Article

2007-03-07 China-Japan-Koreas

Chinese brass says aircraft carrier possible by 2010

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gromky 2007-03-07 04:12|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ...They've had access to some fairly sturdy carrier technology for almost 15 years now, and a Chinese CV is always 'right around the corner'. For them to have a carrier completed by 2010, it would have to have been laid down within the last year or so,and I think we would have seen something that big.
The problem is - and I'm guessing the Chinese have figured this out, they're no dummies - that for a modern aircraft carrier to be survivable, it has to be a USN style, USN sized,
nuclear powered supercarrier with a solid logistic support system. The ex-Soviet ships they've been dissecting are simply too small for safe, effective operations, and conventional CVs have to operate at the end of a supply chain that took us decades to work safely and effectively. The Chinese don't have the huge at-sea replenishment infrastructure that is required to keep even one carrier at sea and operational, and that takes almost as long to build as the carrier. And I'd point out that Communist nations have never been big on the beans-and-bullets side of things; they want big shiny weapons and they want them NOW. The PRC could operate its carrier from a port, but if it's tied to a routine of having to go back to port every few days to refuel/replenish, it's useless. Having to do that with three or four carriers (which they might have somewhere around 2025 at this rate)is worse than useless.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-03-07 08:32|| 2007-03-07 08:32|| Front Page Top

#2 Once again, I wonder, could the US really throw a monkey wrench into the Chinese plan by selling the USS Kennedy to India, for them to use as a reverse engineering model to build their own carriers, which they are keen to do?

If India started cranking out better carriers than China could muster, it would both put a crimp in the Chinese plans, balance their forces in the region, and force them to spend a LOT *more* money on building carriers themselves. OLD style carriers, that are far less effective than our new ones.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-03-07 08:44|| 2007-03-07 08:44|| Front Page Top

#3 There was an article here a couple years ago speculating that the Japanese might buy USS Kitty Hawk. Sell Big John to India, another conventional CV to Japan--hmmmmm.

Posted by Mike 2007-03-07 08:51|| 2007-03-07 08:51|| Front Page Top

#4 ...are simply too small for safe, effective operations.

I don't think the Chinese have yet developed a 'taste' for safety that Americans wade through daily. Even then, its not civilian 'safe' operating on the deck of an American carrier either.

The assumption here is that the Chinese carriers are meant as a specific counter to American seapower. Given that China will be a serious oil import nation for a while, projection to protect their trade interests would be definitely be in their plans. That would include the ability to protect their supply line from less than American style threats. The security fumbling down around the Malacca Straights should give any planner enough rationale for small carrier capability, given that locale governments, while demonstratively unable to curtail piracy, are unlikely to 'invite' a foreign power to base forces from their territory to do the job.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-03-07 08:52|| 2007-03-07 08:52|| Front Page Top

#5 Moose,
IIRC - and I may be wrong on this - the Indians have had a long-standing deal with the French to eventually build a conventional version of the Charles DeGaulle. As much as I'd love to give the Indians a couple of our old CVs or the plans thereto, the fact is that the manning and maintenance requirements for one of those monsters is just beyond their capability right now.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-03-07 09:03|| 2007-03-07 09:03|| Front Page Top

#6 Methinks there will be a big diference in how the Chinese (a traditional land-power) will use a carrier, and how the West does.

Think lily-pad power projection, or floating expeditionary airfield rather than embarked air wings.

Posted by Pappy 2007-03-07 10:04|| 2007-03-07 10:04|| Front Page Top

#7 Small carriers are fine depending on what you want to do with them. HMS Ocean, for example, is a small - by US Marine Corps standards - British helicopter carrier that nevertheless allows the UK to project power in smaller conflicts. The problems for China, it seems to me, are two-fold: First, carrier engineering is not easy, there are perhaps four - more likely two - yards in the world that know what they are doing with this technology. Second, a carrier is valueless independent of its associated battlegroup. This means your costs are not only for the carrier itself - including its strike wing and other aircraft - but for associated missile cruisers, destroyers, oilers/auxiliaries and at least one hunter/killer SSN (SSKs are not going to cut it for this task in blue water). In some ways the expense of the associated battlegroup is less problematical for the ChiComs than the communications and coordination of the group particularly in responding to incoming missile attack. Can the Chinese manage all this? I believe so. Can they do so by 2010? Not a prayer.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-03-07 10:32|| 2007-03-07 10:32|| Front Page Top

#8 One other thing, unless you have the aircraft and men to operate on a carrier. They would have tostart training and work ups now. Without a trained and certified air wing then the thing is just a helicopter landing pad

Posted by AGT1500 engineer">AGT1500 engineer 2007-03-07 13:40|| 2007-03-07 13:40|| Front Page Top

#9 Nice to see the PRC Navy has almost caught up to WW2 technology. Their airforce must be laughing.

Trush is China would be better of building nuke reactors and getting their asses off of oil entirely. Then they would not have such a vunerable life-line that could be chopped by terrorist or the US navy. Then they could proclaim they are leading the world in clean energy or whatever makes them feel holier than though. Then they could build a proper space ship (damn the environment we're going to Mars!) and shame the rest of us.

If you're gonna have a police state at least do it properly.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-03-07 14:58|| 2007-03-07 14:58|| Front Page Top

#10 IIRC - and I may be wrong on this - the Indians have had a long-standing deal with the French to eventually build a conventional version of the Charles DeGaulle

No. The French company DCN is design consultant for the indigenous Indian carrier being built now in India. That vessel has already been criticized by a committee of the Indian parliament as being too small for effective operations.

There are three new large commercial shipyards being setup in India now that could construct carrier sized vessels so the next generation of Indian carriers will probably be larger. The Viraat (ex HMS Hermes) will be retired in less than a decade and the Vikramaditya (ex Admiral Gorshkov) is probably a stopgap measure until more Indian carriers can be constructed.

Posted by John Frum 2007-03-07 17:37|| 2007-03-07 17:37|| Front Page Top

#11 Hmmmm, maybe they're looking at the US experience with the old WW2-era "jeep" carriers (CVEs) that were being turned out in droves by late-43 mid-44.

From Wikipedia,

In US service, they were initially referred to as auxiliary aircraft escort vessels (hull classification symbol AVG) and then auxiliary aircraft carrier (ACV) before the Navy settled on the type description escort aircraft carrier. Escort carriers were given the US Navy hull classification symbol CVE this was sarcastically said by their crews to stand for "Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable". They were informally known as "Jeep carriers" or "baby flattops." It was quickly found that the escort carriers were better aircraft platforms than the light carriers, which tended to pitch badly in moderate to high seas, and as a result, many more of them were ordered.

Escort carriers were typically around 500 ft (150 m) long, not much more than half the length of the almost 900 ft (300 m) fleet carriers of the same era, but actually less than one-third of the size: a typical escort carrier displaced about 8,000 tons, as compared to almost 30,000 tons for a full-size fleet carrier. The aircraft hangar typically ran only a third of the way under the flight deck and housed a combination of 24 to 30 fighters and bombers organized into one single 'composite squadron'. (A late Essex class fleet carrier could carry a total of 103 aircraft organized into separate fighter, bomber and torpedo-bomber squadrons)

The islands of these ships were small and cramped, located well forward of the funnels (unlike on a normal-sized carrier where the funnels were integrated into the island). Although the first escort carriers had only one aircraft elevator, two elevators, one fore and one aft, quickly became standard, so did the one aircraft catapult. The carriers employed the same system of arresting cables and tailhooks and procedures for launch and recovery were the same as on the big carriers.

The crew size was less than a third of that of a large carrier, but this was still a bigger complement than most naval vessels. It was large enough to justify the existence of facilities such as a permanent canteen or snack bar, called a gedunk bar, in addition to the mess. The bar was open for longer hours than the mess and sold several flavors of ice cream, along with cigarettes and other consumables. There were also several vending machines, which made a "gedunk" sound when operated.

Originally developed at the behest of the United Kingdom to operate as part of a North Atlantic convoy escort rather than as part of a naval strike force, many of the escort carriers produced were assigned to the Royal Navy for the duration of the war under the Lend-lease act. They supplemented and then replaced the converted merchant aircraft carriers which were put into service by the British and Dutch as an emergency measure until the escort carriers became available. As convoy escorts, they were used by the Royal Navy, to provide air scouting, to ward off enemy long-range scouting aircraft and increasingly to spot and hunt submarines. Often additional escort carriers also joined convoys, not as fighting ships but as transporters, ferrying aircraft from the US to Britain. In this case the aircraft cargo could be doubled by storing aircraft in the hangar as well as on the flight deck.

The ships sent to the Royal Navy were slightly modified, partly to suit the traditions of that service. Among other things the ice cream making machines were removed, since they were considered unnecessary luxuries on ships which served grog and other alcoholic beverages. The heavy duty washing machines of the laundry room were also removed since "all a British sailor needs to keep clean is a bucket and a bar of soap" (quoted from Warrilow).

Other modifications were due to the need for a completely enclosed hangar when operating in the North Atlantic and in support of the Arctic convoys.

Meanwhile the US discovered their own use for the escort carriers. In the North Atlantic, they would supplement the escorting destroyers by providing air support for their anti-submarine warfare. One of these escort carriers, the USS Guadalcanal, was instrumental in the capture of the German submarine (U-boat) U-505 off North Africa in 1944. The Guadalcanal, and her task force, was commanded by Captain (later Admiral) Daniel V. Gallery. In 1955 the U-505 was moved to Chicago, restored, and made a permanent exhibit at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry.

In the Pacific theatre, the escort carriers would more than often escort the landing ships and troop carriers during the island hopping campaign. In this role, they would provide air cover for the troopships as well as fly the first wave of attacks on the beach fortifications in amphibious landing operations. On occasion they would even escort the large carriers, serving as emergency airstrips and providing fighter cover for their larger brothers while these were busy readying or refueling their own planes. In addition to this, they would also transport aircraft and spare parts from the US to the remote island airstrips.

Perhaps the finest moment for these escort carriers was the Battle of Leyte Gulf's Battle off Samar, where three escort carrier groups fended off the battleships of the Japanese Combined Fleet, allowing General Douglas MacArthur's Army to complete the liberation of Leyte. The hero of the battle was Rear Admiral Clifton "Ziggy" Sprague.

In all, 130 escort carriers were launched or converted during the war. Of these, six were British conversions of merchant ships: HMS Audacity, HMS Nairana, HMS Campania, HMS Activity, HMS Pretoria Castle and HMS Vindex. The remaining escort carriers were US-built. Like the British, the first US escort carriers were converted merchant vessels (or in the Sangamon class, converted military oilers). Later carriers were built using the hulls of Liberty Ships not yet finished but already in various stages of construction. The last 69 escort carriers of the Casablanca and Commencement Bay classes were purpose-designed and purpose-built carriers drawing on the experience gained with the previous classes.

I really don't see why, given VTOL aircraft, China could not develop a deep water CVE capability based on WW2 ideas and advanced to 21st Century technologies.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-03-07 17:40|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-03-07 17:40|| Front Page Top

#12 The Indian navy would be interested in Aegis radars (for their larger destroyers) to protect their carrier groups.

During the last exercise with the French, the Indian navy was quite concerned about UAVs successfully intruding into their battle group. Their Russian Kamov helicopter radar picket failed to detect the intrusions.

They would also need steam catapults for larger ships and aircraft.

Posted by John Frum 2007-03-07 17:43|| 2007-03-07 17:43|| Front Page Top

#13 Since the late 1990's var Netters have argued that China had secretly studied both Amer [MIDWAY + FORRESTAL, NIMITZ?]+ Euro carrier designs and techs, espec the Brits, that Russian carrier designs were Top 5 or Top 10, NOT Top 1-3. AT the moment, and for a while yet, the PLAN's strategy is based on active-defense, littoral defense, and defensive area-sea denial. MCCONNELL > China is still desirous of being NOT ONLY A REGIONAL HEGEMON, BUT A GLOBAL HEGEMON SUPERIOR TO THE USA OR ANY OTHER NATION, which I believe I can safely surmise also is inclusive of the RUSSIANS. Bear in mind that where a de facto US-China NAVAL CLASH IN ASIA-WESTPAC IS CONCERNED, THE RUSSIAN NAVY IS BOTH SIDES' "WILD CARD". * KOREA TIMES > WHY RUSSIA FEELS FREE TO ATTACK THE USA [includ SSSSSHHHHHHH Allies]. RUSSIA'S PRESENT UTILITY
TO CHINA, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IS AMERI'S FEAR OF RUSSIA'S ICBMS BEING USED AGZ USA-NATO-ALLIES WHILE IN MILITARY CONFLICT WID CHINA, I>E. TO CONTAIN, DENY, OR OTHERWISE MINIMIZE ANY US-SPECIFIC "FORCE PROJECTION" AGZ CHINA. INDIA for its part has a long way to go yet - WAFF.com > DEFENCETALK/JANES > India's Navy and Govt officios believe the IN's Carrier VIRAAT is HIGHLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO AIR AND ALCM/TLCM, etc. attacks. The good news for China vv INDIA's Carriers is that the PLAN's planes haven't begun to crash yet.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-03-07 20:39|| 2007-03-07 20:39|| Front Page Top

#14 Amer must get weaker iff Russia andor China expect to achieve ROUGH PARITY + SUPERIORITY btwn Year 2030-2050, or after. WOT > WAR FOR THE WORLD, inclusive of dynamic SUBSTITUTION OF NATIONS/POWERS. CHINA > ambitions for Asia-Pacific hegemony and dominance is NOT based on America remaining a competitive, powerful, unipolar or even bi/multi-polar global superpower or hyperpower. EQUALISM + GEOPOL "FAIRNESS" > AMER BEING WEAK AND SUBSERVIENT, IFF NOT DESTROYED + NON-EXISTENT.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-03-07 20:46|| 2007-03-07 20:46|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:44 garbagecowboy
23:26 garbagecowboy
23:16 RD
23:03 newc
22:53 RD
22:43 JosephMendiola
22:37 JosephMendiola
22:33 trailing wife
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:28 Jackal
22:27 Jackal
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:24 trailing wife
22:17 trailing wife
22:14 trailing wife
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:11 JohnQC
22:10 JosephMendiola
22:08 trailing wife
22:06 djohn66
22:05 djohn66
22:05 Eric Jablow