Russia helps China build new aircraft carrier

[aaaditya]

Why field a carrier when you lack assets to defend it? China has done the right thing in developing, deploying and improving surface and submarine assets before committing to a carrier which can be a liability if not protected properly..

what makes you think that india does not have the assets to defend its carriers?

india's biggest advantage is that unlike the chinese indians have operational experience with aircraft carriers having used them in the 1971 war with pakistan,also the joint interactions with us and european navies have helped the indian navy refine its techniques of carrier operations .

also force projection capability even without an aircraft carrier have been suitably demonstrated by india during the operation cactus,the current action against the somali pirates,the asian tsunami etc.

india has several decades of experience of carrier operations as compared to china,and that is its biggest advantage,while china has had to strat from scratch and will take it atleast a decade after its new carrier is built to become operationally proefficient with it,all india needs to do is replace its aged carriers and update its opeartional tactics.

india currently has a massive naval force expansion programme which envisages a force of atleast 3 carriers,the first of which is already under construction,the second has been sanctioned and the third or the gorshkov is unergoing a major rebuild.

 

[Type59]

what makes you think that india does not have the assets to defend its carriers?

india's biggest advantage is that unlike the chinese indians have operational experience with aircraft carriers having used them in the 1971 war with pakistan,also the joint interactions with us and european navies have helped the indian navy refine its techniques of carrier operations .

also force projection capability even without an aircraft carrier have been suitably demonstrated by india during the operation cactus,the current action against the somali pirates,the asian tsunami etc.

india has several decades of experience of carrier operations as compared to china,and that is its biggest advantage,while china has had to strat from scratch and will take it atleast a decade after its new carrier is built to become operationally proefficient with it,all india needs to do is replace its aged carriers and update its opeartional tactics.

india currently has a massive naval force expansion programme which envisages a force of atleast 3 carriers,the first of which is already under construction,the second has been sanctioned and the third or the gorshkov is unergoing a major rebuild.

I was talking inregards to China because a carrier can become a liability if not properly defended against air and sea threats like submarines. I am not gonna speculate on the defensive screen around India's only carrier because I know you will retort back and say "Indian carrier defence's are very capable". I am aware of Indian naval plans but failed to see any new advancements in ship capabilities, that surpass current design. Maybe it is ok when confronting Pakistan but nations with a modern defence industry forget it.

 

[Feanor]

China has undoubtedly done the right thing by developing a capable brown water navy, before trying to become a blue water navy. You have to learn how to walk before you can compete in the Olympics. However as to the usefullness of India carriers, I think you need to first off tell us who you are comparing them to? The USA? Ok. Your point is valid. To Russia? I wouldn't say that the Kuznetsov is all that superior to the Gorshkov. And the MiG-29K is certainly notably ahead of the Su-33. India is also preparing 3 carriers, out of which 2 are nearing completion. Russia so far has yet to lay down one.

Not to mention that India's likely opponents don't includ major maritime powers like the US, or Britain.

 

[funtz]

Russia, India and China will be building aircraft carriers for their navies almost simultaneously over the next five years or so, using many of the same design concepts, technologies and equipment. This is unprecedented in the history of shipbuilding.

The three countries currently are enjoying healthy political relations, smoothing the way for Russia's continued military cooperation with both China and India with regard to aircraft carrier technologies.

The news that China is about to start building its aircraft carrier is no secret in either Russia or Ukraine. Multiple authoritative sources from the Russian shipbuilding industry have confirmed in recent interviews with the author that China has candidly informed Russia of its intentions. After all, the technology and subsystems for China's aircraft carrier are largely from Russia.

As reported previously, systems such as arresting equipment for aircraft landings have been imported from Russia. A Russian shipbuilding industry source also has confirmed that China's first aircraft carrier will use the Russian ski-jump deck.

"This is a Russian invention, but it has been accepted by both India and China," said the source.

India launched its aircraft carrier construction project about one year ago. It also incorporates the Russian ski-jump deck design for aircraft takeoffs and uses steel plates imported from Russia. It will also use Russian MiG-29K shipborne fighters.

At the same time, Russia has an ambitious plan to build new aircraft carriers for its own navy. The commander in chief of the Russian navy, Adm. Vladimir Masorin, declared in 2007 that the navy would need at least three aircraft carriers before 2020 and that Russia would build nuclear-powered carriers.

The design of the new aircraft carriers is currently under way at the Russian Nevskoye Design Bureau. The designs for this project are expected to be completed by 2010 and the first carrier should be finished around 2016-2017 -- a date that coincides with China's plan to build its first aircraft carrier.

The chief designer at this facility told UPI in an interview that China had not asked for assistance in designing its aircraft carrier, however.
Russia's aircraft carrier construction program is not yet officially listed in the 2005-2015 national defense equipment development agenda. Moreover, the issue of using a nuclear-powered propulsion system is controversial within the Russian navy. It seems no final decision has been made as to what propulsion system will be fitted on the new carriers.

Despite similar timeframes and shared technologies, there are several major differences between the aircraft carrier construction plans of Russia and China.

First, the Russian navy has had 35 years of experience with aircraft carriers, including the technologies and experience of building the Ulyanovsk-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier -- even though this project was never completed, having been abandoned at the end of the Cold War. The Chinese navy has no such experience.

Second, Russia has a full toolbox of production technologies, while the People's Liberation Army navy has to search around to acquire these technologies. Third, and most important, the Russian navy fleets have practical experience with aircraft carriers, while the PLA navy has had to start from zero -- including the building of large surface warships and strategic nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.

http://www.upi.com/Security_Industr...uild_new_aircraft_carrier/UPI-79441229476975/

The Indian Aircraft Carrier project seems to be different than the Russian (?) and Chinese ones, its based on different experience of operating light carriers in the past and using them in hostile situations, and a decision that has come about after decades of discussion/thought.

By 1987, the Indian Navy had persuaded the Government to approve the commissioning of a concept study by Direction des Construction Navale (DCN), France, of a sea control ship of about 25,000 tons, capable of operating aircraft in the 15-ton category. The DCN report, received in 1989, covered two options:
one of a conventional (catapult equipped) ship and the other of a ski-jump carrier,
to be constructed at the Ministry of Shipping-owned Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

The report unfortunately came in at a time of financial stringency and had to be shelved reluctantly by the Indian Navy.

The Indigenous Aircraft Carrier
The project received financial approval of the Government of India in January 2003, and first steel was ceremonially cut in Cochin Shipyard Ltd on 11 April 2005, when the ADS was re-designated as the ‘IAC’ or indigenous aircraft carrier.
Consultancy for propulsion system integration will come from M/S
Fincantieri of Italy (now in the final stages of completing the Italian carrier
Count Cavour) and, for the aviation complex, from M/S Nevskoie Design
Bureau of Russia.

As a practising adherent of ship-borne aviation for the past 45 years, the
Indian Navy aims to fulfil its long-term operational commitments in the IOR by deploying two carrier task forces at sea, while a third ship is under maintenance or refit. This would be the embodiment of a concept mooted in our plans as far back as 1948.

Source: http://www.indiandefencereview.com/?p=260

The design/construction involve firms from India, Italy (cavour) and Russia (aviation element).

I was talking inregards to China because a carrier can become a liability if not properly defended against air and sea threats like submarines.
I am aware of Indian naval plans but failed to see any new advancements in ship capabilities, that surpass current design. Maybe it is ok when confronting Pakistan but nations with a modern defence industry forget it.

A carrier is a liability just like any other ship, and faces the same threats that these ships face, however what is important is what capability this ship brings in to a navy, back in the 80s (Falklands war) RNs harrier carriers (even though smaller than USN giants) gave the RN a capability that was worth the investment.
Another example would be INs role on the eastern front in 71, a light carrier was able to preform a significant role in that conflict that justified the investment.
In the IOR the planned aircraft carriers brings a very important element into the navy, along with other planned projects (ships/submarines).

What is the Chinese approach towards naval aviation?
What role would the PLA-N see for the carrier force?

 

[kay_man]

The Indian Aircraft Carrier project seems to be different than the Russian (?) and Chinese ones, its based on different experience of operating light carriers in the past and using them in hostile situations, and a decision that has come about after decades of discussion/thought.


Source: http://www.indiandefencereview.com/?p=260

The design/construction involve firms from India, Italy (cavour) and Russia (aviation element).


A carrier is a liability just like any other ship, and faces the same threats that these ships face, however what is important is what capability this ship brings in to a navy, back in the 80s (Falklands war) RNs harrier carriers (even though smaller than USN giants) gave the RN a capability that was worth the investment.
Another example would be INs role on the eastern front in 71, a light carrier was able to preform a significant role in that conflict that justified the investment.
In the IOR the planned aircraft carriers brings a very important element into the navy, along with other planned projects (ships/submarines).

What is the Chinese approach towards naval aviation?
What role would the PLA-N see for the carrier force?

Id say it the role will be similar to that of Indian navy carriers.
to provide air defence for capital ships and for light costal bombardment.
if in case the chinese use the carriers it will probaby be in the same manner in which the INS virat exploited east pakistan in 1971...........that is to attack from an unexpected direction.

 

[Blitzo]

Well, you see it's more of a matter of national prestige than anything else. China is on it's way to become a superpower (this may be disputed), and feels that any great power or regional power must have an aircraft carrier. As well as the fact that China is the only country in the UN security council which doesn't have one, which is almost embarrasing.
As for roles of a potential aircraft carrier; they will most probably be similar to the US Navy roles, though probably more limited, depending on what type of carrier china acquires.

 

[Blitzo]

China has undoubtedly done the right thing by developing a capable brown water navy, before trying to become a blue water navy. You have to learn how to walk before you can compete in the Olympics. However as to the usefullness of India carriers, I think you need to first off tell us who you are comparing them to? The USA? Ok. Your point is valid. To Russia? I wouldn't say that the Kuznetsov is all that superior to the Gorshkov. And the MiG-29K is certainly notably ahead of the Su-33. India is also preparing 3 carriers, out of which 2 are nearing completion. Russia so far has yet to lay down one.

Not to mention that India's likely opponents don't includ major maritime powers like the US, or Britain.

The Mig-29K can't simply be said to be better than the Su-33, their land based counterparts are very similar, both being designed for air superiority. But out of the two, I'd probably place my money on the Su-33.

 

[Blitzo]

Most people assume that China would want an aircraft carrier to counter other aircraft carriers, which is probably unlikely. China would more likely use anti ship cruise missiles or anti ship ballistic missiles. And as for India planning 3 aircraft carriers.... well good for them, all are probably similar to the redone admiral gorshkov, which is a light carrier.
I've read a few good analysis's on china's carrier ambitions, and most say that china will first build a carrier similar to the varyag, in terms of propulsion and ski jump, though the aircraft load may be larger because china is not expected to put multiple SAM's or anti ship missiles on their carrier, following the US navy carrier designs. The next stage would be to build a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, with steam catapults. of course this would be far far away, but is currently under development, as the 081 project (i think it was at least, i could be wrong).
People may say china simply doesn't have the experience, technolgoy etc to build an aircraft carrier, which is half true. China has acquired quite a few retired aircraft carriers to study before, and has done intensive study in other areas of aircraft carriers such as steam catapults.
Just a few weeks ago, a PLA general said that if china acquired an aircraft carrier, it wouldn't use it for power projection, probably untrue, but it proves that the chinese military is prepping itself for a carrier.
It is inevitable that currently, at least china seems to be on the verge of building it's first carrier. probably starting in the early to medium stages of the next decade.

 

[funtz]

Well, you see it's more of a matter of national prestige than anything else. China is on it's way to become a superpower (this may be disputed), and feels that any great power or regional power must have an aircraft carrier. As well as the fact that China is the only country in the UN security council which doesn't have one, which is almost embarrasing.

As for roles of a potential aircraft carrier; they will most probably be similar to the US Navy roles, though probably more limited, depending on what type of carrier china acquires.

The Mig-29K can't simply be said to be better than the Su-33, their land based counterparts are very similar, both being designed for air superiority. But out of the two, I'd probably place my money on the Su-33.

In case of a national prestige issue, more serious steps towards making the "floating casino" would have been expected, would have yielded something big to show around.

A Su-33 upgraded to similar levels as the Mig-29K will indeed preform better than the Mig-29K, more load, more fuel, bigger radar.

 

[Blitzo]

In case of a national prestige issue, more serious steps towards making the "floating casino" would have been expected, would have yielded something big to show around.

A Su-33 upgraded to similar levels as the Mig-29K will indeed preform better than the Mig-29K, more load, more fuel, bigger radar.

Well we all know China hasn't started building an aircraft carrier obviously, but officials have said they have "mastered the technologies of aircraft carriers", obviously it depends how much technology has been "mastered", but it shows that China is defeintly planning to build them.

As for the Su-33, and Mig-29K.. the Su-33's thrust/payload/range is all superior or comparable to the Mig-29K : 74.5 kN (from each engine, none afterburning)/6500kg/3000km compared to the Mig's 81.4 kN (each engine, none afterburning)/3500kg/300km range. Wikipedia is my source. so in conclusion, i think that the Su-33 is better than the Mig-29K

 

[yasin_khan]

Yes, thanks.



This is wrong. Do you understand the concept of force projection and what it implies? It implies being able to handle deployments far away from your own territory. Aircraft carriers are in large part a tool of force projection. Even light carriers like what India is getting still provide limited strike, and organic air defense capabilities. China has nothing of the sort.

In WW2 germans didnt have aircraft carriers but they showed great power projection.

 

[Feanor]

Well, you see it's more of a matter of national prestige than anything else. China is on it's way to become a superpower (this may be disputed), and feels that any great power or regional power must have an aircraft carrier. As well as the fact that China is the only country in the UN security council which doesn't have one, which is almost embarrasing.
As for roles of a potential aircraft carrier; they will most probably be similar to the US Navy roles, though probably more limited, depending on what type of carrier china acquires.

Rubbish. The reasons for the Chinese carrier program have to do with turning the PLAN into a blue-water navy. The political prestige considerations are secondary, possibly even tertiary. Geopolitical and military needs are far more urgent.

As for the Su-33, and Mig-29K.. the Su-33's thrust/payload/range is all superior or comparable to the Mig-29K : 74.5 kN (from each engine, none afterburning)/6500kg/3000km compared to the Mig's 81.4 kN (each engine, none afterburning)/3500kg/300km range. Wikipedia is my source. so in conclusion, i think that the Su-33 is better than the Mig-29K

There are far more important figures then thrust and payload. For example digital avionics, radar, sensor suites. The MiG-29K is a far more modern fighter in that sense. Morever their land based counterparts are very very different (at least initially). The Su-27S is an air superiority plane. The MiG-29S is a point-air defense plane.

In WW2 germans didnt have aircraft carriers but they showed great power projection.

They were ultimately unable to project power even as close as the British Isles. Their African campaign is rather impressive, but the scale of it was miniature compared to the Eastern Front, or even to the operations against France in 1940.

 

[nevidimka]

Engine thrusts are not a measure of how good an aircraft is. You should learn more about fighters.

Btw, this is an artist impression of the Indian indegenous Carrier project being built in Kochi. These images were taken from the Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

 

[yasin_khan]

Engine thrusts are not a measure of how good an aircraft is. You should learn more about fighters.

Btw, this is an artist impression of the Indian indegenous Carrier project being built in Kochi. These images were taken from the Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

These are artistic images.There are no real pictures.

 

[yasin_khan]

There are far more important figures then thrust and payload. For example digital avionics, radar, sensor suites. The MiG-29K is a far more modern fighter in that sense. Morever their land based counterparts are very very different (at least initially). The Su-27S is an air superiority plane. The MiG-29S is a point-air defense plane.

Mig-29S is the new one with designation Mig-35

 

[Blitzo]

Rubbish. The reasons for the Chinese carrier program have to do with turning the PLAN into a blue-water navy. The political prestige considerations are secondary, possibly even tertiary. Geopolitical and military needs are far more urgent.



There are far more important figures then thrust and payload. For example digital avionics, radar, sensor suites. The MiG-29K is a far more modern fighter in that sense. Morever their land based counterparts are very very different (at least initially). The Su-27S is an air superiority plane. The MiG-29S is a point-air defense plane.



They were ultimately unable to project power even as close as the British Isles. Their African campaign is rather impressive, but the scale of it was miniature compared to the Eastern Front, or even to the operations against France in 1940.

Well, you are right about the geopolitical reasons for having a carrier, but being Chinese, I can tell you that me and my fellow chinese feel that an aircraft carrier is one of the last things we need to acquire to challenge the US, perhaps not now, but in the future. So really, it is a matter of national pride, almost.
A possible aircraft carrier will probably be used for protection of shipping lanes, which is crucial to china.

And as for the Mig-29K vs. the Su-33; it is really hard to tell whether the electronics of one is more superior to the other. The most we can do is speculate unless one has actually built the electronics in both aircraft and can tell us. I gave information on thrust, payload, and range because they were the most up front no nonsense stats you can use to compare aircraft. And finally, what do you think would win in an engagement, a point defence aircraft, or an air superiority plane?

 

[Blitzo]

Yes I know thrust does not determine if one aircraft is better than another, but it, along with range and payload are concrete specs which can be compared to one another. It would be pretty hard to compare the electronics for an aircraft..

 

[nevidimka]

These are artistic images.There are no real pictures.

Yes they are not real, as I have described in my posts. But the ships will look like that coz these pictures are from the shipyard that is actually building the carriers.

 

[Feanor]

Mig-29S is the new one with designation Mig-35

No. The MiG-29S is the original MiG-29 serial run for the VVS. The MiG-35 is the MiG-29M2 iirc.

 

[yasin_khan]

Yes they are not real, as I have described in my posts. But the ships will look like that coz these pictures are from the shipyard that is actually building the carriers.

When they release original pictures then post them.