Further details emerge on China's first indigenous 'aircraft carrier'

[Zarvan]

An image of what is believed to be either China's first indigenous aircraft carrier or a helicopter assault ship, being built at Dalian Shipyard; a structure that could be part of the flight deck and hangar space is seen being added. Source: Chinese internet sources
A section of what appears to be part of a hangar and flight deck has been added to a vessel under construction at Dalian Shipyard that could be China's first indigenous aircraft carrier.

The section can be seen in a photograph published on a Chinese military enthusiasts' website. IHS Janes analysis of Airbus Space & Defence satellite imagery published on 25 September suggested that the ship could be China's first indigenous aircraft carrier or possibly a helicopter assault ship.

The form of the latest module, with a large open compartment, three decks high, and taking up much of the width of the ship, adds further evidence to this conclusion.

Until it becomes clear whether an angled flight deck is to be installed, it remains possible that the vessel could be either a carrier (CV) or an assault ship (LHA), as a large hangar and flight deck would be a feature of both. However, with a waterline length in excess of 270 m, if it is an assault ship it would be bigger than a 45,000-tonne America-class LHA, the largest in the US Navy (USN).

Furthermore, there has been a lot of semi-official and media comment in China about the People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN's) carrier programme, so there is an increasing expectation that it is the first carrier to be built in China.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options ihs.com/contact




To read the full article, Client Login
(246 of 490 words)

Further details emerge on China's first indigenous 'aircraft carrier' - IHS Jane's 360

 

[Akasa]

Anyone know any details pertaining to the construction of the Type 002?

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

To be very frank, China shouldn't focus its energies on aircraft carriers right now.

Aircraft carriers are force projection tools, which China doesn't need in the near future upto at least 2030.

Right now, the battle or the competition is in the Chinese littorals, where frankly, China doesn't need any aircraft carriers, as it has the home advantage.

It should rather focus on submarines, and ASW capabilities. It's submarines, I hear, have the same noise levels as 80s era Russian submarines.

Now some may disagree, but I tend to agree here.

Why?

Because the most important thing for a noiseless submarine is the nuclear naval propulsion system, a thing where China has very limited experience. Xi Jinping is on record mentioning that he is interested in Russian nuclear icebreaker technology.

China has had very few nuclear submarines. It should focus on nuclear propulsion.

A diesel submarine can never take the place of nuclear submarines, because of the difference in endurance, speed, and longetivity.

Essentially if China had a submarine similar to modern US SSN, then Chinese littorals are already untouchable.

@cnleio Would you like to comment?

 

[terranMarine]

I don't see what the problem is when we are working on both

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

I don't see what the problem is when we are working on both

Focus. Everyone, has to have their priorities, and strategies. I don't think an aircraft carrier is as necessary for China.

 

[terranMarine]

Focus. Everyone, has to have their priorities, and strategies. I don't think an aircraft carrier is as necessary for China.

Your opinion is not relevant to the PLA.

 

[cnleio]

To be very frank, China shouldn't focus its energies on aircraft carriers right now.

Aircraft carriers are force projection tools, which China doesn't need in the near future upto at least 2030.

Right now, the battle or the competition is in the Chinese littorals, where frankly, China doesn't need any aircraft carriers, as it has the home advantage.

It should rather focus on submarines, and ASW capabilities. It's submarines, I hear, have the same noise levels as 80s era Russian submarines.

Now some may disagree, but I tend to agree here.

Why?

Because the most important thing for a noiseless submarine is the nuclear naval propulsion system, a thing where China has very limited experience. Xi Jinping is on record mentioning that he is interested in Russian nuclear icebreaker technology.

China has had very few nuclear submarines. It should focus on nuclear propulsion.

A diesel submarine can never take the place of nuclear submarines, because of the difference in endurance, speed, and longetivity.

Essentially if China had a submarine similar to modern US SSN, then Chinese littorals are already untouchable.

@cnleio Would you like to comment?

I agree with u about China should focus on nuclear-sub ... China Navy really lack enough nuclear-sbu to use, and our nuclear-sub quality still weaker than USN.

About construction of aircraft carrier, i think current China building capacity can build the whole A.C Strick Group in 5~7x years, until to 2025 there will be 4x China aircraft carriers.

My opinion is nuclear-sub and aircraft carrier should build together ... Chinese also need 20 years time to training our aircraft carrier and naval aviation.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Your opinion is not relevant to the PLA.

Of course. I am sure neither is yours relevant. We are just discussing here, right?

I agree with u about China should focus on nuclear-sub ... China Navy really lack enough nuclear-sbu to use, and our nuclear-sub quality still weaker than USN.

About construction of aircraft carrier, i think current China building capacity can build the whole A.C Strick Group in 5~7x years, until to 2025 there will be 4x China aircraft carriers.

My opinion is nuclear-sub and aircraft carrier should build together ... Chinese also need 20 years time to training our aircraft carrier and naval aviation.

I am in no way suggesting that China should give away its aircraft carrier programs.

I only think, that the focus should be on nuclear subs, better torpedos, UAC, UUVs, and similar platforms.

An aircraft carrier is sitting duck, if enough resources can be mobilized.

China can continue its aircraft carrier program to learn to maintain a strike group, as well as all the training that goes into an aircraft carrier.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Of course. I am sure neither is yours relevant. We are just discussing here, right?



I am in no way suggesting that China should give away its aircraft carrier programs.

I only think, that the focus should be on nuclear subs, better torpedos, UAC, UUVs, and similar platforms.

An aircraft carrier is sitting duck, if enough resources can be mobilized.

China can continue its aircraft carrier program to learn to maintain a strike group, as well as all the training that goes into an aircraft carrier.

Well you are known for being a very anti-China poster, so you can understand if people take your suggestions with a pinch (or a fistful) of salt.

As Terran said, we can work on both at the same time. And we are.

 

[terranMarine]

Well you are known for being a very anti-China poster, so you can understand if people take your suggestions with a pinch (or a fistful) of salt.

As Terran said, we can work on both at the same time. And we are.

We don't suggest India or other countries what assets to build or not to build or what to delay. Bussard's advice is just useless for discussion. PLA work on many projects simultaneously just like what the US has been doing all along. So what's the problem?

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Well you are known for being a very anti-China poster, so you can understand if people take your suggestions with a pinch (or a fistful) of salt.

As Terran said, we can work on both at the same time. And we are.

How am an "anti-China" poster?

I think I am a very pro-China poster.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

How am an "anti-China" poster?

I think I am a very pro-China poster.

Can you find me one single Chinese member who considers you to be pro-China?

Your posts are very much anti-China. That's not a sin however, and to your credit at least you are polite about it.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Well you are known for being a very anti-China poster, so you can understand if people take your suggestions with a pinch (or a fistful) of salt.

As Terran said, we can work on both at the same time. And we are.

Raising legitimate concerns about the country is not "anti-China," rather it is the most pro-China thing there can be.

Anti-China means being against the core interests of China, or against Chinese progress, and have a racist, visceral attitude towards Chinese.

Can you find me one single Chinese member who considers you to be pro-China?

Your posts are very much anti-China. That's not a sin however, and to your credit at least you are polite about it.

May be not here. But in real life, I have been called "wumao" more times than I can recall.

I have China's best interests in my mind, but here, I tend to focus on the challenges that China will face, because the positive thing is already written by you guys, while no one talks about challenges and problems. Every country faces challenges.

We don't suggest India or other countries what assets to build or not to build or what to delay. Bussard's advice is just useless for discussion. PLA work on many projects simultaneously just like what the US has been doing all along. So what's the problem?

Of course it is only for discussion.

Also, I am not talking about simultaneous construction, but rather the focus. The focus should be on subs, stealth fighters, bombers, UAVs, UUVs, and C4ISR.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Raising legitimate concerns about the country is not "anti-China," rather it is the most pro-China thing there can be.

Every anti-China foreigner claims to have legitimate concerns about what the Chinese Government is doing wrong.

Literally every single one.

It's actually the only thing that they have in common.

I have China's best interests in my mind.

I don't believe that for a second.

But again, at least you are polite.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Every anti-China foreigner claims to have legitimate concerns about what the Chinese Government is doing wrong.

Literally every single one.

It's actually the only thing that they have in common.



I don't believe that for a second.

But again, at least you are polite.

Look at my whole history, and tell me where I talk anything against core Chinese interests of territorial integrity etc.

The most that I talk about is legitimate challenges that China faces, like economic reform, demographic issues, political evolution etc.

I can't go any beyond this, I hope you can differentiate people's intentions better.