What's new

China’s Under-Construction Aircraft Carrier Isn’t the One to Worry About

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
1*7RCd991Se7FGBve3CnZSBw.png

CV-17 under construction in Dalian in June 2016. DigitalGlobe photo via Google Earth
China’s Under-Construction Aircraft Carrier Isn’t the One to Worry About

It’s the one that comes after

by ROBERT FARLEY

Slowly but surely, China’s first indigenous carrier is coming into being. Laid down in 2015 with an expected launch date in 2017 or 2018, China’s second aircraft carrier may enter full service sometime around 2020.

The lack of transparency around the project has spurred a tremendous degree of speculation, down to some very basic questions. As was the case with Liaoning, China’s first carrier, analysts have a name problem — no one is quite sure what to call the new ship.

For years as Liaoning underwent construction and refit, China-watchers guessed as to the correct name, generally settling on the accurate but inelegant “ex-Varyag” (other guesses included Shi Lang and Zheng He).

While some have suggested “Shandong,” most commentators have settledaround “CV-17.”

So, what do we know about CV-17?


1*sM5KaHIm9YBzwgMbVv8RNg.png

Design
Photos of CV-17, under construction at Dalian Shipbuilding, suggest that she will strongly resemble China’s first carrier. She appears to be of roughly similar size to Liaoning, has a ski-jump, and apparently will have conventional propulsion.

Speculating on the basis of the appearance of a few models in the public domain, Andrew Erickson suggests that CV-17 may use gas or diesel/gas turbines. Reports on Liaoning’s propulsion system remain mixed and uncertain, but many suspect she uses Soviet-style steam turbines.

In a sense, CV-17 will become the second half-sister of the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov, which recently passed through the English Channel to great fanfare. We can expect that the Chinese will improve upon this design at the margins, but the core of the ship remains very similar to the vessel that emerged from the Soviet Black Sea Shipyard in 1990.

While this seems like a long time to stick with a single design, the U.S. Navy built Nimitz-class carriers to the same basic template for about 40 years.


1*m6B0_rWa0E9Biw16bLLwEQ.jpeg

The Chinese carrier ‘Liaoning.’ Photo via Wikimedia
Construction
CV-17 is, by far, the largest military vessel ever constructed in a Chinese shipyard. The number of shipyards worldwide that can handle construction of an aircraft carrier is remarkably small, and the workforce expertise needed to build the ship disappears quickly.

In a sense, CV-17 is as useful for industrial purposes as she will be for the military. The experience gained in her construction will set the table for the next Chinese carriers, which may have a more modern, effective design.

In particular, Chinese shipbuilders need to overcome several hurdles before they begin constructing first rate carriers.

They need to either develop effective models of nuclear propulsion for surface ships, or scale up existing conventional powerplants, as Chinese engine manufacturing has struggled with reliability. They need to decide whether to install steam catapults — an exceedingly complex process — or jump straight to electro-magnetic.

Some reports suggest that CV-17 may have catapults in addition to a ski-jump, which would make sense primarily from an industrial-capability point of view.


1*_cTjqrkzajCHmYiCpbsw1Q.jpeg

A J-15 fighter on ‘Liaoning.’ Photo via Wikimedia
Employment
In all likelihood, CV-17 will carrier Shenyang J-15 fighters — a variant of the J-11, itself part of the larger Su-27 “Flanker” family of aircraft. CV-17 may someday carry the J-31 stealth fighter, but at this point the future air wing is entirely notional.

Like her half-sisters, CV-17 will lack the capacity to launch large early-warning aircraft, making her dependent upon land-based aircraft and other types of sensors for a full picture of the battlespace.

This suggests that while CV-17 may venture farther afield than her half-sister Liaoning, she will not form the core of an expeditionary battlegroup. Her aircraft will lack the range, payload, and command and control tools necessary to undertaking independent expeditionary operations.

If China’s Stealth Fighter Is So Good, Why Is Beijing Still Buying Russian Warplanes?
The J-20’s engines and avionics lag behind

She, like Admiral Kuznetsov, will in overall capabilities more resemble one of the U.S. Navy’s America-class light carriers than a Nimitz or Ford-class supercarrier.

Most China watchers seem to believe that the PLAN will move on to a larger, more advanced design after CV-17. Innovations may include many of the systems taken for granted on American carriers, such as catapults (steam or electro-magnetic) and nuclear propulsion.

If so, this suggests that CV-17 is a stepping stone, enabling the Chinese shipbuilding industry to gain experience with larger vessels in the same way that CV-16 gave the PLAN the chance to develop rudimentary carrier flight skills.

But what will then happen to CV-17, after the PLAN moves on to larger ships? Unless the PLAN decides on a path similar to that of India — three carriers of wildly different specifications and capabilities — the next class will likely represent the core of China’s carrier force.
CV-17 will be paired with the comparatively ancient CV-16, conducting second-tier operations. Eventually, as Liaoning begins to feel her age (and unique construction history), CV-17 may shift into a training role.

With that in mind, the construction of CV-17 remains a watershed moment for China’s maritime aspirations. She will open the door to larger, better ships, and (with Liaoning) will accelerate the development of China’s corps of naval aviators.

And we all look forward to the day on which China gives this carrier a name.

This article originally appeared at The National Interest.


https://warisboring.com/chinas-unde...out-ba9457ca5885?mc_cid=c7bd8c7127#.p7v9cxset
 

A couple of things should be pointed in response to this claim:
1. The Russian T-50 is still using interim engines, so to say that the J-20 is "behind" fails to look at the two programs from a wider perspective.
2. The author had no basis on which he could claim the J-20's avionics are "behind"; the Chinese have far more experience developing, competing, deploying, and using AESA radars than the Russians (even the J-11D has an AESA radar as opposed to the Su-35's PESA).
 
However that wont justify the "do not worry" part.
Well, to the extent that China flies the big J-15 from Jiaoning and will from its cloned sister, it faces the same limitations as the Su-33s of the Kuznetsov. Don't expect the number of J-15s that can be carried to be very much larger than on Kuznetsov: increased hangar space, if any, came at a cost of deleting the 12 (625 km P-700 Granit supersonic) antiship missiles on the original design.
 
does it reduce the threat?
indian nuclear tests were reported to be failed. does this mean that the threat don't exist?
It will be a better known and understood threat (relative to a clean sheet design), which makes for greater predictability and that helps reduce risk. I'm not discussing the off-topic bit on indian nuclear tests.
 
We Should Build One Too

I ought to give you a negative rating for repeating this without properly analyzing how it fits in the PNs doctrine, what threats or concerns would mandate or necessitate the use of an aircraft carrier (not a Gator Navy type LHA or LPD, but a true carrier), how the Pakistan can support such a system with no naval aviation to speak of, a limited budget compared to the cost of the carrier, no trained or qualified personal, and no facilities to support or maintain such an asset.

Stop repeating this, it's getting tiresome. You do know that these are major investments and simply having the asset doesn't equal the capability to use it, right? Thailand has an older carrier, but it almost never leaves port, they have few qualified pilots and few aircraft carrier capable airframes, and little monetary assets to support the platform. It's a white elephant that'd be better replaced with a dock landing ship. Simply having the carrier, like Thailand, doesn't equal the capability to use it.

Chakri_Naruebet_2001_stern_view.JPEG


Or replaced with a hybrid like an Afloat Forward Staging Base.



sdadda.jpg


Pakistan should not build a carrier. It can't afford one, they don't fit into Pakistan's doctrine of coastal/near shore defense, it doesn't have people qualified to maintain, build or staff one, it doesn't have pilots or carrier capable aircraft, it doesn't have ships that'd be able to support extended carrier ops, like these:

IMG_1327.t5806feba.m1600.x560f436d.jpg


Pakistan should NOT build an aircraft carrier. At most it should invest in an LSD type of ship to support limited amphibious operations.

USS_Harpers_Ferry_(LSD_49).jpg


Or an LPD, but not a carrier (short or long deck).

US_Navy_080923-N-1082Z-038_The_amphibious_transport_dock_ship_USS_San_Antonio_%28LPD_17%29_transits_through_the_Suez_Canal.jpg


If you can't explain how Pakistan would support, maintain, staff and afford the cost of the ship and how it fits into Pakistan current or future doctrine, then stop writing about it. It's getting tiresome and reeks greatly of ignorance.

increased hangar space, if any, came at a cost of deleting the 12 (625 km P-700 Granit supersonic) antiship missiles on the original design.

A good trade off in my estimation, and Russia's Kuznetsov is having them removed too (albeit not at the moment, it's a planned refit), in place of increased hanger space.

ddcca_0.jpg


axltw7k.jpg


Really a unique floating castle. Other carriers have air defense missiles beyond the types of ESSM (some having a VLS too. Japan's Hyuga comes to mind, using its VLS for both ESSMS and ASROC), but none have the offensive firepower the Kuznetsov and her kin did in terms of missiles.


So claims the fool that can't properly support their views or explain how or why the PN even needs or supports these assets, just repeating the same broken claim that the PN should build a career as if stuck on repeat.

Try answering my questions. Why does the PN need one? How do its current ships, being mostly frigates and missile boats, support extended carrier ops? Where's the money come from? How does Pakistan rectify not having carrier capable aircraft of personal or maintenance support? You can't actually answer those questions can you?

So you resort to insulting me instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, to the extent that China flies the big J-15 from Jiaoning and will from its cloned sister, it faces the same limitations as the Su-33s of the Kuznetsov. Don't expect the number of J-15s that can be carried to be very much larger than on Kuznetsov: increased hangar space, if any, came at a cost of deleting the 12 (625 km P-700 Granit supersonic) antiship missiles on the original design.
Sir that was very informative but my point was it do not mean or justifies " do not worry" part!!

J15 or Su33, 50 planes or 10, this is an addition, progress, one more ship to deal with, few more planes to keep an eye on. In short, something that the enemy should be worried about unless they are smoking weed and think they can defeat it with boasting and chest thumping alone.
 
I ought to give you a negative rating for repeating this without properly analyzing how it fits in the PNs doctrine, what threats or concerns would mandate or necessitate the use of an aircraft carrier (not a Gator Navy type LHA or LPD, but a true carrier), how the Pakistan can support such a system with no naval aviation to speak of, a limited budget compared to the cost of the carrier, no trained or qualified personal, and no facilities to support or maintain such an asset.

Stop repeating this, it's getting tiresome. You do know that these are major investments and simply having the asset doesn't equal the capability to use it, right? Thailand has an older carrier, but it almost never leaves port, they have few qualified pilots and few aircraft carrier capable airframes, and little monetary assets to support the platform. It's a white elephant that'd be better replaced with a dock landing ship. Simply having the carrier, like Thailand, doesn't equal the capability to use it.

Or replaced with a hybrid like an Afloat Forward Staging Base.

Pakistan should not build a carrier. It can't afford one, they don't fit into Pakistan's doctrine of coastal/near shore defense, it doesn't have people qualified to maintain, build or staff one, it doesn't have pilots or carrier capable aircraft, it doesn't have ships that'd be able to support extended carrier ops, like these:

Pakistan should NOT build an aircraft carrier. At most it should invest in an LSD type of ship to support limited amphibious operations.

Or an LPD, but not a carrier (short or long deck).

If you can't explain how Pakistan would support, maintain, staff and afford the cost of the ship and how it fits into Pakistan current or future doctrine, then stop writing about it. It's getting tiresome and reeks greatly of ignorance.

Good points!

Here is how e.g. the Malaysian navy has picked up the task of anti-piracy patrols (a long way away from Malaysia), using using the Auxiliary Ships MT Bunga Mas Lima (BM5) and Bunga Mas Enam (BM6). These are container freighters purchased by the Royal Malaysian Navy and converted into an auxiliary ship. Conversion including modification to accommodate extra crew, fittings for launching rigid hull inflatable boats, a helicopter deck to accommodate landing and a hangar. The foreword crane of Bunga Mas Lima was taken out since it inhibited helicopter landing while the 2nd crane were rested to the starboard side of the ship above the hangar. Labeled as auxiliary vessel and manned by MISC crews, conscripted into the navy reserve, with Malaysian Armed Forces special operations on board, these ship signal what can be done in the absence of purpose-built multipurpose support ships or lpds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT_Bunga_Mas_Lima

These ships are 133m length overall, with a beam of 23m and draught of 7.5 m. Gross tonnage is 9404 tons
Ship data details from https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/BUNGA-MAS-LIMA-IMO-9121675-MMSI-533167000

Main dimensions

Length overall 132.8 m
Breadth mld 22.7 m
Draught design 7.5 m
Depth 10.8 m
DWT 9000 t
Service speed 17 kn
Container capacity 699 TEU

Source + Detail photo's http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/gallery/view.html?b_bbs_id=10044&num=138133

bm56.jpg


lutFo9-x9JyTftH7l_wNunFH7zqfZ7_awzlP2mVbpChQQ4YUJQrGkTJwnTNJDA9hjH08ycZG1UGdh1XyLJbVxg51hsE6U6inavv_OD5UDdYhsYZp6Q=s0-d


S1603-19-Bunga-Mas-Lima-2002.jpg
 
See also conversions of merchants into:

RFA Atlantic Conveyor
Atlantic-Conveyor-during-conversion-03.jpg


RFA Atlantic Causeway (sistership)
Atlantic-Causeway-03.jpg

Atlantic-Causeway-1.jpg


RFA Argus (former M/V Contender Bezant)
bezant.jpg

a135.jpg


RFA Reliant (ex merchant Astronomer)
Early conversion
astronom.jpg

MV-Astronomer-08.jpg


- Final conversion (US Arapaho concept)
RFA-Reliant-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom