect its secrets, will be able to make damn good fist of it, certainly more than enough to outwit an entheusiast having a nose with Google Earth.
Sounds fascinating, does closed mean closed to participation and that us mere mortals can read along?
Anyway I not interested in a pissing contest, but some of the personal comments on this thread make for ugly reading and spoil the enjoyment of an otherwise interesting subject. I would be surprised if I was alone in thinking this.
It's not a pissing contest at all - but if people are going to make empirical comments then they need to have a bit more than just quoting other sites, or contributing assumptions as evidence to support their claims.
In any reasonable site there is an expectation that people try sense, logic and understand robust engagement for what it is. There are some in here who have either worn a uniform, have worked in the relevant industry, or are subject matter experts because the history of their posts indicates that they give considered coherent opinion - all of us at various stages understand that its wiser to listen to the sense and logic of informed debate rather than come in and throw the fox in the hen house to get a reaction. "bomb throwers" don't last long in here.. people who engage in pissing contests last even less
One of the reasons why we suggest that new members try and read back through old posts is
- get background on the subject before posting in case its been done before
- understand the strength of the members who may have contributed
In a discussion about chinese aircraft carriers one would expect that those things I've briefly mentioned would have been factored in before making assumptions about CCCP/PLAN capability - they were apparently not. Thats fine as we are all in here to learn at some point - but at that point rule no 1 should have kicked in - research first before comment.
btw, I was not referring to google-earth, it was an unfair advantage in the fact that I was referring to the fact that I was in a position to "look it up" via other avenues (ie through a member in the other restricted group). Google earth is an option - but like wiki, not a serious option for various reasons
If there is no disciplined sense to debate, then instead of logic we end up with pissing contests which degrades to my plane is bigger than yours, we have 1 million men and you have 100,000, and my jets better because it does circus loops, ipso facto its a better dog fighter. Hardly impressive and what we singularly elect to avoid. If you'd visited this forum 5 years ago you'd know what I mean.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
Ok Fair point and taken.
Well my best guess is that people have deceived themselves as too China's objectives with all the old Carriers they have bought, which is why none it makes any sense from the common perspective.
In my opinion therefore:
It is generally assumed that China bought these Carriers because they want ones to operate. Well this is very obviously not the case as if it were, they could have had the Melbourne (or a copy thereof) happily chugging up and down the Straits years ago, with a few navalised J7's or whetever seemed the most appropriate, with which to impress the natives. By now; if Operating a Carrier was the the objective, they would have had more then enough time to even get the Varyag ready.
As none of this has happened and; as I am sure we all agree, none of it is technologically beyond the PRC's ability to achieve, something else is responsible.
I would propose that "the something else" is that the Carrier programme from the very start has all been about being able to design and build Carriers. From this perspective I think the actions of the PRC makes better sense. The old Carriers which have been bought have given Chinese Navla Architects the ability to witness and understand design and production evolution, plus specialised solutions to specific problems etc.
With the Varyag, there has been a flow of often contradictory rumours about what has been going on, we have seen holes being cut and others being sealed up, equipment going in, equipment going out etc etc, but the ship not getting any closer to being operational. All of it seems quite barmy, unless you wonder if the PLAN have actually been using the ship as a full scale 3D Model with which to test and practice their systems layouts and configurations etc In otherwords trying to condense the experience of 50 years of Super Carrier building into 10!
Turning Varyag into an Operational Carrier would be a modest achievement well within China's reach. We all know however that the PRC has little interest in modest achievements or in even just building its own second rate Carrier. The PRC wants to be able to build big and State of the Art Carriers and they will take as long as it takes to be able to do so and not worry about not having any in the meantime.
There is no question about the seriousness of the PLAN re this (now) - but bear in mind that only a few years ago the navy was headed by a Submariner - and his view was that aircraft carriers were a waste of time - it was during his tenure that PLAN sub development accelerated off the scale.
all of the CCCP build processes to date show a willingness to do small runs of platforms so as to baby step and learn.
Hence why I think the 3 LHA hulls underway are precursors to a carrier - it provides them with a vessel that can substitute as a command and flag, they can practice fleet manouvres sans organic fixed wing air - and they can practice amphib support - in effect ARG/ESG "school" - which is a precursor to learning about carriers.
But, I still view the first PLAN carrier as being a 2012-2015 solution - esp if its a Forrestal sized asset.. 2015 would mean build, certify, train, work out whether they intend to do night ops (some carrier owners have not in the past), do flag works ups and then go "gold" None of that is a journey that can be fastracked - esp when there is no latent experience to draw from. Hence the importance of the LHA's as they will provide a degree of latency in transition.
all of the CCCP build processes to date show a willingness to do small runs of platforms so as to baby step and learn.
Hence why I think the 3 LHA hulls underway are precursors to a carrier - it provides them with a vessel that can substitute as a command and flag, they can practice fleet manouvres sans organic fixed wing air - and they can practice amphib support - in effect ARG/ESG "school" - which is a precursor to learning about carriers.
But, I still view the first PLAN carrier as being a 2012-2015 solution - esp if its a Forrestal sized asset.. 2015 would mean build, certify, train, work out whether they intend to do night ops (some carrier owners have not in the past), do flag works ups and then go "gold" None of that is a journey that can be fastracked - esp when there is no latent experience to draw from. Hence the importance of the LHA's as they will provide a degree of latency in transition.
Here's the DID article on possibility of the Su-33 deal, and the Chinese carrier plans.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/china-to-buy-su33-carrierbased-fighters-from-russia-02806/
Now I don't remember where I read this, but doesn't China have an agreement to use Nitka in Ukraine?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/china-to-buy-su33-carrierbased-fighters-from-russia-02806/
Now I don't remember where I read this, but doesn't China have an agreement to use Nitka in Ukraine?
Can you point me to any information or speculation on the size & likely configuration of these ships?
TIA
Sampanviking
Banned Member
If you are a betting man, you may like to take a punt on 2012 as that is the year of the Dragon and therefore the most auspicious compared to any of the others.
It makes sense, but does this fit with "the leapfrogging of technologies" policy that has been trumpted in the writing and the launch of the China's National Defence in 2008 white paper?
have to check with a US colleague on the "offline sino group". AFAIK it was unclass as it was being discussed in a non-military comms environment.
will get back to you, if not PM
Remind me again - how did their last Great Leap turn out? And anyway, experience cannot go through 'leaps'. For a technology trailer like China it can sort of 'leap' technology by buying or stealing frontline technology from others, but experience is always gained, bit by bit.
Never contested that they'll get a vessel launched by 2012 - the bigger issues are certification, trials, air certification, air trials, fleet trials, fleet workup. All of that is way outside the 2012 date no matter how good they are at fast tracking the build.
"Leapfrogging Technologies" is a euphemism for accelerating their current mode of technology acquisition. Considering how unhappy the russians are with getting some of their technology "localised and perfected" - how soon do you think it will be before those 5 Axis Presses are converted from stamping out J-11 parts to Su-33 parts?
Edit, although, I would add that IMO they are starting to more rapidly make the transition from their prev "acquire and copy, copy and improve at all costs" mentality into developing their own solutions - that is impressive. (One of the advantages of an oligarchy run by the State!)
Well experience must be gained bit by bit, but not technological leaps. China's just buying advanced weapons and reverse engineering them, therefore leapfrogging rather than going through the long way of R&D.
Besides everyone (including the chinese government) knows the great leap forward was a huge mistake. I'm sure they're wiser and more careful now.
FARHAN_KHAN007
New Member
that iz awesome news ....
after that china help Pakiz to build an carrier 4 navy ...
Go ! Go ! Go !
What does this post contribute to the discussion? What need does Pakistan have for 4 carriers? Several of your posts have already been edited for one liners or nonsense, keep this up and you won't last long here.
after that china help Pakiz to build an carrier 4 navy ...
Go ! Go ! Go !
What does this post contribute to the discussion? What need does Pakistan have for 4 carriers? Several of your posts have already been edited for one liners or nonsense, keep this up and you won't last long here.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are a series of articles that have been OSINT published including JANEs and Fisher.
In addition one of the more respectable Sino posters has started adding commentary, and in fact after conferring with him he was gracious enough to send me a scrape of material. Some follows.
Jane's Fighting Ships
Yuzhao (Type 071) class
(ASSAULT SHIP) (LHD)
IN SERVICE: 0
BUILDING: 1
Name No Builders Laid down Launched Commissioned
-KUNLUNSHAN 998 Hudong-Zhonghua Shipyard, Shanghai June 2006 21 Dec 2006 2008
Displacement, tons: 17,600 approx
Dimensions, feet (metres): 689.0 × 91.9 × 23.0 (210.0 × 28.0 × 7.0)
Main machinery: CODAD; 4 SEMT Pielstick 16 PC2.6 V 400 diesels; 47,000 hp (35.2 MW); 2 shafts
Speed, knots: 20
Complement: 120
Military lift: Four air-cushion vehicles plus vehicles and troops
Guns: 1-76 mm [Ref 1].
4-30 mm/65 AK 630 [Ref 2].
Countermeasures: Decoys: 2 launchers [Ref 3].
Radars: Air search: Type 363 (Sea Tiger) [Ref 4]; E/F-band.
Air/surface search: Type 364 Seagull C [Ref 5]; G-band.
Fire control: Type 347G(2) (LR 66) [Ref 6]; J-band for 76 mm.
Type 347G(1) (Rice Bowl) [Ref 7]; J-band for AK 630.
Navigation: Type NR 2000 [Ref 8]; I-band.
Helicopters: 2 Z-8 Super Frelon.
Programmes: After several years' speculation, the existence of the programme was confirmed when construction of a ship was initiated in mid-2006. The programme constitutes a key component of the PLA(N)'s plan to improve its sealift and power projection capabilities. Further ships are expected once evaluation trials have been completed.
Structure: The principal features of the ship include a large well deck area to accommodate four Air Cushion Vehicles (ACV) in the aft two-thirds of the ship. The ACVs are likely to access the ship through a stern gate. The ship may have to ballast down for operation. There is a large stern helicopter flight deck and a hangar. An internal garage deck for vehicles may be accessed via side ramps (port and starboard). There is space for the HQ7 launcher which may be fitted at a later date. Two LCVPs are carried.
Opinion: This ship represents a major enhancement of amphibious capability.