Next Chinese aircraft carrier - Type 002 'Shandong' and Type 003 'Fujian'

Josh_TN said:
In_A_Dream said:
I guess we know now - "electromagnetic catapult-assisted launch system" per CNN.
Click to expand...

I’d wait for a more technically minded source to comment. They probably just looked up the wiki article.
Click to expand...

It has been officially announced to be EMAL during the launch event.
 
stealthflanker said:
helmutkohl said:
that's a very clean looking island (will they add more antennas or is that it?)
Click to expand...

Definitely. as the ship will now enter what called "fitting out" phase where they will really install many more systems in her.
Click to expand...
Yes and it will take almost a couple of years before she will ready to enter in full service. Let alone the fact that Chinese shall enter in a brand new domain of operations with CATOBAR.
They need at least a decade before they could match US NAVY's capabilities. Without counting the fact that Americans have a century of experience in aircraft carrier warfare...
 
stealthflanker said:
helmutkohl said:
that's a very clean looking island (will they add more antennas or is that it?)
Click to expand...

Definitely. as the ship will now enter what called "fitting out" phase where they will really install many more systems in her.
Click to expand...

I remember in 1994 (pre-internet era) seeing a photo of the CdG carrier just after its launch, and wondering whether or not it was the real thing: it looked pretty clean.
 
A very clean looking design - will be interesting to see it with aircraft onboard.
 
The sheds over the EMALS-chan runs have roll-up doors, which is interesting. Could be they're just going to roll hardware in through the doors rather than lowering it down with cranes. But I wonder if they're intending to do sled launches with the sheds still on for some daft reason.
 
Is there any official literature released yet on her size?
I know there was speculation through her build..
 
I can't help thinking France should loan or buy three of them to save the colossal expense of replacing CdG. That thing (or the next ones in the coming decade) will have all the "goodies" wanted on PA-NG: EMALS, nuclear power (maybe).
BUT for obvious reasons, the French Navy can't afford to be China "customer"... they would in turn hold us by our testicles (Taiwan, cough).
 
Archibald said:
I can't help thinking France should loan or buy three of them to save the colossal expense of replacing CdG. That thing (or the next ones in the coming decade) will have all the "goodies" wanted on PA-NG: EMALS, nuclear power (maybe).
BUT for obvious reasons, the French Navy can't afford to be China "customer"... they would in turn hold us by our testicles (Taiwan, cough).
Click to expand...
If you think the French could man three carriers of this size then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Archibald said:
I can't help thinking France should loan or buy three of them to save the colossal expense of replacing CdG. That thing (or the next ones in the coming decade) will have all the "goodies" wanted on PA-NG: EMALS, nuclear power (maybe).
BUT for obvious reasons, the French Navy can't afford to be China "customer"... they would in turn hold us by our testicles (Taiwan, cough).
Click to expand...
If you think the French could man three carriers of this size then I have a bridge to sell you.
Click to expand...

An aircraft carrier bridge ?
 
Archibald said:
CV12Hornet said:
Archibald said:
I can't help thinking France should loan or buy three of them to save the colossal expense of replacing CdG. That thing (or the next ones in the coming decade) will have all the "goodies" wanted on PA-NG: EMALS, nuclear power (maybe).
BUT for obvious reasons, the French Navy can't afford to be China "customer"... they would in turn hold us by our testicles (Taiwan, cough).
Click to expand...
If you think the French could man three carriers of this size then I have a bridge to sell you.
Click to expand...

An aircraft carrier bridge ?
Click to expand...
Give us 5 minutes and we’ll update the model…..
 
Some random thoughts on the Chinese carrier programs.

Is there any interest in STOVL operations?
I do not think the PLAN plans to operate (pun intended) in a similar way to the US Navy with its huge battle groups of multiple carriers, far away from sea.
Thus far all of its ships are non-nuclear, and its main focus are much closer to home (first and second island chains).

I'm wondering if a large STOVL carrier, like a Chinese Queen Elizabeth, would have been cheaper and easier for Chinese needs?
Aircraft developed for it could even operate off the existing Liaoning and Shandong as well.

on a second note, as for CATOBAR
I've read that EMALS can be curved. in that sense could it be retrofitted onto the Liaoning and Shandong?
or would it be easier just to modify the sky jump
 
I think it is pretty clear the PLAN will be a CATOBAR force in the future and that's that. They clearly have long term blue water ambitions that will require the flexibility of cats to launch aircraft with larger loads and lower thrust/weight ratios - most especially AWACs but also drones of various kinds and potentially embarked MPAs. The two STOVL carriers are dead ends; it costs far too much to renovate them and I doubt they have anything like the power requirements for EMALs. Piping steam to the deck would be even more difficult. Remember one of those CVs is a rebuilt Russian flattop from over three decades ago; it probably doesn't have a huge service life left. The other will likely be relegated to training purposes when/if several more CATOBAR carriers are built.
 
I am torn between admiration for such a fine looking ship which any nation would be proud of and a sense of futility that she will be a propaganda weapon that if ever used in war will be sunk by a submarine with high casualties.
 
You know, it's funny how history works. I have books from the 1980s that talk about "The deadly threat of USSR's likely carrier force in the 21st century" and... Mention that it's possible that China might develop a limited blue-water force by the 2030s. how things worked out...

But that is one purty ship.
 
Bgray said:
You know, it's funny how history works. I have books from the 1980s that talk about "The deadly threat of USSR's likely carrier force in the 21st century" and... Mention that it's possible that China might develop a limited blue-water force by the 2030s. how things worked out...

But that is one purty ship.
Click to expand...

You nailed it ! Also fates of the four Kievs & two Kuznetsov are quite representative. Kievs: one scrapped, one rebuild for India, two as "amusement parks" for China... but the latter decided instead to get the large Varyag: Kuznetsov sistership, now rebuild as Liaoning. Meanwhile the Russian navy stuck with Kuznetsov: Varyag's sistership. So Liaoning and Kuznetsov are kind of "half-sister ships".

What would be utterly funny would be if Russia bought Liaoning copies to replace Kuznetsov at lower cost.
 
Bgray said:
You know, it's funny how history works. I have books from the 1980s that talk about "The deadly threat of USSR's likely carrier force in the 21st century" and... Mention that it's possible that China might develop a limited blue-water force by the 2030s. how things worked out...

But that is one purty ship.
Click to expand...
I wonder how things would have been different if Bill Clinton had been smart enough to squash the Chinese purchase of the "casino".
 
FighterJock said:
jeffb said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1565524974370451456
View: https://twitter.com/louischeung_hk/status/1565524974370451456?t=bPnrRxIZxqVnIA3wYAEbIA&s=19
Click to expand...

As far as aircraft carriers go, it looks good.
Click to expand...
Literally generations of operational know how behind though no matter how good it looks.

Thing is, how quickly they catch up to a point where they are near-peer is just a matter of time and resources thrown at the problem, and China isn't short of resources.
 
This is a big step forward for the Chinese Navy, and it will likewise spur the U.S. Navy to accelerate the development and production of new weapons, and look forward to seeing the Halo
 
Josh_TN said:
Remember one of those CVs is a rebuilt Russian flattop from over three decades ago; it probably doesn't have a huge service life left.
Click to expand...
Liaoning (ex-Varyag) was never completed by the Soviets/Russians, so NO hull life was used.

As she had not been fitted with boilers etc before the transfer (receiving new-built Chinese ones during her completion after the transfer), all of the propulsion system was new at the time of her commissioning into the PLAN - as were all of the other systems on-board.

In short... her service life started when she entered the PLAN, and she has a lot left.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Josh_TN said:
Remember one of those CVs is a rebuilt Russian flattop from over three decades ago; it probably doesn't have a huge service life left.
Click to expand...
Liaoning (ex-Varyag) was never completed by the Soviets/Russians, so NO hull life was used.

As she had not been fitted with boilers etc before the transfer (receiving new-built Chinese ones during her completion after the transfer), all of the propulsion system was new at the time of her commissioning into the PLAN - as were all of the other systems on-board.

In short... her service life started when she entered the PLAN, and she has a lot left.
Click to expand...
While true, I can't imagine sitting in the water as a rusting hulk for 10 years and then another four after handover before being put in a drydock did her hull condition any favors. Not to mention the force 10 gale that hit her while being towed.
 
jeffb said:
FighterJock said:
jeffb said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1565524974370451456
View: https://twitter.com/louischeung_hk/status/1565524974370451456?t=bPnrRxIZxqVnIA3wYAEbIA&s=19
Click to expand...

As far as aircraft carriers go, it looks good.
Click to expand...
Literally generations of operational know how behind though no matter how good it looks.

Thing is, how quickly they catch up to a point where they are near-peer is just a matter of time and resources thrown at the problem, and China isn't short of resources.
Click to expand...
The US, UK, Germany and Japan had fought some of the most horrific naval battles ever along with decades of training for the worst. It does not matter how good the ship looks, it's weapons or weapons capacity, unfortunately, you get good at waging war and potenetially winning with continued, real-world experience I hate to say. China is building up but you have to know how to use and apply these new toys because if you don't, your done.
 
Hydroman said:
jeffb said:
FighterJock said:
jeffb said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1565524974370451456
View: https://twitter.com/louischeung_hk/status/1565524974370451456?t=bPnrRxIZxqVnIA3wYAEbIA&s=19
Click to expand...

As far as aircraft carriers go, it looks good.
Click to expand...
Literally generations of operational know how behind though no matter how good it looks.

Thing is, how quickly they catch up to a point where they are near-peer is just a matter of time and resources thrown at the problem, and China isn't short of resources.
Click to expand...
The US, UK, Germany and Japan had fought some of the most horrific naval battles ever along with decades of training for the worst. It does not matter how good the ship looks, it's weapons or weapons capacity, unfortunately, you get good at waging war and potenetially winning with continued, real-world experience I hate to say. China is building up but you have to know how to use and apply these new toys because if you don't, your done.
Click to expand...

China may well be behind the West in developing tactics for aircraft carriers but give or take five years then I can see them catching up to the west in that field. It was exactly the same with stealth technology and fifth generation fighters.
 
Question might be whether carriers have had their day or not. Weapons like the DF-21 and hypersonic anti-ship missiles must be making it increasingly difficult to protect these assets. They are reaching the point battleships reached at the end of WW2, large, slow major assets that are vulnerable to the latest innovation.
 
The flip side of that argument is that fixed air bases seem to be targets that are much more dispersed and hardened but are trivial to target. I suspect the tactics and role of the carrier will change - longer ranged, more disposable platforms - but that there will still be a role for it to fulfill.
 
jeffb said:
Question might be whether carriers have had their day or not. Weapons like the DF-21 and hypersonic anti-ship missiles must be making it increasingly difficult to protect these assets. They are reaching the point battleships reached at the end of WW2, large, slow major assets that are vulnerable to the latest innovation.
Click to expand...
This is, IMO, a misunderstanding of both a carrier's primary means of defense and why carriers supplanted battleships. To the latter first, carriers supplanted battleships because carriers could do a battleship's job better, not because they were less vulnerable. Carriers were arguably more vulnerable than battleships. There is no such platform in existence or conception that can do the same for the carrier - there is still no real substitute for a mobile, floating airfield.

Conversely, ASBMs and hypersonic anti-ship missiles make the task of stopping an attack on a carrier harder, but they don't make it any easier to find and track a carrier that doesn't want to be found. The ability of a carrier to move in the vast areas of ocean defined by the combat radius of its aircraft remains its best defensive tool, and besides, it's not like these super-fast missiles are unstoppable. Part of the tradeoff with these missiles is reduced sensor capabilities; they're going to be easier to countermeasure than subsonic missiles.
 
My understanding is that optical spysats (KH-11s and others) are in polar orbits, so that helps coverage; but still, orbits are fixed and unflexible, and hours can pass between overflying the same spot twice.

Meanwhile a carrier moving at 30 kt, that is 55 km per hour, can thus move 1320 km in 24 hours (straight line optimistic number). It can also make turns.

Bottom line: carriers may be enormous "optical" targets (300 m long when spysats can see 10 cm details) - they still can play cat & mouse with the satellites searching them from above. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans are vast areas.
 
CV12Hornet said:
jeffb said:
Question might be whether carriers have had their day or not. Weapons like the DF-21 and hypersonic anti-ship missiles must be making it increasingly difficult to protect these assets. They are reaching the point battleships reached at the end of WW2, large, slow major assets that are vulnerable to the latest innovation.
Click to expand...
This is, IMO, a misunderstanding of both a carrier's primary means of defense and why carriers supplanted battleships. To the latter first, carriers supplanted battleships because carriers could do a battleship's job better, not because they were less vulnerable. Carriers were arguably more vulnerable than battleships. There is no such platform in existence or conception that can do the same for the carrier - there is still no real substitute for a mobile, floating airfield.

Conversely, ASBMs and hypersonic anti-ship missiles make the task of stopping an attack on a carrier harder, but they don't make it any easier to find and track a carrier that doesn't want to be found. The ability of a carrier to move in the vast areas of ocean defined by the combat radius of its aircraft remains its best defensive tool, and besides, it's not like these super-fast missiles are unstoppable. Part of the tradeoff with these missiles is reduced sensor capabilities; they're going to be easier to countermeasure than subsonic missiles.
Click to expand...

Going supersonic or hypersonic is a thermal / turbulence / shock wave nightmare for antennas and sensors. Subsonic is relatively easy flight regime, orbital or suborbital too (except for vacuum and radiations, admittedly) , but hypersonic(s) is quite a vicious flight environment: brutal.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom