About the aircraft carrier plan of China

Status
Not open for further replies.

McTaff

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I wouldn't be too concerned with steam generation; steam catapults are a nice toy but there are a couple of different ways to fling the fly boys off the deck.

The high-speed electric linear drive is a great possibility, and it's quite a cute way of meeting the problem. Most vessels of this size have significant power-generation capabilities to meet this type of requirement.

If you're a low-tech hack like me, you could spend time trying to get hydraulics to fit your need. I suspect that hydraulics wouldn't be as neat (requiring more downtime between shots), and probably hellishly heavy, but on the plus side they can be quite reliable. They upshot is that various elements of your carrier could be integrated (such as making your rudder run off the same hydraulic system, having your hydraulics run as a backup power input to your gearbox in the event of a Main Propulsion Engine failure).
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Hydraulic catapults used to be common, but scaling them up for modern weights & launch speeds would be difficult, & steam was more reliable. Ditto for compressed air & powder.

Steam catapults - like angled decks & mirror landing sights, an RN invention, & one taken up more quickly by the USN than the RN - again, like angled decks.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I wouldn't be too concerned with steam generation; steam catapults are a nice toy but there are a couple of different ways to fling the fly boys off the deck.

The high-speed electric linear drive is a great possibility, and it's quite a cute way of meeting the problem. Most vessels of this size have significant power-generation capabilities to meet this type of requirement.

If you're a low-tech hack like me, you could spend time trying to get hydraulics to fit your need. I suspect that hydraulics wouldn't be as neat (requiring more downtime between shots), and probably hellishly heavy, but on the plus side they can be quite reliable. They upshot is that various elements of your carrier could be integrated (such as making your rudder run off the same hydraulic system, having your hydraulics run as a backup power input to your gearbox in the event of a Main Propulsion Engine failure).
If hydraulics had been sucesseful they wouel be in wide spread use. Fact is it seems that currnetly only steam provide the necessary punch for the weights required. I understand the US are looking at the electric option but suggest this, like many other carrier technologies, will not be simple to develope, particualry for those new to the game.

This could be the reason the USSR went down the STROBAR option.
 

McTaff

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
If hydraulics had been sucesseful they wouel be in wide spread use.
Quite correct.

Most of the catapults in service during the first half of last century were hydraulic. I merely suggest that if you can't access new fancy linear induction techniques, and have no means of producing steam, but had plenty of high torque available to drive massive pumps the possibilty is always there.

As I said, it's low tech, probably would be too heavy to scale up to make a viable option given the average weight of a multi-role strike fighter. I would, however, like to see just how much grunt you could pull out of a hydraulic system if you were to try. :D

Fact is it seems that currnetly only steam provide the necessary punch for the weights required. I understand the US are looking at the electric option but suggest this, like many other carrier technologies, will not be simple to develope, particualry for those new to the game.
Exactly. The new Ford class flattops will have electric linear induction motors, and the RN have included it on the design specs for the Queen Elizabeth carriers also. Whether China has the know-how to build a precise enough model of their own is something that remains to be seen. Big companies are known for their love of the almighty currency, and enough money given to the right firms could see that technology be made available to China (if they do not have it already - don't be surprised).

This speculation on my part would be cleared up if we knew what type of propulsion system they would use. Once the words 'steam turbine' are written down, then it's a no-brainer. If they go with diesel propulsion or gas turbine, then all bets are off.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
"It's not Nimitz-class or nothing," Erickson said, referring to the huge U.S. carriers. "I think we can expect that China may experiment with different types of platforms." ..
"I . . . believe the Varyag will serve as a transitional platform to train pilots and to perfect doctrine — both how to use a carrier and how to sink one," said Fisher, who's the vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Alexandria, Va.
A Hong Kong-based publication, Kanwa Asian Defence, reported in September that some Chinese-built J-10 fighters now carry tail hooks needed for carrier landings.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/21181.html
All this echoes what I said in earlier posts. I don't know how credible the last sentence is, but, in any case, they may just train on J-10s for carrier landings before switching to the real thing on Su-33s.
Fot those interested in the PLAN SSBNs, check my recently edited post here.
 
Last edited:

Pathfinder-X

Tribal Warlord
Verified Defense Pro
They did considered the J-10 for the carrier program, but dumped the idea in favour of the larger J-11. Shenyang is currently working on a carrier version of J-11 based on the J-11B design, and this can be confirmed by several official press release as well as the words of few insiders. I'd say we'll see some "leaked" pics by the end of 2008 and at the latest early 2009.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
They did considered the J-10 for the carrier program, but dumped the idea in favour of the larger J-11. Shenyang is currently working on a carrier version of J-11 based on the J-11B design, and this can be confirmed by several official press release as well as the words of few insiders. I'd say we'll see some "leaked" pics by the end of 2008 and at the latest early 2009.
Reasons were that PLAN values the payload + range advantage of J-11 over J-10s. If PLAN was purely looking for an air defense naval fighter, J-10 would've taken. But of course, PLAN is modeling its carrier after USN rather than the Russians. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the requirements of naval J-11 is that it must be "better" than the super hornets (at least in terms of A2A combat).
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
Using an unproven (on carrier) J10 to train pilots for a proven plane Su33?
J-10s could be used on a simulated flight deck on land, wether they are to be fully navalized or not. And if there are to be small CVs built, the J-10 has good reason to be considered for being embarked on them. I don't think the future PLAN carriers are being modeled on Russians' nor American's navies- rather, it's going to be a mixture of different concepts, strategies and philosophies.
 

wp2000

Member
J-10s could be used on a simulated flight deck on land, wether they are to be fully navalized or not. And if there are to be small CVs built, the J-10 has good reason to be considered for being embarked on them. I don't think the future PLAN carriers are being modeled on Russians' nor American's navies- rather, it's going to be a mixture of different concepts, strategies and philosophies.
I just don't agree with your idea of using J10 to train Su33's pilots. Why not just use Su33 to train Su33 pilots?:)
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
Before Su-33s or navalized J-11s are delivered, using J-10s (and/or other dedicated trainers) may be feasable to save both time & money. Even the USN uses [URL="http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t45/]trainers[/URL] before allowing pilots on F-18s!
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Before Su-33s or navalized J-11s are delivered, using J-10s (and/or other dedicated trainers) may be feasable to save both time & money. Even the USN uses <A href="http://"http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t45/" target=_blank>trainers before allowing pilots on F-18s!

The bulk of training is done on simulators now. Simulation and Training software in the last 2 years has undergone some dramatic changes in realism and capability.

Training will be done on lead in fighters such as Goshawks (for the US) -

Magoo or AGRA could confirm on the USN Super Hornets/Hornets, but manufacturers are not seeing any need to build dual seaters for training on type.

new dual seaters are now ewarfare assets.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
So, unless there is a plan to navalize J-10s they better not be used for training in carrier landings? What if they are just experimenting before deciding to navalize them or not?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What if they are just experimenting before deciding to navalize them or not?
They may well be doing that. My references were that the trend is to move away from "of type" trainers as that role is now being seen as more efficiently done by "glassed in" lead in fighters and "of type" simulation on an electronic rocking horse.

The PLAN may well be continuing with "of type" dual seater trainers because they need to.
 

wp2000

Member
Before Su-33s or navalized J-11s are delivered, using J-10s (and/or other dedicated trainers) may be feasable to save both time & money. Even the USN uses <A href="http://"http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t45/" target=_blank>trainers before allowing pilots on F-18s!
1. Unfortunetely, J10 is not a trainer.

2. USN does not use F16 to train F18 pilots

3. If really needed, PLAN's own Su30MKK2 twin seater jets are better training platforms than J10

4. it would be much easier to send PLAN pilots to train in Russia for Su33.
 

funtz

New Member
1. Unfortunetely, J10 is not a trainer.
2. USN does not use F16 to train F18 pilots
3. If really needed, PLAN's own Su30MKK2 twin seater jets are better training platforms than J10
4. it would be much easier to send PLAN pilots to train in Russia for Su33.
Can russians help in anyway as far as carrier landing is in question, i mean even after the mig-29k deal + the carrier Indian navy went Goshawks+USN training, the only reason i could see in the news back then was the lack of infrastructure in russia for this type of training.

From the general information available on line it seems naval pilots graduate from simulation to a light trainer to the dual seat trainer, is there any information available on how PLAN is gearing up?

Any signs of new activity on Google earth?
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
article

True, F-16s are used by USN not as trainers, but as adversary dogfighters in the Top Gun school.
Why use Su30MKK2 for training, risking loosing them? As an alternative, I would use
J-11s/Su-27s for later pilot conversion to Su-33. In any case, I think most PLANAF pilots slated for Su-33s already profficient in J-11s/Su-27s; so the J-10 may indeed be navalized and/or those pilots are just cross-trained, for whatever reason. Also, the PLANAF may use J-10s for land-based anti-ship/recon missions.
 
Last edited:

Firehorse

Banned Member
article

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/12/06/2003391359

Minister of defense is leaving out one detail
By Cheng Ta-chen 鄭大誠

Thursday, Dec 06, 2007, Page 8
On Nov. 28, Minister of National Defense Lee Tien-yu (李天羽) said during a question-and-answer session at the legislature that the military would be capable of destroying 60 percent to 70 percent of China's troops in case of an invasion.
But Lee did not include the possibility of a Chinese formation of aircraft carrier battle groups in his analysis of the combat strengths of Taiwan and China.
Taiwan must prepare for the development of Chinese aircraft carrier battle groups.
It is a well-known fact that an aircraft carrier without a battle group is worthless.
With the exception of cruisers, China's military already has all the destroyers, frigates, submarines and support ships it needs.
All it must acquire now are aircraft carriers itself and the fighter aircraft for them.
China is the world's third-largest ship builder and it would not be too difficult for it to build medium-sized aircraft carriers weighing about 50,000 tonnes.
As for carrier-based aircraft, China has already signed a deal with Russia to purchase Su-33 fighters and intends to remodel its Su-30 or J-10 fighters into carrier-based aircraft.
Acquiring the necessary equipment would not be so difficult, despite the fact that China needs to strengthen its training and C4ISR -- command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
With full political and financial support, China could be expected to have initial aircraft carrier battle groups within 10 years.
China is likely to build one aircraft carrier battle group for its East Sea Fleet and another for its South China Sea Fleet.
The task of the former would be to counter US power, with a short or medium-term goal of winning a battle to block access to the region.
The task of the latter would be to safeguard China's marine transport lines in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.
In the case of a cross-strait war, the East China Sea battle group would attack from the east while the South China Sea battle group would attack from the south.
In this situation, Taiwan could quickly find itself surrounded by Chinese ships.
As for battle group submarines, most of China's conventionally powered submarines, such as Gato class, Yuan class, and Song class submarines, belong to the East China Sea Fleet.
Within the next 10 or 15 years, China could be capable of amassing as many as 40 to 50 advanced conventionally powered submarines.
In addition to these, China has assigned a nuclear-powered submarine detachment to the North China Sea Fleet and has plans to form another.
If necessary, these two detachments -- one north, one south -- could join an aircraft carrier battle group during an attack on Taiwan.
But because of the continental shelf, the waters around Taiwan are more suitable for small, conventionally powered subs.
Nuclear-powered submarines would likely be responsible for supporting the carrier group attack on the east coast and cutting off US aid.
The People's Liberation Army's military expansion will not end here, however.
In evaluating China's combat capabilities, Taiwan must adopt a strategic viewpoint that is 10 or 15 years ahead. If it makes the mistake of keeping its eyes on the ground, a catastrophe could be waiting around the corner.

Cheng Ta-chen is an independent defense analyst.
Translated by Eddy Chang
So, assuming that China will have 2 carriers in about a decade, what is the best way for Taiwan (alone, without US/Japan/Australia intervening) to counter them?
 
Last edited:

Grand Danois

Entertainer
So, assuming that China will have 2 carriers in about a decade, what is the best way for Taiwan (alone, without US/Japan/Australia intervening) to counter them?
Taiwan should ignore them. PLA-N carriers are a WOFTAM unless they get close enough to launch attacks on Taiwan itself, in which case the solution is to shoot the fighters down, then ignore the carrier. This one is obviously also a WOFTAM.

The landbased arcraft of the PLA-AF are hugely more cost-effective than a PLA-N carrier would be in a Taiwan scenario.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top