China to build aircraft carrier
- Thread starter pshamim
- Start date
I'll see of I can track down a response I made in another forum. But I'll compress what I said just to clarfiy why I have doubts on the dates.
1) They're talking about a vessel that is between the size of a KittyHawk and Charles de Gaulle. Those vessels took 3-4 years to slip. The French had substantial problems with CdG - and its not the first carrier they made.
2) It would take a min of 2-3 years to slip (if a trouble free build) - probably more like 3-4 yrs.
3) It would need a 1 year work up
4) It would need at least 2-3 years to get organic air up and running in a co-ordinated sympathetic fashion
5) The PLAN doesn't have the support vessels needed to support a large carrier - especially from day 1
6) There is no evidence of training in fleet handling at a bluewater level, That training needs to happen concurrently. They could practice with a large oil tanker with approp ASW/AAW assets. - They don't have sufficient smaller support vessels in place.
IMV, the time frame is very very optimistic
the other thing is that there are no indications that I've heard of where the Chinese are prepping a suitably sized yard. even if its modular, they still need to bring it together.
1) They're talking about a vessel that is between the size of a KittyHawk and Charles de Gaulle. Those vessels took 3-4 years to slip. The French had substantial problems with CdG - and its not the first carrier they made.
2) It would take a min of 2-3 years to slip (if a trouble free build) - probably more like 3-4 yrs.
3) It would need a 1 year work up
4) It would need at least 2-3 years to get organic air up and running in a co-ordinated sympathetic fashion
5) The PLAN doesn't have the support vessels needed to support a large carrier - especially from day 1
6) There is no evidence of training in fleet handling at a bluewater level, That training needs to happen concurrently. They could practice with a large oil tanker with approp ASW/AAW assets. - They don't have sufficient smaller support vessels in place.
IMV, the time frame is very very optimistic
the other thing is that there are no indications that I've heard of where the Chinese are prepping a suitably sized yard. even if its modular, they still need to bring it together.
Last edited:
It's already been debunked. I think there's a bit of disinformation getting out there.
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002560.php
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002560.php
ReDgUaRd008
New Member
well if you do remember that the US in WW2 builted Distroyer's in less then a week. So building a Carrier in a year could happen. if all 2 billion people worked on it, it might b finshed in 2 months or so. 
If you love ur countries ull do nething for it. like in WW2 the soviet's was busting out tanks in a day or so. :china
If you love ur countries ull do nething for it. like in WW2 the soviet's was busting out tanks in a day or so. :china... and you think these items haven't become anymore complex over the years.ReDgUaRd008 said:well if you do remember that the US in WW2 builted Distroyer's in less then a week. So building a Carrier in a year could happen. if all 2 billion people worked on it, it might b finshed in 2 months or so.
Think about it a little. Apart from the latest generation nuclear submarines, no other ship is as complex. This isn't WW2 where we are talking about Liberty Ships - it is not an issue of "Labor Intensiveness"ReDgUaRd008 said:well if you do remember that the US in WW2 builted Distroyer's in less then a week. So building a Carrier in a year could happen. if all 2 billion people worked on it, it might b finshed in 2 months or so.
China is taking 2-3 years to build guided missile destroyers and you are talking about building a vessel that is literally 10-12's bigger in tonnage. China can't cope with curent vessel demands and is building core complex vessels like the Sovremenys in Russia - she has yet to build any surface warfare vessel as complex as the Sovromeny within China. The biggest vessels she's built have been LNG tankers - and they are not as complex as an aircraft carrier by a very long margin.
This would have been a greenfields project - and there is no way that a 1st of class vessel of this size could be built irrespective of how many "people" were thrown at it.
The above reasons (and there are a multitude of others) are why statements like this when announced need to be taken with a lot of skepticism and caution.
Last edited:
GF: What sort of components are we talking about to get a conventional type aircraft carrier going? Presumably, the first carrier the Chinese build (if/when), would be conventionally powered due to the added complexity of working with nuclear reactors. It's been alleged that CdG has issues with the reactor .(reactors?) having been originally designed for use on French subs.
I confess, I like the look of CdG but then I think Carriers are awesome kit anyway.
I confess, I like the look of CdG but then I think Carriers are awesome kit anyway.
One of the single largest issues with designing a carrier is bunkerage. It's been a long held belief that HMAS Melbourne was originally purchased as scrap so that China could compare bunkerage models against the russian carriers (which are different types - apart from size issues)Supe said:GF: What sort of components are we talking about to get a conventional type aircraft carrier going? Presumably, the first carrier the Chinese build (if/when), would be conventionally powered due to the added complexity of working with nuclear reactors. It's been alleged that CdG has issues with the reactor .(reactors?) having been originally designed for use on French subs.
I confess, I like the look of CdG but then I think Carriers are awesome kit anyway.
the carrier type will denote the complexity of the bunkerage. eg CTOL, STOL/VTOL or ramp assisted CTOL
those 3 types alone then determine what aircraft options are available
the aircraft options available then determine what fuel bunkerage is likely to be, etc...
Carriers are battle management systems, and what type of carrier it is then determines what its fitout is, whats its minimum escort complement will be, what it's tactical depth will be.
The French aren't novices at ship building and they made substantial mistakes with de Gaulle
initially the reactors didin't comply with safety standards, props fell off on the maiden voyage, the deck was too short to safely accomodate their organic AWACs, the catapults needed tuning, and for quite a while, she had a completely inadequate self defence suite. IIRC. the reactors were converted units based on designs from their ballistic submarines.
If Tatra is lurking he might have a lot more detail to provide, but it was not a happy beginning.
According to China analysts, there is substantial evidence that all top rated pilots have been put through a static traps and launches training programme for the last few years. The static deck is apparently the same dimensions as the old HMAS Melbourne flight deck.
What is really important as an adjunct to all of this is that China needs to test and deploy a robust fleet defence fighter well before she thinks about having a carrier in commission. There are a few indications that their Lavi look alike will be a fleet fighter, but nothing concrete.
The other thing to be noted is that having a carrier without having fleet AWACs in place reduces the capability dramatically, the Russians don't have a solution, France uses E2 Hawkeyes, so that means that China would either have to develop her own (and the Russians only have 25 year old designs and no suitable host aircraft).
There are just too many smaller details that haven't been met for China to even remotely consider before building a Carrier.
and I haven't even touched on issues such as battle management systems, training, work ups, sympathetic fleet exercises etc....
Gary, perhaps they are using the old soviet model, where someone in government has a pet idea, and commands it to be built and operational within 1 year, lol. Worked with the Tsar Bomba.
"This weapon was developed in a remarkably short time. On
10 July 1961 Nikita Khrushchev met with Andrei Sakharov,
then the senior weapon designer, and directed him to develop
a 100 megaton bomb. This device had to be ready for a test
series due to begin in September so that the series would
create maximum political impact"
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
Just a titbit about the Liberty ships fast building time, perhaps the chinese carrier will be built from a Liberty ship design lol.
"SS Robert E. Peary was theLiberty ship which was built in the shortest time. Named after anAmerican arctic explorer, she was launched just 4 days and 15 hours and 29 minutes after the keel was laid as a publicty stunt at a time when most ships of this type took around two months."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Robert_E._Peary
Realistically, it is more likely China will start with a somewhat smaller design, a Harrier or helo carrier, before committing to such a behemoth. I thought I read somewhere a little while ago they wanted a light carrier built in Europe if the ban on sales of such items to China is lifted.
"Regarding combat ships, in early 2004 there were suggestions that China would buy European-made helicopter carrier.[19] This follows on reports in 1996 that France considered selling China its retired aircraft carrier Clemenceau. Spanish shipyards have also in the past briefed the Chinese on their plans for large conventional aircraft carriers."
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.61/pub_detail.asp
The problems they are having getting their existing cutting edge (for them) naval designs operational should surely show that any local designed carrier will likely have major design faults initually, lenghtening construction and testing before being put into service.
"This weapon was developed in a remarkably short time. On
10 July 1961 Nikita Khrushchev met with Andrei Sakharov,
then the senior weapon designer, and directed him to develop
a 100 megaton bomb. This device had to be ready for a test
series due to begin in September so that the series would
create maximum political impact"
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
Just a titbit about the Liberty ships fast building time, perhaps the chinese carrier will be built from a Liberty ship design lol.
"SS Robert E. Peary was theLiberty ship which was built in the shortest time. Named after anAmerican arctic explorer, she was launched just 4 days and 15 hours and 29 minutes after the keel was laid as a publicty stunt at a time when most ships of this type took around two months."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Robert_E._Peary
Realistically, it is more likely China will start with a somewhat smaller design, a Harrier or helo carrier, before committing to such a behemoth. I thought I read somewhere a little while ago they wanted a light carrier built in Europe if the ban on sales of such items to China is lifted.
"Regarding combat ships, in early 2004 there were suggestions that China would buy European-made helicopter carrier.[19] This follows on reports in 1996 that France considered selling China its retired aircraft carrier Clemenceau. Spanish shipyards have also in the past briefed the Chinese on their plans for large conventional aircraft carriers."
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.61/pub_detail.asp
The problems they are having getting their existing cutting edge (for them) naval designs operational should surely show that any local designed carrier will likely have major design faults initually, lenghtening construction and testing before being put into service.
Last edited:
EnigmaNZ said:
I'd be betting that their first venture will be an LHA. If they're going to build to a requirements level as opposed to a symbolic status level - then an LHA is more befitting the likely conflict areas of Taiwan/Spratlys/Paracels.
For china to build a carrier is almost laughable in the sense that all of the "pro-china" experts on their own forums would then have to do an about face and try and establish how they intended to protect it. The very thing that they believe makes US Carriers vulnerable is an order of magnitude far far greater for themselves. On that basis, I can't see them concurrently building all the assets needed to protect the principle ship. - let alone getting a major capital vessel out on record time.
I'd say no to that. There has only ever been one carrier on carrier confrontation. the relevance of that kind of engagement died pretty soon after more efficient subs were developed, and then when precision weapons (long range stand-off) were improved.ArjunMK1 said:
If China takes the Carrier route - I seriously doubt that its as a riposte to India. It's more likely to be used in areas such as force projection in and around Taiwan or the Spratlys.
Unless you have substantial fleet support assets and large numbers of them (incl air warfare and anti-sub management systems) then a Carrier is a bad idea for most countries.
I would be guessing that if China is interested in neutralising Indian capital ships she will be focussed on building up her submarine fleet or extending the capability of long range stand-off strike.
Carrier vs Carrier died in WW2
in the event of china-taiwan conflict, I believe that china might use it's nuclear weapons on USCVBG as soon as they got confirmation that US is going to position its battlegroup to assist taiwan. It is believe that China, with the assistance of Russia, might be capable of targeting a moving ship in the middle of the pacific.
A small reality check:Pendekar said:
Apart from the approp expression "unleash hell", there is the following to remember.
- count the nukes in both countries armouries
- a pre-emptive strike would unleash a total response - refer to point 1
- China has only just managed to launch an SLBM - are you suggesting that she's made the generational leap from launching to placing?
- CSF's are not tightly bunched - they also don't act singly now. The Russians when they armed their Whiskys in the 60's thought they'd be lucky to get the Carrier even with a n-tipped torpedo - a far more accurate and easier way to deliver
- China is basically under constant surveillance from racetrack satellites - as soon as that rocket lights up - a counterstrike is going to be on its way
- China is also under constant surveillance from BMEWS systems such as in the UK and Australia - to blind the BMEWS she would have to launch against the UK and Aust as well - a guarantee to invite a counter strike from the US - as well as the UK once they realise who's launching against them
- think about it, a country that hasn't yet demonstrated any capacity to engage in precision warfare is going to attack a country that just demonstrated that it can intercept an asteroid in space?
If still in doubt, refer to point 7
Unless there is a change in US policy, an attack on a CV/N is considered to be an attack on CONUS. Refer back to point 1.
I don't think Chinas govt is that cavalier - no matter how much enthusiasts might talk it up.
GF,
I hope you still remember what I said several months ago about Varyag and china's aircraft carrier. One thing I said was, after the first group of rumors or news, most of the follow-on ones will be jokes and imaginations.(Evenif they appear on real news medias).
BTW, the news of this thread is from Taiwan government, which is not recongized by you guys as China. And it's quoting a website nobody in china ever heard of. I have not seen a single chinese forumer to believe it yet and it only lasted less than 24 hours on major chinese military forums.
August, guys, hopefully we can see some new pictures.
I hope you still remember what I said several months ago about Varyag and china's aircraft carrier. One thing I said was, after the first group of rumors or news, most of the follow-on ones will be jokes and imaginations.(Evenif they appear on real news medias).
BTW, the news of this thread is from Taiwan government, which is not recongized by you guys as China. And it's quoting a website nobody in china ever heard of. I have not seen a single chinese forumer to believe it yet and it only lasted less than 24 hours on major chinese military forums.
August, guys, hopefully we can see some new pictures.
I think someone in Taiwan has a vivid imagination.wp2000 said:
doggychow14
New Member
Would it be possible that the new PLAN vessels in contruction or in sea trials were designed in a future support group? The concurrent development of the 093, the 052C, and the 051C seem to address both ASW and air defence roles. Your probably right about the article. I doubt China would start building carrier so soon. They're not ready yet. And since the news site that's reporting it is from Taiwan, i'm guessing their trying to overstate China's threat to Taiwan which realistaly an aircraft carrier would not be of much use .
Yes, definitely. Although the numbers built would only support 1 x Carrier. I just have a doubt as to the validity of the story as China appears to be building a 2 Ocean committment. If thats the case then she need to have 2-3 times the number of "specialised vessels" that she currently has.doggychow14 said:
In addition, there are some things that should be in place now that aren't if she is going to have a Carrier centric capability. I don't see any of those critical links in place - and if they're not, then you're looking at a 5-7 year extra window before any Carrier dominated fleet can be deemed an effective force.
I was thinking the same, a carrier without a descent escort is going to have a short life span, if it's threatening enough, it's bound to have someone's sub dogging it'd tail when not in port. If blue water is realistly out, and with Taiwan being just 100 miles from China, that seems pointless as well, the new Taiwan supersonic cruise missile will see to that. That leaves the Sprathlys and other similar areas with force projection against minor navies in dispute over resource rich islands. Against such forces China will have air supremacy, denying those countries access to the riches, with their land based aircraft been unable to range out far enough to effectively counter the carrier. Should be good for sales of submarines in the area as a way to counter the carrier.gf0012-aust said: