Russia helps China build new aircraft carrier

[Ozzy Blizzard]

HMAS Melbourne has never been used as a display or trainer - the vessel was too far gone to be lazarused as seaworthy. (It almost sank under tow - a number of times)

It's not been used for any duties. The closest its been used for anything was an apparent facsimile done of its deck and used for ground based training in the early 90's. That has never been substantiated.

The "holiday carriers" are the ex Russian - definitely not HMAS Melbourne.

Kiev is now a theme park in Tianjin if i'm not mistaken. Such a waste for the old girl, she could have made a decent medium STOBAR carrier with some love, $$$ and attention.

 

[yasin_khan]

Kiev is now a theme park in Tianjin if i'm not mistaken. Such a waste for the old girl, she could have made a decent medium STOBAR carrier with some love, $$$ and attention.

I think it was HMS Melborne which was converted to theme park.I have seen it some where in sinodefence site some three years back.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think it was HMS Melborne which was converted to theme park.I have seen it some where in sinodefence site some three years back.

No, it's not. Kiev and Minsk are the "small carriers" at 2 separate Theme Parks (Tianjin and Shenzen)

 

[KiwiRob]

Well there are quite a few articles that say things like that. There is also a couple of sites that say china is starting construction on two ships to be finished by 2015 this year. Personally I feel 2015 may be a bit optimistic for a country with no experience building a carrier before. But hey, I gotta hope.

If the news is coming from the New Ships weekly then I'm inclined to trust and believe it.

 

[Blitzo]

Yeah, a lot of $$$. Look at the mess the Indian Gorshkov's in.

 

[Blitzo]

Well you see, the thing about the Chinese military is that there is very few reliable sources on R&D on important projects. If you have to have a source which is 100% accurate, then China may as well be developing nothing.
As for a Chinese aircraft carrier, you should read tphuang's blog.

 

[Blitzo]

HMAS Melbourne has never been used as a display or trainer - the vessel was too far gone to be lazarused as seaworthy. (It almost sank under tow - a number of times)

It's not been used for any duties. The closest its been used for anything was an apparent facsimile done of its deck and used for ground based training in the early 90's. That has never been substantiated.

The "holiday carriers" are the ex Russian - definitely not HMAS Melbourne.

Apparently China made a replica of the Melbourne's flight deck though.

 

[Blitzo]

China is a rich country and can do ToTs with Russia.If Russia helps India then it will also help China.And dont forget they have bought old air craft carrier from Australia and is using as recreational duties but it also help them for designs.

I agree with the fact that China's rich and such, but a design like the Melbourne won't be of THAT much use to China. The Varyag would be much more useful.
However, I think Russian help on a Chinese carrier would only be limited to equipment which China couldn't produce at the time. Ukraine would probably help more than Russia.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I agree with the fact that China's rich and such, but a design like the Melbourne won't be of THAT much use to China. The Varyag would be much more useful.

No, they're of different benefit.

CATOBAR has a different layout for bunkerage, design for aircraft movement below deck, armoury locations, even access points CAT impacts on forward space design. HMAS Melb had an armoured deck

STOBAR is again different, bunkerage issues can be different as less space taken up by gear. Different servicing philosophy etc....

Melbourne is still relevant as a design for a number of things. (even parallel comparisons with transport ships, expeditionary issues etc...)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Apparently China made a replica of the Melbourne's flight deck though.

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.

 

[dragonfire]

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.

whoa, you sound scary mate, anyways maybe it sounds stupid but wht if the chinese have hid, if they csan build an underground nuclear submarine base, then they can hide other assets as such

 

[KiwiRob]

Hmmm an underground aircraft carrier landing deck, how useful would that be?

 

[Feanor]

Hmmm an underground aircraft carrier landing deck, how useful would that be?

This is honestly a moment almost as priceless as when roberto tried to convince us that airframes were more important to AWACS then the radar.

 

[gf0012-aust]

whoa, you sound scary mate, anyways maybe it sounds stupid but wht if the chinese have hid, if they csan build an underground nuclear submarine base, then they can hide other assets as such

I was about to type a reply and then noticed KiwiRobs succinct response....nfloorl:

 

[AegisFC]

Dragonfire, things like practice fields can't be easily hidden, go look on Google Earth at sites in the US and Russia and you'll see what I mean. If China built a replica of the Melbourne's flight deck we'd know about it.

This is honestly a moment almost as priceless as when roberto tried to convince us that airframes were more important to AWACS then the radar.

That was classic, but I always loved the claim that the Kirov used a tumblehome hull and had stealth features. nfloorl:

 

[Blitzo]

No, they're of different benefit.

CATOBAR has a different layout for bunkerage, design for aircraft movement below deck, armoury locations, even access points CAT impacts on forward space design. HMAS Melb had an armoured deck

STOBAR is again different, bunkerage issues can be different as less space taken up by gear. Different servicing philosophy etc....

Melbourne is still relevant as a design for a number of things. (even parallel comparisons with transport ships, expeditionary issues etc...)

True I suppose. China might be able to combine aspects of the Melbourne and Varyag together to make a Varyag sized CATOBAR carrier.
I doubt China would want a replica of the Melbourne.

 

[Blitzo]

Dragonfire, things like practice fields can't be easily hidden, go look on Google Earth at sites in the US and Russia and you'll see what I mean. If China built a replica of the Melbourne's flight deck we'd know about it.



That was classic, but I always loved the claim that the Kirov used a tumblehome hull and had stealth features. nfloorl:

Well I think what Dragonfire meant was that seeing as China could hide subs, they can theoritically hide construction of an aircraft carrier.
Not necassarily physical, like building a huge roof over a dry dock, but like deleting records of any equipment going to where a carrier part is being made or something.

 

[Feanor]

That was classic, but I always loved the claim that the Kirov used a tumblehome hull and had stealth features. nfloorl:

Yep. That's our Kirov. Stealth. Like the Raptor. Except better. With Laze.....

Ok I'll stop. I'm sorry, it's too hard to resist.

 

[crobato]

Well I think what Dragonfire meant was that seeing as China could hide subs, they can theoritically hide construction of an aircraft carrier.
Not necassarily physical, like building a huge roof over a dry dock, but like deleting records of any equipment going to where a carrier part is being made or something.

We know the new shipyard that is capable of building a carrier does not have that huge of a roof over the dry dock. No, it has no roof at all. As a matter of fact, civil jets fly over this shipyard on the landing approach, so anyone can check up the progress of anything happening there looking out the windows.

If something interesting will happen, it will be shot with a camera and posted in the Internet.

 

[dragonfire]

Hmmm an underground aircraft carrier landing deck, how useful would that be?

This is honestly a moment almost as priceless as when roberto tried to convince us that airframes were more important to AWACS then the radar.

I was about to type a reply and then noticed KiwiRobs succinct response....nfloorl:

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