Russia helps China build new aircraft carrier

[Type59]

China seems to be in no urgency to deploy a carrier. Specifically using the limited resources China has wisely decided to modernise existing areas where they have extensive experience in.

They know potential conflicts are gonna be fought regional, (Tiawan, Japan, India, etc). Chinese airforce, army, navy and importantly nuclear forces can sufficently deter its neighbours from any mis adventure.

[Blitzo]

Ok, we have to settle this. India does have more experience currently in dealing with aircraft carriers. The Varyag will probably be used as a training vessel, with perhaps an independent carrier built by china, based on the varyag, though without anti ship missiles, less SAM's, bigger aircraft load etc. After that, perhaps we'll see a nuke powered CATOBAR carrier. But will probably not be seen before 2030.
As for China's requirement for a carrier, well numerous articles and reports can be found on the net justifying the need.
When China does get her first carrier, with escorts and all, say after a decade of operating it, only then should you compare Indian and Chinese carrier operations.
Comparing current operations (or lack of) between the two countries currently, is like saying a dog is more alive than a chair (that example is saying India's carrier experience vs. China's carrier experience, is greater, which is obvious, as china does not have an operational carrier).

[funtz]

Or they can build both, which is what they will do. Richard Fisher mentioned a year ago while 071 was still ongoing that they were also going to build helo carrier.

let's see now, they bought 4 set of arresting hook from the Russians. They ordered switch boards for carrier. The steel has apparently being delivered by Baosteel (we will see about that). The new JiangNan shipyard at Changxin Location has the necessary docks for carrier construction. And one of the model pictures we saw from that yard showed a carrier.
http://www.sinodefence.com/research/new-facility-carrier-building/default.asp
Most of us expect to see pictures coming out from here soon.

They started a school for naval aviation recently and looking forward to the Ukrainians to help them train. They are looking to buy su-33 from the Russians right now to begin training. They also got T-10K from Ukraine. You can see Ukraine's help here.
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/12/05/ukraine_to_help_train_chinas_navy_pilots/4214/

They have a domestic naval flanker program going that looks to be ready by 2015. They had a deal for ka-31 from Russians a while ago that later got delayed. They have a Y-7 AEW program going at about the same time. That's how we know they are definitely going for a full scale CATOBAR carrier. There was an article a few months ago that they were working on EMAL catapult.

This official statement seems to suggest that a concept study is to be launched, unless something has been lost in translation.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-12/23/content_7332411.htm

A AEW program with Y-7, EMAL catapult, SU-33, T-10K trainer and i am sure a land based training facility, all under construction for a medium CATOBAR carrier and you still go with 2 carriers by 2020, a little too optimistic.

These are technologies that will take time to develop, especially when there is no existing ship of the class and all of them are going to be 1st generation and they wont come in cheap.

Could you share any articles or pictures of the Y-7 AEW program?

As I said, China may not have any operational experience and India does. However, when it comes to operating a full blown CVBG as some here have argued, neither have any experience doing it.

Except IN has experience in operating a limited CVBG with a STOVL carrier providing the CV element which is to be replaced by a STOBAR carrier for which the pilots have/are received/receiving training, and which is not such a huge jump from STOVL operations.

Other elements will be added and replaced to the two CVBGs as they enter service.

[Blitzo]

This official statement seems to suggest that a concept study is to be launched, unless something has been lost in translation.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-12/23/content_7332411.htm

A AEW program with Y-7, EMAL catapult, SU-33, T-10K trainer and i am sure a land based training facility, all under construction for a medium CATOBAR carrier and you still go with 2 carriers by 2020, a little too optimistic.

These are technologies that will take time to develop, especially when there is no existing ship of the class and all of them are going to be 1st generation and they wont come in cheap.

Could you share any articles or pictures of the Y-7 AEW program?

Except IN has experience in operating a limited CVBG with a STOVL carrier providing the CV element which is to be replaced by a STOBAR carrier for which the pilots have/are received/receiving training, and which is not such a huge jump from STOVL operations.

Other elements will be added and replaced to the two CVBGs as they enter service.
I doubt that China is only at the "concept study" stage. China has thought of an aircraft carrier for a long time, even if officials have not said so. I wouldn't be too suprised if China already has most of the schematics down for a future aircraft carrier (though the schematics for this would probably be similar to the Varyag).

oh and I think tphuang meant both as in a carrier and a helicopter carrier, not as in two fully fledged aircraft carriers..

[funtz]

I doubt that China is only at the "concept study" stage. China has thought of an aircraft carrier for a long time, even if officials have not said so. I wouldn't be too suprised if China already has most of the schematics down for a future aircraft carrier (though the schematics for this would probably be similar to the Varyag).

oh and I think tphuang meant both as in a carrier and a helicopter carrier, not as in two fully fledged aircraft carriers..
Hey i am just asking questions, tphuang should know more, he has been following the PRC military scene for a long time.

Once they start building them with all the necessary facilities and equipment complete the build rate and follow up generations would be very fast if the current pace of shipbuilding for PLA-N is anything to go by.

[Iam]

my blog is very heavily read.
.

How about using Defencetalk ;)


As for 2 052C/2 054A/2 093/887, just go see some of the pictures on CDF. Check for any of the threads, you will see these ships next to each other in Sanya base.
Everyone knows its there. It's common knowledge who bothers to follow PLAN.
The crown jewel of PLAN is all stationed there with 2 052B, 2 052C, 2 054A, 093s/094s, 887, 071. In fact, they are sending 1 052B, 1 052C and 887 from this sea base to Somalia right now..

If your crown jewels are escorting/protecting your carriers, what happens to the rest of the Plan fleet?
I presume there will be more of them, if so how many ?
A 2 carrier fleet will simply eat into all the current assets.



As I said, China may not have any operational experience and India does. However, when it comes to operating a full blown CVBG as some here have argued, neither have any experience doing it.

And your point is ? china will have it's first carrier as a full fleged CVBG ?

[wp2000]

3 and half years ago we had some discussions on the same topic on this very forum

March 10th 2005
And actually, Vayag is not the focus of the rumor. The real news is that China will start to build a carrier while repairing Vayag. But we will only see something before the Olympics. Whereas Vayag will be back into dock in August...

The go-ahead decision has been made years ago already.

[Sampanviking]

There has been a lot of speculation of the what, but very little talk about the why.

So, what will be the core mission tasks of both future Chinese and Indian Carrier groups? It seems unlikely to be concerned with immediate disputes with countries next door as land based air power will be far more effective in dealing with this.

Carriers, with their emphasis on projecting power, also by extension mean projecting power a long distance from the home country. With China we get an inkling from the Somali deployment and long established concerns around the Striats of Malacca etc. Not too sure about India though.

[crobato]

How about using Defencetalk ;)

If your crown jewels are escorting/protecting your carriers, what happens to the rest of the Plan fleet?
I presume there will be more of them, if so how many ?
A 2 carrier fleet will simply eat into all the current assets.


And your point is ? china will have it's first carrier as a full fleged CVBG ?

The first CVBG might be focused on the SSF. That will give you two 052C, two 054A, two 052B and 1 051B for your main surface combatants supported by a number of smaller Jiangweis.

That still leaves the NSF and the ESF. The NSF still has two 051C air defense ships, two 052 destroyers, a bunch of older ships. Not to mention there are more 054A under production that might be destined to go there. The ESF has four Sovremannies, two 054 and 054A, plus a bunch of old ships including Jiangweis. That's still pretty substantial.

A second carrier can be used to occupy the NSF, for the same reasons why nuclear subs in the PLAN are only hosted in the South and North Seas---it ain't deep enough along the East China Sea coast. It should be noted that it is in the South and North Seas Fleet that both have the longer ranged air defense ships, which is the 052C and 051C destroyers respectively, but not in the East Seas Fleet. While some littoral surface and sub assets are in the NSF and SSF, the bulk of the smaller ships and SSKs are in the East Sea Fleet.

At best, with China's current naval assets and ports, two CVBGs can be contained. Anything more requires a significant building of new surface combatants plus the ports dredged deep enough to support them and a carrier.

[Blitzo]

A future Chinese CVBG, will probably include current vessels. But if we look at the pace of Chinese shipbuilding currently, it can be expected that China will have a large fleet of similar destroyers, with VLS for all missiles similar to the Arleigh Burke class. I say this because, all recent Chinese destroyers weren't built in quantity, and all displayed relatively new technologies, being technology demonstrators almost.
So this future continuous class of destroyer will probably be an intergral part of a future chinese CVBG. Besides, we don't know how many CVBG's China will attempt to make (right now it's 0 - how ever many is possible), but I think it will be expected to be around the US's current number, when it's in it's prime. That is of course, if China's prosperity continues, and that we don't all die from an apocalyptic event in 2012.

[riksavage]

Building shinny new ships is the easy part!

Operational doctrine, RAS abilities, professional competency and years of collective experience bring huge dividends to countries with over fifty years of carrier operations (US, UK & France). The PRC is hugely lacking in experience, they haven't sustained a blue water fleet at sea under duress for over 500 years - these skills don't arrive overnight. Simply building new ships and crewing them doesn't suddenly make them a Naval Superpower, you need years of operational experience to refine your doctrine and then test, test, test until it is right for you. Operating a CVBG is about as tough as it gets, I would hate to be the poor Chinese Admiral who goes from Destroyer BG Flag to Carrier Flag without first spending years attached to an overseas Navy with the appropriate experience. Even if they turn to the Russians for training / expertise, they still only have a limited exposure to operating relatively small carriers (by US comparison) and never in a shooting war.

History has shown us time and time again doctrine and training is more important than shinny kit, see below link to Tsushima.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

[Feanor]

Riskavage is absolutely right. And while Russia may be able to provide experience of blue water operations, I seriously doubt that we will be able to contribute much to the goals of operating full-fledged aircraft carriers.

[wp2000]

Building shinny new ships is the easy part!

Operational doctrine, RAS abilities, professional competency and years of collective experience bring huge dividends to countries with over fifty years of carrier operations (US, UK & France). The PRC is hugely lacking in experience, they haven't sustained a blue water fleet at sea under duress for over 500 years - these skills don't arrive overnight. Simply building new ships and crewing them doesn't suddenly make them a Naval Superpower, you need years of operational experience to refine your doctrine and then test, test, test until it is right for you. Operating a CVBG is about as tough as it gets, I would hate to be the poor Chinese Admiral who goes from Destroyer BG Flag to Carrier Flag without first spending years attached to an overseas Navy with the appropriate experience. Even if they turn to the Russians for training / expertise, they still only have a limited exposure to operating relatively small carriers (by US comparison) and never in a shooting war.

History has shown us time and time again doctrine and training is more important than shinny kit, see below link to Tsushima.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima
As we have discussed many times, most people recongised what you have said. No one, except some real young fans, expects PLAN to become a frist rate blue navy over night by just building some ships.

BUT, BUILDING the ships is the very first step they must take, otherwise doctrines,training and experiences are all just wet dreams.

For last 2 decades, especially last 5 years, many concrete steps have been taken on all sorts of things, not just hard ware but also, doctines etc... The time is coming close for PLAN to trial what they have learnt, in both hardware and software(doctrines etc...) terms.

To me, there's no doubt PLAN is on their way to a carrier equiped navy; There will be hicupps, especially their first attempt aimed pretty high; but chinese are very patient and practical, if no major disaster happen to china, I can only see them growing on experiences.

[Sampanviking]

Building shinny new ships is the easy part!

Operational doctrine, RAS abilities, professional competency and years of collective experience bring huge dividends to countries with over fifty years of carrier operations (US, UK & France). The PRC is hugely lacking in experience, they haven't sustained a blue water fleet at sea under duress for over 500 years - these skills don't arrive overnight. Simply building new ships and crewing them doesn't suddenly make them a Naval Superpower, you need years of operational experience to refine your doctrine and then test, test, test until it is right for you. Operating a CVBG is about as tough as it gets, I would hate to be the poor Chinese Admiral who goes from Destroyer BG Flag to Carrier Flag without first spending years attached to an overseas Navy with the appropriate experience. Even if they turn to the Russians for training / expertise, they still only have a limited exposure to operating relatively small carriers (by US comparison) and never in a shooting war.

History has shown us time and time again doctrine and training is more important than shinny kit, see below link to Tsushima.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

NO one can dispute that you need to gain experience in order to attain proficency but if it is wrong to overestimate, it is equally wrong to underestimate as well.

For the basics I can think of three immediate areas that the PLAN would need to achieve proficency.

1) Building and Operating Super Carriers.

China has very extensive experince of building and Operating very large Commercial Ships, many of which are of far greater tonnage than even the largest Carrier. While this is not a cure all, it is an important hurdle crossed and overcomes a number of very basic problems.

2) Flying off a Flat Top

A rather fundemantal requiremnt :D

So the question has to be, to what level can this be simulated for pilot and aircraft testing? The basics can be done quite simply with practice landing platforms on Land and at Sea. Before long you will have a core of aviators sufficently confident and drilled in using a Carrier.

3) Internal Management of a Carrier

Probably the biggest challange is gettign all the various parts of the Crew and Compliment able to work together within their allicated Space and implement their Drills, necessary for the smooth and efficient operation of such a ship. Again much of the basics can be learned in simulation both on Land and in Sea, which makes the eventual transfer to an Operational Carrier for smoother than may originally be anticipated.

Obviously all of the three this would only be for the basics, but even this would be a significant starting point. It means that a reasonably proficcent Operational Status could be achieved after a relatively short Sea Trial and Accustomisation period.

[SkolZkiy]

There is one important point in all this discussion - money. I found this info on Lenta.ru, may be someone has more cocreet info.

Estimated military expenditure in some countries, U.S. dollars
USA - 700 billion (2009)
United Kingdom - 60 billion (2008)
China - 60 billion (2008)
Russia - 50 billion (2009)
Germany - 45 billion (2008)
South Korea - 30 billion (2008)
India - 25 billion (2008-09)
Taiwan - 10 billion (2008)
New Zealand - 1,5 billion (2008)
Ethiopia - 400 million (2008-09)

Military spending in some countries, the percentage of GDP
Georgia - 7,2 (2007)
Colombia - 5.7 (2008)
USA - 4 (2007)
Great Britain - 2.7 (2007)
Russia - 2,6 (2009)
China - 1.7 (2007)

As you can China has a budget of 60 billions, if it is so then how much does china will need to produce it's own Carrier and all supporting things? If they are talking about 11-12 carrier like US then IT'S A VERY BIG SUM and a long perspective. if 4-6 - it's more real I think. But also may be they are spending much more money on thier army than they show.
Also they claimed that they will have 2 carriers up to 2015 and use Varyag as a training platform.

[Blitzo]

Building shinny new ships is the easy part!

Operational doctrine, RAS abilities, professional competency and years of collective experience bring huge dividends to countries with over fifty years of carrier operations (US, UK & France). The PRC is hugely lacking in experience, they haven't sustained a blue water fleet at sea under duress for over 500 years - these skills don't arrive overnight. Simply building new ships and crewing them doesn't suddenly make them a Naval Superpower, you need years of operational experience to refine your doctrine and then test, test, test until it is right for you. Operating a CVBG is about as tough as it gets, I would hate to be the poor Chinese Admiral who goes from Destroyer BG Flag to Carrier Flag without first spending years attached to an overseas Navy with the appropriate experience. Even if they turn to the Russians for training / expertise, they still only have a limited exposure to operating relatively small carriers (by US comparison) and never in a shooting war.

History has shown us time and time again doctrine and training is more important than shinny kit, see below link to Tsushima.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima
I think we have all agreed already that China will not be able to become a blue water navy *snaps fingers* just like that. But the important thing is that China WILL eventually get the experience needed to operate carriers efficiently, even if it is going to take a couple of decades. No one expects China to challenge the US overnight with their own carrier. -_-

[riksavage]

Realistically I can see China operating two CVBG's in the next 20-30 years, similar in size to what the UK and France will eventually field (assuming both end up with two carriers). One CVBG operational, the second in reserve, refit or on its scheduled training cycle .

For China to compete with the US they are going to need to increase military spending by ten fold minimum. This does not take into consideration all the other modernization programs planned for the PLA and airforce, plus the ongoing need to professionalize their military and dramatically reduce numbers. 50 - 60% of China's manpower is still made up of relatively poorly educated troops dispersed throughout the country in pretty grim conditions. They are still funding the transition from a self-defense based standing army focused on border protection and maintaining the old communist hierarchy / ideology to a modern expeditionary warfare organization.

The CVBG basing requirements, maintenance facilities, supply-chain management and domestic industry needed to support CVBG's to match that of the US is a gargantuan and hugely expensive challenge and will take far longer to establish than the actual building of the carriers themselves. A single CVBG requires extensive port facilities, at best you may be able to co-locate two - one deployed, one home based, this will still require major structural improvements to the PRC's existing Naval bases above and beyond what we are seeing in Hinan and eleswhere.

Also not forgetting the purpose of a CVBG is to project power anywhere in the world without the need to rely on a friendly host Government. So China also needs to compliment its planned carriers with a Marine expeditionary warfare group, which in turn needs LST's, LSD's Commando Carriers etc., modern enough to keep up with the Carrier and its escorts. All brings to the table additional costs.

Realistically each CVBG is going to need:

1 x Carrier
2 x Destroyer (AAW)
1 x SSN
2 x Frigates (AEW)
1 - 2 x RAS vessels
Plus if you intend projecting you influence ashore you will need the maritime lift to sustain typically 2200 plus Marines at sea for projected periods based on a single battalion battle group (US MEU).

China also has it's own demons to deal with, the growing disparity between rich and poor, mass migration from rural to urban areas and ever increasing demand for natural resources is going to require the politburo to focus funds on internal issues, including improving the abilities of the PSB and other domestic security agencies. So as the credit crunch continues to bite we could see funds being diverted to controlling internal unrest.

Don't get me wrong I believe the PRC will eventually operate a credible CVBG, but nothing like the ten the US will have by mid-century. Just take the time to look at the specifications of the planned 100, 000T Gerald R Ford Class, 10 of which are planned by 2058, not forgetting the planned MEU's and associated new vessels and hardware.

[Feanor]

Please adjust Chinese spending to purchasing power. And keep in mind that the official Chinese military budget is one thing, but what they are actually spending may turn out to be something very very different.

[SkolZkiy]

That's what I'm talking about - but still CVBG is very expensive. If we are talking about Ru carriers there is a little different situation because they are not carrier in US meaning so they don't need such a big escort, actually in RuArmy carrier is Air-defence system for the sea group (it is their main goal, at least in SU), so we must take into consideration what for Chineese are building their carrier and will it be a carrier in US-meaning or in Ru-meaning? And for what goals would they use it? But I think a very small circle of Chineese officials knows that =)

[Blitzo]

Well I'm not too sure about the 50-60 % of China's troops are uneducated and in grim conditions part, but the rest of your statement seems logical. CVBG's however may only be two, but how about aircraft carriers by themselves? If China is able to create a good, continuous class, then may China be able to build carriers at a speed similar (probably a bit slower) like the US does with Nimitz classes?

[Blitzo]

I would expect that China would want a similar carrier system like the US. The two militaries are getting more symmetrical by the year (exaggeration of course, but there are quite a few counterparts that China which parallels the US. Eventually a CATOBAR carrier will be made I think.

[wp2000]

Yes, many signs point out that China actually is aiming for building more than one carrier, and they are aiming for steam catpult system, fixed wing AWACS(won't show up with the first carrier).
That's why I said they are aiming very high for the first step.

[dragonfire]

In my humble opinion China will plan to build new aircraft carriers having studied different ships from different classes it will also convert the varyag into its first deployed armed operational aircraft carrier, after being deployed as its "training vessel". I think the "serious" consideration in the link below is a prelude to the eventual transformation of the Varyag into the first aircraft carrier of PLAN with the name Shi Lang and assigned pennant number 83. The name Shi Lang alluding to a Ming-Qing Dynasty admiral who conquered Taiwan in 1681 - note the significance

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/navy/China_seriously_considering_building_an_aircraft_c arrier_spokesman120016838.php

[tatra]

What if ... China has no intention of ever building (a) carrier(s).

Then Varyag and various rumors just serve to spur neighbouring countries in the region and US to spend on beefing up their defences for this eventuality, while PLA/PLAN is actually preparing for an etirely different scenario.

I'm saying this in good fun, so as not to ruin the discussion, but with a serious undertone....

[tphuang]

Let's see what the Japanese have to say.
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200812310046.html

BEIJING--China will begin construction of the country's first domestically produced aircraft carriers in Shanghai next year, with an eye to completing two mid-sized carriers by 2015, military and shipbuilding sources said.

Beijing is also expected to complete work on a never-finished former Soviet aircraft carrier moored in the northeastern port of Dalian, to provide training for carrier-based pilots and crew.

The two 50,000- to 60,000-ton carriers will rely on conventional propulsion systems, not nuclear power. They will be assigned to the People's Liberation Army Navy south sea fleet, tasked with patrolling the South China Sea, sources said.

China's carrier ambitions and the build-up of its blue-water fleet have long been of interest to Pacific nations.

National defense ministry spokesman Huang Xueping recently commented that China might build its own aircraft carriers.

However, this is the first time the goals of Chinese naval planners have been clarified in such detail.

If China does bolster its naval combat capabilities by deploying aircraft carriers, it could significantly impact the delicate military balance in East Asia.

According to sources close to Shanghai municipal authorities, one of the world's largest shipbuilding facilities was completed this fall on Changxingdao island at the mouth of the Changjiang river near Shanghai.

One of the four docks there is for construction of the aircraft carriers, they said.

Shipbuilding sources said there are plans to import electrical control parts from Russia and that orders have already been placed with domestic military suppliers.

If procurement goes as planned, the carriers could be completed about two years earlier than planned.

Meanwhile, shipbuilders in Dalian are nearing completion of the 60,000-ton former Soviet Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag, as a training ship for carrier-borne aircraft pilots and crew. The ship, which was about 70 percent complete at the time of its purchase, was first acquired by a Macao tourism firm in 1998. Since 2002, it has been under construction by a Dalian-based shipbuilder with ties to the navy.

A ranking Chinese navy officer told The Asahi Shimbun that as China increasingly relies on Mideast oil, the aircraft carriers would likely see duty guarding sea lanes in the Malacca Strait and in the Indian Ocean. The officer contended that because the ships will be smaller than U.S. carriers they will not pose a threat.

Ikuo Kayahara, a professor of security studies at Takushoku University and a former research department director at the National Institute for Defense Studies, said China's plan to build aircraft carriers is a "key pillar to enhancing its naval capabilities."

"China hopes to broaden its buffer zone to protect its coasts from a perceived threat from the United States," Kayahara said.(IHT/Asahi: December 31,2008)


This official statement seems to suggest that a concept study is to be launched, unless something has been lost in translation.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-12/23/content_7332411.htm

A AEW program with Y-7, EMAL catapult, SU-33, T-10K trainer and i am sure a land based training facility, all under construction for a medium CATOBAR carrier and you still go with 2 carriers by 2020, a little too optimistic.

These are technologies that will take time to develop, especially when there is no existing ship of the class and all of them are going to be 1st generation and they wont come in cheap.

Could you share any articles or pictures of the Y-7 AEW program?

Except IN has experience in operating a limited CVBG with a STOVL carrier providing the CV element which is to be replaced by a STOBAR carrier for which the pilots have/are received/receiving training, and which is not such a huge jump from STOVL operations.

Other elements will be added and replaced to the two CVBGs as they enter service.
well, there are a couple of thoughts right now. They can build one before 2015 and then two more in a second generational carrier after that. Or the other plan is to build the first two by 2015 as the first generation and then build second generation after that. Any Chinese carrier in the first generation would probably be around the size of Varyag. Remember, they probably studied the ship inside out by now, might have the blue prints to Ul'yanovsk. You have to realize they already have experience building multiple military grade ships in the 20-25K ton class.

As for Y-7 AEW, check this link http://cnair.top81.cn/gallery1.htm

China seems to be in no urgency to deploy a carrier. Specifically using the limited resources China has wisely decided to modernise existing areas where they have extensive experience in.

They know potential conflicts are gonna be fought regional, (Tiawan, Japan, India, etc). Chinese airforce, army, navy and importantly nuclear forces can sufficently deter its neighbours from any mis adventure.
limited resources? China does not lack resources. PLAN has been on a huge build up in the last 5 years if you haven't noticed.
How about using Defencetalk ;)

If your crown jewels are escorting/protecting your carriers, what happens to the rest of the Plan fleet?
I presume there will be more of them, if so how many ?
A 2 carrier fleet will simply eat into all the current assets.

And your point is ? china will have it's first carrier as a full fleged CVBG ?
Crobato explained pretty well. They definitely already have enough ships in SSF to have some for self defense and a carrier group. They are building so many new ships right now, having enough escorts is not going to be a concern either way.
Realistically I can see China operating two CVBG's in the next 20-30 years, similar in size to what the UK and France will eventually field (assuming both end up with two carriers). One CVBG operational, the second in reserve, refit or on its scheduled training cycle .

For China to compete with the US they are going to need to increase military spending by ten fold minimum. This does not take into consideration all the other modernization programs planned for the PLA and airforce, plus the ongoing need to professionalize their military and dramatically reduce numbers. 50 - 60% of China's manpower is still made up of relatively poorly educated troops dispersed throughout the country in pretty grim conditions. They are still funding the transition from a self-defense based standing army focused on border protection and maintaining the old communist hierarchy / ideology to a modern expeditionary warfare organization.

The CVBG basing requirements, maintenance facilities, supply-chain management and domestic industry needed to support CVBG's to match that of the US is a gargantuan and hugely expensive challenge and will take far longer to establish than the actual building of the carriers themselves. A single CVBG requires extensive port facilities, at best you may be able to co-locate two - one deployed, one home based, this will still require major structural improvements to the PRC's existing Naval bases above and beyond what we are seeing in Hinan and eleswhere.

Also not forgetting the purpose of a CVBG is to project power anywhere in the world without the need to rely on a friendly host Government. So China also needs to compliment its planned carriers with a Marine expeditionary warfare group, which in turn needs LST's, LSD's Commando Carriers etc., modern enough to keep up with the Carrier and its escorts. All brings to the table additional costs.

Realistically each CVBG is going to need:

1 x Carrier
2 x Destroyer (AAW)
1 x SSN
2 x Frigates (AEW)
1 - 2 x RAS vessels
Plus if you intend projecting you influence ashore you will need the maritime lift to sustain typically 2200 plus Marines at sea for projected periods based on a single battalion battle group (US MEU).

China also has it's own demons to deal with, the growing disparity between rich and poor, mass migration from rural to urban areas and ever increasing demand for natural resources is going to require the politburo to focus funds on internal issues, including improving the abilities of the PSB and other domestic security agencies. So as the credit crunch continues to bite we could see funds being diverted to controlling internal unrest.

Don't get me wrong I believe the PRC will eventually operate a credible CVBG, but nothing like the ten the US will have by mid-century. Just take the time to look at the specifications of the planned 100, 000T Gerald R Ford Class, 10 of which are planned by 2058, not forgetting the planned MEU's and associated new vessels and hardware.
I presume you don't work here around the wall street like I do, so you don't know how much of an economic black hole US is heading toward. In terms of military expenditure for the navy and such, US will have to downsize in the future regardless of what it desires. You think the current ship shortage and shipbuilding problems in USN is a small problem? It will become much larger problem in the future. At that point, you can go for the Soviet style military spending or act like a democracy and spend on your citizen first. But in terms of maintaining an oversea projection force, I don't think China will ever try to match USN, because it's just not fiscally responsible, even if it ends up with a larger GDP. But I can definitely see 3 to 5 carriers by 2030, it has the economic power to do this. And remember, China builds ships (especially military ships) far cheaper than US, it helps that the domestic shipbuilding industry is still in a good shape.

[aaaditya]

Hello Aaaditya, do you have any links as to why the Indian Navy chose that IAC design. I believe an Italian company was assigned this task, supposing that the Soviet/Russian designs would have been readily available to India.?

here buddy,check this link which gives the detailed information on the indian aircraft carrier project.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/ships/future/185-indian-aircraft-carrier.html

the following are some relevant lines from that article:

This last design iteration shows much influence from the Italian Navy's Andrea Dorea Class (currently known as the Cavour Class) aircraft carrier in that there is much sloping of the superstructure and ship sides. The vessel will be powered by four HAL-built General Electric LM 2500 gas turbines driving two shafts. With a 12 to 14º ski-jump, the vessel will have a STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) arrangement on an angled flight deck with two aircraft elevators - one before the island and one after. In the STOBAR arrangement, the aircraft lands on the angled-flight deck and is stopped by arrester wires, of which three will be installed onboard.

The vessel is estimated to carry as many as 30 aircraft on board, with 17 parked in the hanger below. Technical inputs, in respect of the MiG-29K's dimensions, will be provided by Russia which will also assist in the associated design work for aviation facilities such as the flight deck, hangar, aircrafts lifts, ammunition lifts, aircraft launch and recovery systems.

Defense News and Jane's Defence Weekly (JDW) both reported in July/August 2004, that the Ministry of Defence awarded a $30 million contract to Fincantieri's Naval Vessel Business Unit to help prepare concept, design and implementation plans for the vessel. The company will also provide designs to integrate the propulsion system, engine room layouts and overall validation of systems, besides conducting sea trials. DCN International (now dcns) of France and Izar Construcciones Navales (now navantia) of Spain also sent in their bids, however fincantieri spa of Italy was awarded the contract. This is an interesting development, since the contract for an original design study for the vessel was signed with DCNS in 1989. The design & construction of the Italian Navy's cavour class aircraft carrier, reportedly tipped the scales in favour of the Italian shipyard winning the contract. A team of IN and CSL engineers & technicians will work in tandem with their counterparts at Fincantieri in Italy over the next two years to finalise the vessel design, as well as its propulsion systems and main power plants. The company will provide technical assistance during the construction of the vessel and also during sea trials. Naval officials however stated that assistance from Fincantieri will continue until the vessel's commissioning. The hull and landing deck are to be built by larsen and toubro limited.

[Salty Dog]

here buddy,check this link which gives the detailed information on the indian aircraft carrier project.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/ships/future/185-indian-aircraft-carrier.html

The design & construction of the Italian Navy's cavour class aircraft carrier, reportedly tipped the scales in favour of the Italian shipyard winning the contract. A team of IN and CSL engineers & technicians will work in tandem with their counterparts at Fincantieri in Italy over the next two years to finalise the vessel design, as well as its propulsion systems and main power plants. The company will provide technical assistance during the construction of the vessel and also during sea trials. Naval officials however stated that assistance from Fincantieri will continue until the vessel's commissioning. The hull and landing deck are to be built by larsen and toubro limited.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]

Apart from some of the sexiest warship projects in the world, Fincantieri has the experience of both Italian Navy carrier projects. They also have the contract for the new IN fleet replenishment oiler. IMHO a very smart choice.

[Iam]

here buddy,check this link which gives the detailed information on the indian aircraft carrier project.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/ships/future/185-indian-aircraft-carrier.html



Thanks, do you have any pictures of CSL, and what's the current status of the program?, any idea of what escorts these will be using. I read somewhere that IN is already planning on building the next IAC in the 60-70k class?. Is that still on course or is it simply a feasibility study?

[riksavage]

Let's see what the Japanese have to say.
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200812310046.html

And remember, China builds ships (especially military ships) far cheaper than US, it helps that the domestic shipbuilding industry is still in a good shape.

Chinese may build ships cheaper, but that doesn't mean the build quality is on a par with western vessels. I recently had the misfortune to go aboard a brand new Chinese built super yacht (90 plus metres) constructed at what was claimed to be their finest shipyard - the build quality was atrocious forcing the owner to move it to Europe for a complete overhaul.

[crobato]

What's the brand? Kingship?

The biggest shipyards don't do yachts, and much of the yacht manufacturers in China are joint ventured with US, Australian and European yacht makers as well as Taiwan ones. They have a problem in a shortage of trained labor because the best skilled labor are being soaked up by the big yards.

[riksavage]

The bigger yards are making 'super yachts' (90 metres and above). The money generated far exceeds that, which can be generated building much bigger commercial vessels. Plus the waiting lists in Taiwan, Australia, Europe and US are so long billionaires have been forced to look elsewhere. The yacht in question was built at one of China's largest yards, was two years behind schedule and was literally limping its way to Europe due to ongoing mechanical issues.

[crobato]

The biggest yards don't do super yachts, and as a matter of fact, super yachts are only a very new phenomenon with the Chinese yacht building industry which is quite separate from the traditional ship building industries. As a matter of fact, we have never seen mega sized yachts being built in any of the major shipyards associated with the Chinese defense industry such as Jiangnan.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/jiangnan-sy.htm

"With more than 130 years experience in developing and building various kind of merchant ships, Jiangnan Shipyard has successfully delivered to worldwide shipping market a large variety of highly sophisticated vessels such as liquefied gas carriers, car carriers, crude oil tankers, Panamax bulk carriers, Handymax bulk carriers, Lake suitable bulk carriers, multi-purpose cargo ships, fast feeder container ships etc. And in particular, gas carriers have become one of the major products of the shipyard in the past years. Apart from new building section, Jiangnan Shipyard has specific divisions specializing in manufacturing pressurized tanks liquefied gas carriers, large steel structures for civil architect engineering, variety of mechanical and electrical equipment, nonstandard equipment, pressure containers, port machinery etc. To be in line with international standard and quality system, the shipyard has been approved of and certified for qualification of ISO 9001 by well-reputed authorities of China. "

Nowhere did yacht building given a mention.

Here is an example of a large yacht making facility. This certainly doesn't belong to any of the major shipyards that work for the defense industry.

http://www.showboats.com/Articles/Features/Dragon-Fire-3.asp

Here is an example of the largest yachts built by country of origin. There are three names there made in China, whose links you can click on. None of them are built by the biggest yards that do tankers and also work for the defense industry.

http://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/megayachts/2008-worlds-largest-yachts/index1.aspx

Do note that a 90 meter yacht would already be in the listing of the top 100 sized yachts. Only two made in China made that list and near the 90 meter length, the Nero and the Asean Lady, both are not made by the biggest shipyards in China and those associated with the defense industry.

http://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/megayachts/2008-worlds-largest-yachts/

The Asean Lady is owned by the guy who also owns that shipyard, Yantai-Raffles. The owner is Brian Chang. The Nero is also made by the same shipyard and so far is the largest yacht made in China. This ship was only delivered this year after a one year delay. I believe this is the ship in question. Do note for its mechanical troubles, its Caterpillar powered. Yantai Shipyard is the only private and foreign owned major shipyard in China. It is definitely a huge yard, claimed to have the world's largest gantry crane, but it is not involved in the defense industry, nor owned, or partly owned by the PRC government. Looking at the stuff it makes it's nothing in the caliber of Jiangnan Shipyard.

http://www.yantai-raffles.com/

[dragonfire]

What if ... China has no intention of ever building (a) carrier(s).

No Navy would undertake to procure through whatever means to study more than 3 CVGs end to end and inside out and decide not to build it unless there are financial limitations. PLAN intends to build and operate its carrier fleets. There have been mulitple quotes released through the PLAN in this regard.

With respect to a possible assumption that the chinese are playing a game to make other nations spend more money on defence, i sincerely doubt if US, UK, France, Russia are building the carrier capabilities beacuse of a threat perception from China. If that was the case existing carrier capabilities of USN is more than even enough to project power / threaten China. China is economicaly strong, they have good building capabilities and have a credible nuc-subs carrying nuc weapons, wht they lack is carrier groups and they will build to operate aircraft carriers. Mark my word :) the Varyag will be their first operational carrier :vamp

[Schumacher]

No Navy would undertake to procure through whatever means to study more than 3 CVGs end to end and inside out and decide not to build it unless there are financial limitations. PLAN intends to build and operate its carrier fleets. There have been mulitple quotes released through the PLAN in this regard. .....

True, PLAN will surely get some carriers. But agree somewhat with what the other poster said that there's certainly some 'smokescreen' here intended or not with this carrier project. I don't think PLAN sees it as having nearly as much strategic significance as public reports suggest. I certainly see PLA as putting more emphasis on projects like subs, next-gen aircraft etc just to name a few.
But I guess that's the same with most forces with carriers out there ie their symbolic significance is much more than that of the other assets even if the military significance is less.

[Feanor]

I would disagree. The significance of carriers as tools of force projection to their owners can not be underestimated. With the exception of the USA which has a global network of bases, no other nation can hope to project force far beyond it's borders without them.

[dragonfire]

I certainly see PLA as putting more emphasis on projects like subs, next-gen aircraft etc just to name a few.


See tht's the point here PLAN has solid multi class nuc-sub development program running with inductions happening as such. The PLAAF also has development program with one rumoured to be a 5th Gen program amongst others. So whts missing for them is a carrier; so....

[KiwiRob]

I haven't got the article electronically but in last weeks New Ships Weekly they reported that the Chinese have officially stated that they will launch a carrier with the next 10 years, the article then mentioned that an unnamed source had seen a hull already under construction, it didn't mention which shipyard.

[Blitzo]

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.

[yasin_khan]

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.
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.

[gf0012-aust]

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.

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.

[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. :D :D :D

[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....:onfloorl:

[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. :D :D :D

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

[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. :onfloorl:
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. :onfloorl:

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. :D :D :D

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


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 :(

[funtz]

At what stage of construction does a ship (aircraft carreir in this case) in a dockyard starts to look like a ship?

[gf0012-aust]

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 :(

Your response to my post:

"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:

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

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"

[gf0012-aust]

At what stage of construction does a ship (aircraft carreir in this case) in a dockyard starts to look like a ship?


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]

Your response to my reply was about a simulated carrier deck being made underground - which is technically as useful as ice in hell.



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]

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

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.

At what stage of construction does a ship (aircraft carreir in this case) in a dockyard starts to look like a ship?

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.

"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."

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;)

[gf0012-aust]

Well I understood what you ment dragonfire, even though it could have been phrased a bit better (is English your forst 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 wht 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 know 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.


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.

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 a 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.

see above - it was pretty obvious that they were using modules when they were building merchant ships larger than the dockyards capability.

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;)

err, the original input was that a facsimile of melbourne was used to simulate carrier training.

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]

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.

well pardon me for registering and joining in:D 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.

its a rhetorical question, because obviously you think that you have a clue

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.

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....

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.

[gf0012-aust]

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.

[Blitzo]

Yeah. The Varyag is almost like a decoy, trying to get our attention so China can work on other things at other places.

[Sampanviking]

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.

Ok Fair point and taken.

Yeah. The Varyag is almost like a decoy, trying to get our attention so China can work on other things at other places.


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.

[gf0012-aust]

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.

[Feanor]

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?

[swerve]

Hence why I think the 3 LHA hulls underway ...
Can you point me to any information or speculation on the size & likely configuration of these ships?

TIA

[Sampanviking]

But, I still view the first PLAN carrier as being a 2012-2015 solution

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.

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.

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?

[gf0012-aust]

Can you point me to any information or speculation on the size & likely configuration of these ships?

TIA

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

[Transient]

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?

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.

[gf0012-aust]

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.

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.


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?


"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!)

[Blitzo]

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.
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]

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.

[gf0012-aust]

Can you point me to any information or speculation on the size & likely configuration of these ships?

TIA

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.

[tatra]

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.

Is there any imagery out there showing a landing craft of any kind (small or large, air cushion or conventional) actually entering/leaving the docking well?

[gf0012-aust]

Is there any imagery out there showing a landing craft of any kind (small or large, air cushion or conventional) actually entering/leaving the docking well?

None in the public domain that I'm aware of. I'm guessing that they've done satellite based trig on the stern and come up with the well measurements.

but honestly, NFI

[tphuang]

Is there any imagery out there showing a landing craft of any kind (small or large, air cushion or conventional) actually entering/leaving the docking well?
nothing, but we know that they have something like LCAC available.


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.

I don't see why you need to turn this political.


Hence why I think the 3 LHA hulls underway are precursors to a carrier

interesting, I haven't seen any signs of such hulls.

[blueindian]

When they release original pictures then post them.

http://i36.tinypic.com/343ktif.jpg

http://i35.tinypic.com/adi5ty.jpg

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/4138/vikram1ih2.jpg





hey friend check out some real images...:onfloorl:

[justone]

yeah, this is just another article by Andrei Pinkov trying to link China to Russia somehow. I think at the moment, putting China's program together with Russia is a little too far of a stretch. It doesn't even seem like China is asking Russia for any help.

China needs russian assistance that a fact with no experience in navy action on a global level and with no help from western navies it only hope is to make a agreement with russia on building a aircraft carrier

[Feanor]

Why do you think that developing the capability indigenously is impossible?

[KiwiRob]

China needs russian assistance that a fact with no experience in navy action on a global level and with no help from western navies it only hope is to make a agreement with russia on building a aircraft carrier

I take it that you haven't been anywhere near a Russian shipyard lately. The Chinese are much better shipbuilders than the Russians, besides all the Russian carriers were built in the Ukraine and that's where the experience lies, well it would if they were still capable of building ships in the Ukraine which at the moment they aren't, apart from one yard in Kherson, all the other yards are pretty much idle. I also don't think current Russian experience counts for much, they only have one carrier which is a dock queen most of the time, I think the Russians and Chinese are both starting from scratch.

[justone]

Why do you think that developing the capability indigenously is impossible?

the reason i said this it will take more time to make a carrier from no experience or knowledge of aircraft carrier back in early day of developing aircraft carrier there was the up and down in development it take lot into making aircraft carrier than you kind imagine that why there is not to many navies with aircraft carriers it will take alot resources and skill to do this in china its not a easy project to do on your own if china had alot assistance from a western country in the know how field it could be done .But it got a old russia aircraft carrier that its studying the chinese are good in copying from russia

[Feanor]

So in other words it would take them more time. That's fine. But it's not impossible for them to do it alone.

In any event, Russia does have some things to offer in that area, but not very many. I don't know that Russia can produce an aircraft carrier right now.

[justone]

I take it that you haven't been anywhere near a Russian shipyard lately. The Chinese are much better shipbuilders than the Russians, besides all the Russian carriers were built in the Ukraine and that's where the experience lies, well it would if they were still capable of building ships in the Ukraine which at the moment they aren't, apart from one yard in Kherson, all the other yards are pretty much idle. I also don't think current Russian experience counts for much, they only have one carrier which is a dock queen most of the time, I think the Russians and Chinese are both starting from scratch.
They are going to start from scratch since they don't have shipyard in Urkaine. It's a different when you have a aircraft carrier in your navy than not having one. That why both need each other in some way . I forgot about the old carriers was built in Ukraine . The Chinese navy is building it own ship at rapid pace considering they are making over 20 ships right now.

[tphuang]

They are going to start from scratch since they don't have shipyard in Urkaine. It's a different when you have a aircraft carrier in your navy than not having one. That why both need each other in some way . I forgot about the old carriers was built in Ukraine . The Chinese navy is building it own ship at rapid pace considering they are making over 20 ships right now.

They got a lot of help from the Ukrainians for the aircraft project, they've been studying Varyag for years. They are definitely not starting from scratch, but the first carrier they build is obviously going to have a lot of mistakes.

[swerve]

the reason i said this it will take more time to make a carrier from no experience or knowledge of aircraft carrier back in early day of developing aircraft carrier there was the up and down in development it take lot into making aircraft carrier than you kind imagine that why there is not to many navies with aircraft carriers it will take alot resources and skill to do this in china its not a easy project to do on your own if china had alot assistance from a western country in the know how field it could be done .But it got a old russia aircraft carrier that its studying the chinese are good in copying from russia
China has had many years of studying old aircraft carriers. It bought an old British-built carrier from Australia for scrapping - and kept it for years to study. It's now had its hands on how many ex-Soviet carriers?

China now has a great deal of knowledge of aircraft carriers. As well as physical ships, I have no doubt Chinese designers have been studying everything they can get their hands on from published sources, photographs, etc. China has no specific carrier-building experience yet, but a great deal of knowledge. They're not starting from scratch now: they've been busy doing the groundwork for years. China has a huge shipbuilding industry, & is well ahead of, for instance, India in that regard. Everything is in place to build carriers.

[tatra]

http://i36.tinypic.com/343ktif.jpg

http://i35.tinypic.com/adi5ty.jpg

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/4138/vikram1ih2.jpg





hey friend check out some real images...:onfloorl:

Yer first piccie is the Varyag. The others are the Gorshkov undergoing modification.

[tatra]

Why do you think that developing the capability indigenously is impossible?
It s not impossible but why waste others' experience when it can be put to good use in solving your problem?

[exported_kiwi]

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.


I recall seeing pictures of a mock up flight deck like this outside Beijing a few years ago. Can't recall where I saw the pic though but it was definitely a deck and was apparently used for practice, but, this is all from memory which is rather hazy these days. I can say for sure that it was in China, somewhere around Beijing though.

[Feanor]

It s not impossible but why waste others' experience when it can be put to good use in solving your problem?

If that experience is available.

[shag]

I am not sure if this has been noted but the Indian version of kiev class(gorshkov) has had the front AA batteries removed as per specs of indian navy. The additional space is used to substantially(130-140% from pictures) lengthen the runway for the Migs to take off.
It should be noted that this fact combined with ski jump and arrestor wires would allow Indian ACs operating from this Aircraft carrier to take off with significantly heavier combat loads then that allowed in the default configuration of this carrier.
Just a lil FYI from my end. :)
PS: this is my first post here and I am already loving it . . .

[Feanor]

Hi shag. Welcome to defencetalk. Please do introduce yourself to us in the intros and off-topic forum. Read the rules and enjoy your stay.

On-topic, you're right. The Vikramaditiya is very different from the Kiev-class from which it's derived.

[shag]

Thanks for the welcome feanor. :)

I read this topic since the beginning and I saw many people argue that varyag and the other kievs acquired in stripped down condition by china will help it get experience in operating an aircraft carrier. There was also talk of converitng varyag to a carrier with boilers et al.

My point here is that in it default configuration the kiev class is classified as a aviation cruiser and not even a proper aircraft carrier. Only aircraft capable operating from this class in its default configuration were the VTOL Yak-38 and the choppers(more commonly).There is no way su33 could operate from kiev even with zero weapons load. In fact the indian carrier length during mods has been increased to 283m from default 273m with runway length increase by ~140%.
All the equipment for launch and recovery of a/c were stripped from chinese hulks which can anyway not launch any big birds. Given these facts what help do you think these hulks will provide to chinese in their aircraft carrier program??

Somehow I doubt the recent news from chinese sources about converting varyag to a operational status. Given the time it would take to find and install the thousands of types of equipment back on it, extending the ramp etc sufficiently to allow decent carrier ops. I am not sure of the viability of the project. either as a refurbished carrier or as a trainer of any sort for future carrier operations if the chinese were hoping for it.

[shag]

ohh I just read my previous post and before anybody clobbers me asking how a ships length can be increased JLT, the increased ten meters is from the ski-jump which extends out from the bow.