China to build aircraft carrier
- Thread starter pshamim
- Start date
wp2000 said:
Actually, this is a major issue, and one I have ignored. It would take very extensive modifications throughout the ship, to install steam catapults in Varyag's flight deck. It may not even be possible, as the trouble and expense to refit may not even be worth it.
If I'm not mistaken, the Flankers can be operated without steam cats, because of the ski ramp, and the Flanker's high thrust to weight ratio. I don't know how heavily loaded Russian Flankers were, but a heavy weapon load may be a problem for PLAN Su-33's.
I'm fairly certain that heavily loaded J-10's would have a difficult time getting airborne without catapult assistance.
And even if launching without cats is a possibilty, recovering aircraft may be a significant problem as well.
In the past, carrier aircraft had to reduce weight prior to trapping by expending ordinance- either on a target, or by dumping it into the sea.
Obviously, this is an expensive practice- particularly if the ordinance is of the precision-guided variety. So, if the PRC is serious about getting into the carrier business, they'd better be prepared for the enormous expense of operating even a "training" carrier.
Training is obviously an important part of the game, and it cannot be substituted, or ignored. Naval aviators must be able to launch, navigate to the target, drop their ordinance on target, and recover their aircraft back on ship.
Naturally, that kind of training entails carrying live ordinance from time to time, and of course, that ordinance will sometimes be lost at sea.
The cost to the PRC will be great nonetheless.
a few pertinent points:
if CATOBAR then the following has to be addressed:
new engines for the ship as she was not designed for CATOBAR
- thus dramatic changes to bunkerage arise
- single engined aircraft become more viable - but still doesn't change the inherent limitations - but it will give an indication of the vessels likely operational purpose and factors like tempo capability.
- it means a redesign of the Su-2/3nn for snout pulling - a major exercise
STOBAR means some savage looking at aircraft types - eg none of the Russian STOBARs were able to be deployed fully fueled or weaps loaded. CATOBAR would change that.
STOBAR means that single jet engined aircraft for the intercept or strike role are less likely. It also means that smaller aircraft are severely challenged on range and load out issues if they are launching under their own engine thrust. Bear in mind that the PLAAF are still wandering around with no firm decision on replacement aircraft engines, be they russian or rebadges or indigenous
Aircraft choice will give huge indications of the vessels role as well as what changes are needed to be made to make it ready. It will also cement the window of availability of the vessel
At the moment STOBAR launches restrict this class to single shot launches and no concurrent traps. whereas a US carrier can undertake concurrent (2-3) simultaneous launches as well as traps if the angled CAT is not being used. (not entirely true - but I'm being generous
) That drags up the very real issue of persistence and saturation. A CATOBAR US equiv can get 3 times as many aircraft in the air and heading to target than a Varyag solution.
A STOBAR means that launches result in the aircraft to hold pattern so that they can form up and create a "flight" before heading to the target. If they don't then it means that aircraft are being sent in isolation and are thus left less effective in delivering not only persistence, but weapons saturation. They are already compromised by having shorter range due to self launch, a reduced weapons load and now thats even further compromised by having to run laps before forming up. meanwhile (depending on location of conflict etc...) a US style task force would see those aircraft forming up en route - not flying out immediately would have an absolute response advantage impact accordingly.
CATOBAR also means dramatic changes to crewing and skillsets. an ATC for a CATOBAR is a far more competent and skilled operator than that required for a STOBAR. It also effects handling techniques, crew resources, overall vessel complement, maintenance issues, and an increase in base level crewing. Tempo and skilled crew issues escalate dramatically for CATOBAR.
A STOBAR solution thus compared to a CATOBAR means that a vessel that is 60-70% of the displacement size of a typical US CVN will only have some 20-30% of absolute force generation in a given window of delivery - and with none of the force multipliers that a typical USN CSF/CTF can also bring to bear organically
Thats an appalling example of efficiencies.
The impact on bunkerage alone is a full thread discussion item.
if CATOBAR then the following has to be addressed:
new engines for the ship as she was not designed for CATOBAR
- thus dramatic changes to bunkerage arise
- single engined aircraft become more viable - but still doesn't change the inherent limitations - but it will give an indication of the vessels likely operational purpose and factors like tempo capability.
- it means a redesign of the Su-2/3nn for snout pulling - a major exercise
STOBAR means some savage looking at aircraft types - eg none of the Russian STOBARs were able to be deployed fully fueled or weaps loaded. CATOBAR would change that.
STOBAR means that single jet engined aircraft for the intercept or strike role are less likely. It also means that smaller aircraft are severely challenged on range and load out issues if they are launching under their own engine thrust. Bear in mind that the PLAAF are still wandering around with no firm decision on replacement aircraft engines, be they russian or rebadges or indigenous
Aircraft choice will give huge indications of the vessels role as well as what changes are needed to be made to make it ready. It will also cement the window of availability of the vessel
At the moment STOBAR launches restrict this class to single shot launches and no concurrent traps. whereas a US carrier can undertake concurrent (2-3) simultaneous launches as well as traps if the angled CAT is not being used. (not entirely true - but I'm being generous
) That drags up the very real issue of persistence and saturation. A CATOBAR US equiv can get 3 times as many aircraft in the air and heading to target than a Varyag solution.A STOBAR means that launches result in the aircraft to hold pattern so that they can form up and create a "flight" before heading to the target. If they don't then it means that aircraft are being sent in isolation and are thus left less effective in delivering not only persistence, but weapons saturation. They are already compromised by having shorter range due to self launch, a reduced weapons load and now thats even further compromised by having to run laps before forming up. meanwhile (depending on location of conflict etc...) a US style task force would see those aircraft forming up en route - not flying out immediately would have an absolute response advantage impact accordingly.
CATOBAR also means dramatic changes to crewing and skillsets. an ATC for a CATOBAR is a far more competent and skilled operator than that required for a STOBAR. It also effects handling techniques, crew resources, overall vessel complement, maintenance issues, and an increase in base level crewing. Tempo and skilled crew issues escalate dramatically for CATOBAR.
A STOBAR solution thus compared to a CATOBAR means that a vessel that is 60-70% of the displacement size of a typical US CVN will only have some 20-30% of absolute force generation in a given window of delivery - and with none of the force multipliers that a typical USN CSF/CTF can also bring to bear organically
Thats an appalling example of efficiencies.
The impact on bunkerage alone is a full thread discussion item.
Last edited:
Add to this an inability to protect her from a concerted attack from a competent OPFOR, and the infrastructure, training, and technologies that would make Varyag a true force mulitplier- it is fairly clear just how bleak this situation is.
She might as well be painted with a giant bullseye on the flight deck, and put to sea with scuttle charges already in place. If she is ever truly pressed into service as the flagship of a PLAN battlefleet, they should have already written a colorful story about her heroic death at the hands of imperialist treachery.
She might as well be painted with a giant bullseye on the flight deck, and put to sea with scuttle charges already in place. If she is ever truly pressed into service as the flagship of a PLAN battlefleet, they should have already written a colorful story about her heroic death at the hands of imperialist treachery.
In very real terms, the Varyag does not come remotely close to the capability of Kitty Hawk let alone a CVN which brings other advantages to bear.Wild Weasel said:
Varyag and STOBARs in general are good examples of why hybrids have severe limitations and compromised combat effectiveness.
I think if Varyag does end up in PLAN's hand, it will be a half arsed vessel:smashgf0012-aust said:
As you all pointed out, I just can't imagine why to put it back into full service. Really not worth it.
But if you just restore it as a semi-operative training ship, where do you stop. All systems required by an AC, if not installed, how to do training? I hope they really worked out what they want to achieve, unless china has made up her mind to pay a gigantic tuition fee for the first lesson.
I guess we really have to wait untill 2008 to see the real picture. I would definitely bet that Varyag would be used as training ship, but how this training ship gonna function is not clear to me. There are too many conflicting news and valid arguments around.
Chinese always tend to hide their minds and plans. Maybe that's why the Pentagon wants more transparency from the PLA, LOL!
It is still not clear what China will do with the Varyag. I think China is developing an own aircraft carrier secretly. The question is: will it be based on the Varyag (copy) or will they try to built the US style carriers with catapults instead of a skiramp?
We don't know what the Chinese intelligence have gathered from other countries technologies, so the PLAN's plans to deploy their own carriers is still a myth for us.
It is still not clear what China will do with the Varyag. I think China is developing an own aircraft carrier secretly. The question is: will it be based on the Varyag (copy) or will they try to built the US style carriers with catapults instead of a skiramp?
We don't know what the Chinese intelligence have gathered from other countries technologies, so the PLAN's plans to deploy their own carriers is still a myth for us.
The only catapult technology that China had access to is via the old HMAS Melbourne. All other current CATOBAR technology is American. Even the CAT technology on the Charles de Gaulle is licensed US technology.PLA2025 said:
There is only one place for contemporary carrier catapult technology. But we do know that a land based facsimile of HMAS Melbourne was established and that elite pilots were being trained on it as part of qualification. This is no different to the dry deck that Russia leased from the Ukraine and which was only recently bypassed in favour of a local dry deck.PLA2025 said:
The clue that China is building her own carrier won't necessarily be coming from photos of large vessels being built - there are other ways to establish that they're doing it without watching one being built. That is assuming that China isn't going to do the whole exercise back to front.
Last edited:
My impression is that Catapult design is not a high tech thing now, but it's the manufacture process that is very difficult. Although I still find it very hard to believe that china can produce catapult system now, I must admit that I have seen china's local news reports about more than one companies claim they have provided/produced components for catapult system. I can't say they are 100% propaganda.gf0012-aust said:The only catapult technology that China had access to is via the old HMAS Melbourne. All other current CATOBAR technology is American. Even the CAT technology on the Charles de Gaulle is licensed US technology.
There is only one place for contemporary carrier catapult technology. But we do know that a land based facsimile of HMAS Melbourne was established and that elite pilots were being trained on it as part of qualification. This is no different to the dry deck that Russia leased from the Ukraine and which was only recently bypassed in favour of a local dry deck.
The clue that China is building her own carrier won't necessarily be coming from photos of large vessels being built - there are other ways to establish that they're doing it without watching one being built. That is assuming that China isn't going to do the whole exercise back to front.
As of china secretly building an aircraft carrier, I think only the very initial stage can be hidden. And I am pretty sure China knows that other countries will find out even before it's laid in a dry dock.
GF, have you got any info on this?
China has 3-4 yards that are nearly 1000km inland and are able to produce modular sections. At some point though, each and all of those sections need to be transported and the hull formation cannot be hidden - even if they are building in closed and covered spaces. It's easy to build a sub under cover and remain undetected - not so easy with 40,000tonne plus surface ships.wp2000 said:
well gf i cant understand the logic of constructing modules 1000 kms inland and then transporting them to the construction site.transportation must cost a hell also it cannot be kept a secret ,can be open to sabotage.gf0012-aust said:China has 3-4 yards that are nearly 1000km inland and are able to produce modular sections. At some point though, each and all of those sections need to be transported and the hull formation cannot be hidden - even if they are building in closed and covered spaces. It's easy to build a sub under cover and remain undetected - not so easy with 40,000tonne plus surface ships.
then why do they follow this method.they can easily subcontract it to some private company in the vicinity of the construction site.
All of the top shipbuilding countries, Sth Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China are using inland modular yards as it saves on some construction costs. The transportation costs are negligible in comparison. It significantly reduces the overall build time.aaaditya said:
The US also used remote inland construction for some of the Seawolf/Virginia modules.
In Chinas case all of their yards are already at full production - hence why inland yards also become atrtractive as you don't need full dock facilities to build a majority of components.aaaditya said:
The yard capacity in commercial yards is currently critical and even yards in Europe are booked solid. There is a 5 year wait on VLCCs and Bulkers at present. You may find a slot for smaller feeder ships but these are also rare and costly.gf0012-aust said:
Another issue is the capability of the yards. Many (not all) yards in China do not have the skill or technology to build high tech vessels and are just capable of building fairly basic merchant hulls. Some yards certaily have these skills (they are also booked out) but this make detection a lot easier. In other issue is quality in many of the bog standard yards (again not all) and it may not be desirable to construct modules in such a yard.
Id strongly recommend that PLAN give up the carrier and take a leaf from the USN's book. The USN is converting its OHIO class SSBNs into SSGNs by replacing their ballistic missiles with tomohawks about 166 per sub. If the PLAN could pull of a similar stunt with its Type-94s and get itself an SLCM by 2010, it would pay off a lot more than a carrier which it cant defend anyway against a USN onslught. ( Not that a sub can but everyone knows the difference).
Just some information here.aaaditya said:
If you check carefully, all of china's shipyards certified for building military vessels are either along the coast or Yangtz river. Speaking about the yangtz river, in a few years time, 5000 ton ships can sail from ShangHai directly to ChongQing, which is more than 2000KM inland (not very far from Tibet). And ChongQing has military shipyards that were certified for building frigets.
As GF said, it is a more economical way to subcontract the modules to inland certified shipyards and the transportation is not very expensive. The 054's first ship 525 was built that way in ShangHai.
The other thing is, although china has many shipyards, there are only a dozen of them are certified by PLAN. If you are not certified, you are not even invited into the "circle" to bite the big pie. So, although there are plenty of civilian shipyards, some of them are not small, but I havn't heard any of them got a chance in PLAN's order yet. I only heard some certified yards got eliminated.
Anyway, I bet we,orinary military fans, have to rely on sat photoes in the future to know the answer.
My understanding is that, China never expect that there are one or several magic weapons that can defeat US. US military machine is a gigantic system. In pure military considerations, evenif US's 12 ACs got stolen by an alien, do you think PLAN can strategically defeat USN? That's why I always hear they are saying, System vs System is the only way, at least for a peace time modernisation. So what they are doing now is to have a balanced development, maybe costly though. Take Varyag as an example, many forumers concentrated on the this vessel's possible capability and worried or questioned about it's usefulness. It's very true evenif it's fully restored it does not pose too much threat to others. But if you put it into a bigger picture, if PLAN keeps on adding these things here and there (which is exactly what they are doing, from FAC to MPA, from ocean tug boat to large medivac ship), the amount of resources to counter these different types of combat/supporting nodes in a system grows rapidly and later you may suddenly find that even this old Varyag can be a headache. But of course, one important thing they've been openly stated is that the goal must limited.corsair7772 said:
The thing is, the PRC is playing catch up, while the US is focusing on maintaining their lead. China is not the only one capable of reacting to US defense R&D/production/strategy. The US will also react to the PRC's build-up, focusing attention on defeating China's most dangerous assets.
That same strategy helped to bankrupt Russia, and cause their military's current state of decline/disrepair. The PRC's economic boom isn't likely to continue unabated forever, unless they can somehow manage to discover some Earth-shattering advances in macro-economics. Every other economy in history has suffered a crises after unprecedented growth. The safe bet is, in time, it will happen to China as well.
The US merely has to keep plodding along.
That same strategy helped to bankrupt Russia, and cause their military's current state of decline/disrepair. The PRC's economic boom isn't likely to continue unabated forever, unless they can somehow manage to discover some Earth-shattering advances in macro-economics. Every other economy in history has suffered a crises after unprecedented growth. The safe bet is, in time, it will happen to China as well.
The US merely has to keep plodding along.
the US spends too much on military IMO. China is spending between 30-60 billion USD a year while the US has reached a historic 450 billionUSD depsite economic decline! It is far more the US who must concern about their own military fundings not China. China only needs moderinzation to defend its own skies, soils and seas while the US needs its buildup and modernization to keep global balance for their intentions. They have stationed troops in Europe, Asia and North Africa, and they don't have 2 million soldiers to defend everywhere when they need them for another invasion campagne.
The economy in China will likely drop within the next 20 years from 9% to 5% which is still much higher than any other industrial nation. The economy will not recover in Europe and North America because the loans are just too high for most companies to manufacture. The future not only more lies in China but in whole East Asia. This is the circle of human history: for one period the West rule, then the East and it will always repeating until mankind is wiped out someday.
The economy in China will likely drop within the next 20 years from 9% to 5% which is still much higher than any other industrial nation. The economy will not recover in Europe and North America because the loans are just too high for most companies to manufacture. The future not only more lies in China but in whole East Asia. This is the circle of human history: for one period the West rule, then the East and it will always repeating until mankind is wiped out someday.
PLA2025 said:
Well, clearly, that is beyond the scope of my vision. I'm much more aware of the present time, and past history, than I am of what the future will hold.
Cootamundra
New Member
Sorry, I think you might be quoting Chinese official numbers, I've seen reports that indicate Chinese military spending going as high as $90 billion with much of it being hidden.PLA2025 said:
With regards to US economic decline, you are much mistaken, certainly it could be argued that their budget deficit is a problem but what most people fail to realise is that the US budget deficit is something that could be turned around rapidly if the government were willing. The US economy has one of the lowest levels of personal and company taxation in the world, historically low unemployment, significant industrial and services capacity and US firms are responsible for some of the most significant amounts of Foreign Direct Investment. The US along with European and Japanese firms control well over 50% of the top companies in the world, not to mention firms and industries throughout Asia.
Again, these figures are suspect, the reason for the rapid growth is that China is pushing ahead into th first phase or real industrail devleopment, at the moment your country is in a classic position of having very low labour costs, moderate energy and raw material input costs and a large consumer market both at home and abroad.PLA2025 said:
What happens if oil prices continue to rise? What happens if the US decides that China is not playing fair with regards to trade? What happens when the growing middle class and lower classes in China decide that they want an increasing piece of the economic pie. Simply put, China's continued growth is directly linked to the overall economic situation around the world and in particular to the health of the US economy. Finally with reagrds to GDP rates, the US is able to add significant value to its overall economy by just seeing a small rise in 0.something of a percentage point, why? Because of the advanced stage of the US economy, industrial production is only part of the picture for the US, they have services and finance businesses that make industry pale into comparison.
What loans are you referring to? Don't forget that the reason Aisan economies have taken up such a huge share of US dollar reserves is because they were so spooked by the Financial crisis of 1997 that they are determined to not let it happen again. These reserves are in fact what helps the US administration ignore the budget deficit as in fact Asia and Europe are the ones supporting it. Would it make sense for the Chinese to stop this? NO. Furthermore if absolutely necessary the US could return their budget to balance with some serious belt tightening and further tax reforms.PLA2025 said: