Chinese aircraft carrier program

Tsavo Lion wrote:Pl. see my prev. edited post. In addition to the H-6U tankers, the Y-20 has now a tanker version:
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2015-09/08/content_6671974.htm

https://www.janes.com/article/92196/image-shows-possible-plaaf-y-20-tanker-variant-in-flight

They wouldn't be fielding them if untested:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/report-china-tests-df-26-carrier-killer-missile-should-navy-be-worried-42827

Pl. see your previous post about tankers being too easy to shoot down.  A Rafale will easily pick up a Y-20 or H-6U and shoot it down with Meteor.  PLA will not detect a Rafale refueling another Rafale.  

Did you read the original article?  The US Navy says no such test has ever been demonstrated and the fact Chinese claim the missile has a datalink good for 4500km proves how absurd that is.  The only thing they have proven is that they can hit a stationary parking lot in the shape of a Nimitz class carrier. In order to prove the capability they would need to hit a moving ship in the middle of the ocean.

Pl. see your previous post about tankers being too easy to shoot down.  A Rafale will easily pick up a Y-20 or H-6U and shoot it down with Meteor.

they'll get refueled on the way back to base, after expending their AShMs. The Russians may also send MiG-31s with A-50/100 &/ tankers- 4 of them can scan the area 800km wide & detect Rafales refueling other Rafales. They practiced flying H-6Ks with Tu-95MSs-which have 15,000 km (9,300 mi, 8,100 nmi) unrefueled range; the Tu-142 Combat range=6,500 km (4,000 mi, 3,500 nmi)- both can be escorted by MiG-31s/J-20s & detect a CSG:
https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/china-russia-conduct-first-ever-joint-strategic-bomber-patrol-flights-in-indo-pacific-region/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95#Specifications_(Tu-95MS)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-142#Specifications_(Tu-142MZ)

The Tu-22M3s may also join in; their Range: 6,800 km (4,200 mi, 3,700 nmi)
Combat range: 2,410 km (1,500 mi, 1,300 nmi) with typical weapons load
Armament: Up to 3 × Kh-22/Kh-32 missiles in weapons bay and on wing pylons or
Up to 6 × Kh-15 missiles on a MKU-6-1 rotary launcher in its bomb bay, plus 4 × Raduga Kh-15 missiles on two underwing pylons for a total of 10 missiles per aircraft.
Up to 4 × Kh-47M2 Kinzhal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Specifications_(Tu-22M3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-32#Performance_specifications

Kh-47M2 Kinzhal Operational range
2000+ km (MiG-31K)  3000 km (Tu-22M3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal

Since NATO declared Russia & China their adversaries, China won't be alone against CSGs. No need to rely on CV-16/17/18 engaging CVNs.

The only thing they have proven is that they can hit a stationary parking lot in the shape of a Nimitz class carrier. In order to prove the capability they would need to hit a moving ship in the middle of the ocean

The "middle of the ocean" would be just off Hawaii, not in the W. Pacific. In any case, as soon as a near miss is detected, a CSG will turn & leave the area as fast as it can. There could be dozens of more BMs on the way & they won't risk of being sunk by a lucky shot!

not in in the absence of radar returns from aircraft flying to/from & around it. The USAF/N & JSDF have AWACS that can detect air activity from 100s of miles away.
Its pulse-Doppler radar (PD) has a range of more than 250 mi (400 km) for low-flying targets at its operating altitude, and the pulse (BTH) radar has a range of approximately 400 mi (650 km) for aircraft flying at medium to high altitudes. The radar, combined with a secondary surveillance radar (SSR) and electronic support measures (ESM), provides a look down capability, to detect, identify, and track low-flying aircraft, while eliminating ground clutter (radar) returns.

Yeah, that is the purpose of the KS-172 400km range air to air missiles the Soviets were considering developing for use against AWACS and AEW aircraft... BTW from 400km away the curvature of the earth means you likely wouldn't see low flying aircraft... but having a few drones flying around these fishing boats with corner reflectors to make them look big would be part of the disguise...

I hope it won't come to that- time will tell!

X2

Now thats a beutiful ship.

No Granits and no Kashtan-Ms...

No Granits and no Kashtan-Ms...

Granits recquire a bunch of Slavas, Kirivs and Oscar 2 to work properly. They don't need it. Even Russian Granits become useless as they are big and not that fast and more importantly they have less ships carrying them so the volley become smaller.

Kashtan is not the only 30mm CIWS that works.

Granits recquire a bunch of Slavas, Kirivs and Oscar 2 to work properly. They don't need it. Even Russian Granits become useless as they are big and not that fast and more importantly they have less ships carrying them so the volley become smaller.

You are not using your imagination... the Zircon is contained in size and shape and weight because it needs to be carried in UKSK launch tubes, and also carried by aircraft of various sizes... remember the Granit tubes in the Oscar class subs will be able to have three liners inserted into each Granit tube to hold an Onyx or a Zircon...

Zircon seems to be a rather impressive missile... Imagine the missile the Chinese or more accurately a joint venture with Russia could create with a 7 ton weight limit and three times the physical diameter of Zircon... with the same propulsion you could assume a similar speed but the increased size should allow larger control surfaces and much more fuel...

For Russia the Granits are being replaced with UKSK-Ms which on the Kirov allow 10 UKSK-M launchers to be fitted into the space 20 Granit launch tubes occupied... Russia is looking at smaller and faster missiles that can be carried in much larger numbers, but there is no reason why China couldn't look at adapting missiles to the size of the containers they have in the form of Granit...

This ship is not identicle to the K so I wonder what they fitted instead of the Granits?

Perhaps space for an experiemental cat system?

Kashtan is not the only 30mm CIWS that works.

Kashtan-M is the combination of guns and missiles that seems to work best.

They designed and tested them using their own anti ship missiles as the threat, and as their anti ship missiles are the peak predator in this jungle then their defence systems are probably the best as well.

Perhaps on the Russian CVN to be built they might be replaced with 57mm guns and 9M100 missiles in vertical missile tubes...

GarryB wrote:

Now thats a beutiful ship.

No Granits and no Kashtan-Ms...  

And those systems makes it a much more beutiful vessel?

Atleast it isnt on fire.....

As for Granits the Chinese had the option of arming thier carriers with anti-ship missiles and choose not to. The Type 730 CIWS and the FL-3000N system makes up for any Kashtan system.

And those systems makes it a much more beutiful vessel?

Attack and defence capacities are pretty important for military ships...

Goalkeeper just looks gay.

Atleast it isnt on fire.....

You could read the stories about all the people who died building it, but the people with that website are now in jail...

The Type 730 CIWS and the FL-3000N

So I assume the Type 730 is the goalkeeper copy, what is the FL-3000N a copy of?

TOR?

Sea Ram?

Sea Wolf?

Air Wolf?

GarryB wrote:

And those systems makes it a much more beutiful vessel?

Attack and defence capacities are pretty important for military ships...

Goalkeeper just looks gay.

Atleast it isnt on fire.....

You could read the stories about all the people who died building it, but the people with that website are now in jail...

The Type 730 CIWS and the FL-3000N

So I assume the Type 730 is the goalkeeper copy, what is the FL-3000N a copy of?

TOR?

Sea Ram?

Sea Wolf?

Air Wolf?

1. No comment....
2. Im sure Putin would love having that ability to just cover things up.
3. You really have no idea do you?

FL-3000N
Contrary to the erroneous claims, the missile is not developed from MANPAD missiles such as QW-1 Vanguard, but instead, it is designed as an air-to-air missile from the start. It is the world first air to air missile that is specifically designed for helicopters. Later, the surface-to-air version was further developed from the air-to-air version.

Length: 2 meters
Diameter: 0.12 meter
Minimum range: < 500 meters
Maximum range: > 9 km for subsonic targets, > 6 km for supersonic targets
Guidance: passive RF + ImIR or ImIR onl

Latest picture from the type-003 carrier construction. Something seems to be built next to it, a second (fourth) carrier?

Hahahahahahahaha....

2. Im sure Putin would love having that ability to just cover things up.

You mean the way the west does and the communist Chinese do... yeah, I agree, but actually I don't think Putin wants things to appear to be good, I think he wants things to actually be good... you know... for the benefit of the Russian people.

Whereas you are right... the west and the Chinese just care about pretences and appearances...

Very honest of you to admit to all that....

(See Seig... that is me putting words in someones mouth... feel the difference?)

3. You really have no idea do you?

Couldn't care less to be honest... it is more interesting to read about original weapon programmes than how they have been adapted for use in Chinese conditions for Chinese needs.

It is the world first air to air missile that is specifically designed for helicopters.

Sounds like a bit of a waste considering for helos any air to air engagements will be self defence most of the time and MANPADS would have been a quicker and cheaper option...

Multirole missiles like Vikhr and even Shturm/Ataka/Krisantema make more sense...

GarryB wrote:Hahahahahahahaha....

2. Im sure Putin would love having that ability to just cover things up.

You mean the way the west does and the communist Chinese do... yeah, I agree, but actually I don't think Putin wants things to appear to be good, I think he wants things to actually be good... you know... for the benefit of the Russian people.

Whereas you are right... the west and the Chinese just care about pretences and appearances...

Very honest of you to admit to all that....  

(See Seig... that is me putting words in someones mouth...     feel the difference?)

3. You really have no idea do you?

Couldn't care less to be honest... it is more interesting to read about original weapon programmes than how they have been adapted for use in Chinese conditions for Chinese needs.

It is the world first air to air missile that is specifically designed for helicopters.

Sounds like a bit of a waste considering for helos any air to air engagements will be self defence most of the time and MANPADS would have been a quicker and cheaper option...

Multirole missiles like Vikhr and even Shturm/Ataka/Krisantema make more sense...

1. I didnt say anything, u did. And Russia is not all about pretens and appearances? Please!
2. If you read the article it says it was not a copie but a system build from scratch by the Chinese.
3. Well for some reason it made sence for the PLA as they had the Kashtan system already on thier Sovremenny destroyers but choose not to buy more or reverse enginere it.

This Piece of Chinese Military Hardware Could Change the Balance of Power in Asia

They will also be able to refuel their land/island based Su-30s, J-20s & deck fighters/EW planes, keeping CV/Ns farther out.
But the CV/Ns primary role isn't to engage enemy CSGs.
If it was, the would've aimed at building 8-10 CVNs 1.5-2X bigger than the USS Ford.

3. Well for some reason it made sence for the PLA as they had the Kashtan system already on thier Sovremenny destroyers but choose not to buy more or reverse enginere it.

I would say it is pretty obvious... Kashtan is intended to defend ships from anti ship weapons including sea skimming and supersonic threats.

Their main adversary is the US and their stooges (Japan, NATO, etc) who all have subsonic anti ship missiles that don't require the complexity or cost or capability of Kashtan. Why waste space several decks deep with a combined gun and missile system with reloads when a cheap simple little IIR missile could be used instead... what do you think the 9M100 is?

Except the Russians don't replace capabilities they appreciate... they didn't replace gun armed air defence vehicles like most of the west did, and even now they are developing a new 57mm calibre gun replacement for 30mm gun vehicles on land and likely at sea.

GarryB wrote:

3. Well for some reason it made sence for the PLA as they had the Kashtan system already on thier Sovremenny destroyers but choose not to buy more or reverse enginere it.

I would say it is pretty obvious... Kashtan is intended to defend ships from anti ship weapons including sea skimming and supersonic threats.

Their main adversary is the US and their stooges (Japan, NATO, etc) who all have subsonic anti ship missiles that don't require the complexity or cost or capability of Kashtan. Why waste space several decks deep with a combined gun and missile system with reloads when a cheap simple little IIR missile could be used instead... what do you think the 9M100 is?

So now the chinese made the right decision not to have the Kashtan on thier carrier?

Also...isnt the Russian main adversary the same? So why do Russia need Kashtans?

Except the Russians don't replace capabilities they appreciate... they didn't replace gun armed air defence vehicles like most of the west did, and even now they are developing a new 57mm calibre gun replacement for 30mm gun vehicles on land and likely at sea.

Why replace ? You never have enough of those small system that recquire not many crew or heavy maintenance. And they can be stored for years unlike missile systems that are more sensitive and harder to deploy.

On ships 30mm gun takes also very little space so you can always put one next to the new 57mm and let it intercept missiles in automatic mode.

Also...isnt the Russian main adversary the same? So why do Russia need Kashtans?

The Russians want the best defence, so they measure their defence against their own attack missiles instead of western ones.

Why replace ? You never have enough of those small system that recquire not many crew or heavy maintenance. And they can be stored for years unlike missile systems that are more sensitive and harder to deploy.

The US tends to replace guns with missiles, the Soviets and Russians keep both.

Each has advantages and disadvantages that overlap so each compliments the other...

@Vlad79. @TsavorLion

Interesting thread by a former US sub sonar operator. He pretty much confirm my theory of using the SSKs in a line and let the carrier come into the trap.

Interesting tread.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JivTurky/status/1216354432801280002


Jive Turkey
@JivTurky
Another example of our CVNs being attacked and "sunk" by diesel SSK. This is the Italian SSK Salvatore Todaro S-526 (Type 212A) "sinking" the Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 in 2008. Our carriers will only last as along as it takes a diesel submarine to get to them in a real war.





Jive Turkey
@JivTurky
·
7h
In my experience, a 688 class submarine can maneuver within kill range of a CVN. There are numerous examples of SSK's doing it in war games. In the 1980's a Soviet Nuclear sub actually collided with the USS Kitty Hawk. The evidence of the vulnerability of our CVN is everywhere.


Jive Turkey
@JivTurky
·
7h
This might be too complex for twitter. Satellite and intel can localize a carrier's location. SSKs will generally allow the CVN to come to them. They are deployed in a defense line and wait. Area Denial is another SSK victory.

I would add that there is another nasty weapon to hit carriers: modern torpedo mines. They are put at the bottom of the sea and listen for a target. Some at strategical location like at the exit or entrence of straits can allow destruction or damage to the carrier.

Being at the bottom, they are undetectable. And attacks very fast.

US navy lack mine coutermeasure vessels against normal mines let alone if they want to deal with such weapons.

The evidence of the vulnerability of our CVN is everywhere.

Only a child would think carriers are a bad idea because they can be sunk.

When there isn't a WWIII going on where navies will be largely useless anyway, then CVNs and even CVs are incredibly useful platforms to have on hand... with fighters and AWACS alone they provide reach and vision that no satellite or ship or sub can compare with.

You can have a navy without carriers but it will be a less capable navy compared with one that has them.

Needless to say the British fleet that got back the Falklands would never have succeeded without carriers... and would have done much much better with older fixed wing carriers with proper fixed wing AWACS aircraft...

If they had the Ark Royal instead of the Hermes they could have attacked airfields using Buccaneers instead of very long range very risky use of the V bombers the Vulcans. Their ships would have been much better protected by faster moving Phantoms with AWACS support to provide more warning and wider visibility in the battle space.

You could argue that the carriers cost too much and if they didn't have them they wouldn't have been able to fight that war which would have saved even more money.... not really the purpose of the navy though... to save money.... and as discussed you could arm all your ships with MANPADS to make them cheaper, and you would save a lot of money but you would also render them much more vulnerable and less capable making them less useful... when you want to make them more useful for better bang for buck.

Not suggesting Ford class white gold plated elephants, and certainly not 10 of them...

Chinas second aircraft carrier, the Shandong, together with its escort the Type 055 destroyer.

A brand new floating dock is getting ready to transport the new Type 003 carrier it seems.

CV-17 'Shandong' left Dalian for its first cruise :

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11703654/china-deploys-aircraft-carriers-stoke-tensions-us-warning-new-cold-war/

IMO, they'll invade the Pratas island- it's most distant from Taiwan & has strategic location in the North SC Sea. It also has a long airstrip & good lagoon.
The CV-16 & CV-17 could've practiced invading other islands closer to their bases, so sending both to the SC Sea now, with current PRC-US tensions, looks like the real thing to me. To contain Taiwan & force it to renounce independence, it must be truncated at sea & in the air. Also, taking Taiwanese held islands would outflank other claimants + help monitor & control the SC Sea.

Google Earth Pro updated the area of Jingana shipyard.

The new satelite image is afom April.
There is minor activity since the middle of last year around the ship, no sign of engine/system integration.

The basin getting closer to finishing, there are new cranes on the pier.
Interesting.


Lot of destroyers in the shipyard, I counted thirteen, in different stages of contruction / fitting out.

Big article on this at link


Rumors are swirling that the Chinese navy is looking to build a new type of warship. A recently leaked request for proposals (RFP) points to an amphibious assault ship with an electromagnetic aircraft catapult and arresting gear.

In a request for proposals posted on July 19 and subsequently leaked on social media, the project is referred to only as “Project XX6,” but observers have been calling the ship the “Type 076.”

Judging from some of the details included in the RFP, the Type 076 will be much like the Type 075 landing helicopter dock (LHD), of which China has already built two. The Type 075 is a kind of amphibious assault ship, which combines a flight deck for helicopters and vertical takeoff and landing aircraft with docking bays for amphibious landing craft to carry marines ashore.

However, this new kind of LHD would have an electromagnetic launch system (EMALS) on the flight deck for launching fixed wing aircraft, too, as well as the associated arresting wires for when they land again. No extant warship has ever used this configuration before.

https://sputniknews.com/military/202007231079966814-china-may-be-building-a-completely-new-kind-of-aircraft-carrier-reports-suggest/