'China says aircraft carrier to be used for research and training'

Tabnabs · 27-07-2011 2:58pm #1

Pull the other one it has bells on it...

China has officially acknowledged that it is rebuilding an aircraft carrier it bought more than a decade ago, but says the refurbished ship will be used only for research and training.

A defence ministry spokesman, Geng Yansheng, told reporters on Wednesday that work was under way on refitting an old carrier, a reference to the Varyag, whose stripped-down hull was towed from Ukraine in 1998 and has been under reconstruction for the best part of a decade.

"Building an aircraft carrier is extremely complex and at present we are using a scrapped aircraft carrier platform to carry out refurbishment for the purposes of technological research, experiments and training," Geng said.

China has only recently acknowledged work was proceeding at the northern port of Dalian. The chief of staff, Chen Bingde, was quoted by a Hong Kong newspaper in June as saying the vessel was being outfitted, but gave no completion date.

Other reports say sea trials for the carrier could begin as early as this summer, a move likely to further worry neighbours amid heightened tensions over territorial disputes around Taiwan and in the South China Sea.

Geng's comments appear to indicate China has no plans to deploy the ship as part of a battle group, but is preparing to build its own carriers.

Defence experts say up to four carriers are planned, with preparations under way at a Shanghai shipyard.

Activity aboard the ship has picked up in recent weeks, with photographs on the websites of military enthusiast showing workers removing heavy equipment from its the flight deck.

Yet to be officially renamed, the carrier was bought as an empty shell without engines, weapons systems, or other crucial equipment.

China's moves toward deploying a carrier or carriers raises the stakes for the US, long the pre-eminent naval power in Asia, and jangles the nerves of neighbouring countries upset over Beijing's more assertive posture in enforcing claims to disputed territories.

Over the past year, China has seen a flare-up in territorial disputes with Japan, Philippines and Vietnam and seen its relations strained with South Korea. All countries have turned to Washington for support.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/china-aircraft-carrier-defence?CMP=twt_fd

Once they do get up and running with carriers, the fun and games with the US can begin. There's even talk of them building a naval base in Pakistan.

johngalway · 27-07-2011 7:29pm

Not sure the USA will be too worried, they've been practicing to sink flat tops for quite a while now. The Chinese will learn there's a big, big bullseye painted on that ship soon enough. Good point about regional neighbours having concerns though.

Manach · 27-07-2011 8:01pm

Offhand they are one step up from the Soviets who never got their blue-fleet carrier built. Still, I reckon one does not just built a carrier without the significant naval support structure to go with it.

banie01 · 27-07-2011 9:36pm

Manach wrote: »

Offhand they are one step up from the Soviets who never got their blue-fleet carrier built. Still, I reckon one does not just built a carrier without the significant naval support structure to go with it.

While I know the Chinese have a carrier construction program in hand I'm at a loss to see how you can say they are one step up from the Soviets?
They are using an ex-Soviet carrier(Albeit an incomplete 1)
The Carrier mentioned in the above article is ex Ukrainanian(post USSR) Admiral Kuznetov Class ship Varyag.
The Russians currently have 1 of this class in Service as the flagship of their fleet and indeed the ship makes routine Mediterrenean deployments, and is due a major refit and airgroup expansion in @2012.

In the far east India has far more ambitious carrier plans backed by their own many years of carrier operating experience.
They currently have 1 carrier in service(Ex HMS Hermes) 1 ex USSR Kiev Class Hybrid cruiser carrier due to enter service in 2012.
Along with one 50000ton class carrier under construction and 2 more expected to be ordered......quite a few years lead on the Chinese!

seanmacc · 28-07-2011 12:30am

This carrier is going to be used to train crews, get the officers up to speed on capabilities and using it as a way of figuring out how to sink enemy carriers. I can guarantee that they'll be firing out carriers to beat the band in a couple of years, this is a way to hit the ground running.

What aircraft have China got that are carrier compatible and could rival what the yanks have?

BlaasForRafa · 28-07-2011 2:15am

seanmacc wrote: »

This carrier is going to be used to train crews, get the officers up to speed on capabilities and using it as a way of figuring out how to sink enemy carriers. I can guarantee that they'll be firing out carriers to beat the band in a couple of years, this is a way to hit the ground running.

What aircraft have China got that are carrier compatible and could rival what the yanks have?

They have Su-27s and their own version the Shenyang J-11 which could presumably be navalized like the Su-33 on the original russian Kuznetzov carrier, or they could just buy navalized flankers straight from the russians.

As you said, this is just a pilot project for the chinese, the air wing on this type of carrier is small compared to a US carrier plus its powered by conventional steam turbines rather than a nuclear powerplant so its performance wouldn't be on a par with american carriers. More interesting will be the next generation of carriers, if they're bigger and use nuclear power then that could put the wind up a lot of countries.

Lemming · 28-07-2011 1:26pm

Could also be an answer to the issue of China's current inability to keep more than a few dozen fighters in the air for a prolonged period of time due to limited in-flight refuelling capabilities. With a carrier, they would extend their influence/force projection as the aircraft don't need to travel particularly far from their base of operations.

As reference, I've lifted the following from a recent article on Wired.com

Take, for example, aerial refueling. To deploy large numbers of effective aerial tankers requires the ability to build and support large jet engines — something China cannot yet do. In-air refueling also demands planning and coordination beyond anything the PLA has ever pulled off. As a result, “tanker aircraft are in short supply” in the PLA, Wayne Ulman explained.

That’s putting it lightly. According to Chinese Aerospace Power, the entire PLA operates just 14 H-6U tankers, each carrying 17,000 kilograms of off-loadable fuel. (The U.S. Air Force alone possesses more than 500 tankers, each off-loading around 100,000 kilograms of fuel.) So while the PLA in theory boasts more than 1,500 jet fighters, in reality it can refuel only 50 or 60 at a time, assuming all the H-6 tankers are working perfectly.

In an air war over Taiwan, hundreds of miles from most Chinese bases, only those 50 fighters would be able to spend more than a few minutes’ flight time over the battlefield. Factoring in tankers, China’s 4–1 advantage in jet fighters compared to Taiwan actually shrinks to a roughly 7&ndash1 disadvantage. The gap only grows when you add U.S. fighters to the mix.

Tabnabs · 28-07-2011 1:54pm

Interesting about the tankers. Did a quick google to take a look at one and found this nugget

The PLA has reportedly ordered 8 Russian Il-78 Midas refuelling tankers as a supplement to its existing H-6 tanker fleet.

source

28-07-2011 5:48pm

I'm gonna be leaving the country soon, so my RDF days are pretty much behind me. I left with the parting words "Well if the Russians, or Chinese, or zombies, or aliens come and threaten Ireland, I'll be back to take my place."

Stuff like this it sure makes it look like I'd have to keep airfare to get back to Dublin wherever I go......

(I wonder how long I'll be on the books in the unit?)

Overheal · 29-07-2011 6:21pm

Hmm, something delicious to fire a MAC at.

Varyag (Russian: Варяг) was to be an Admiral Kuznetsov class multirole aircraft carrier of the Soviet Union. She was known as Riga[2] when her keel was laid down at Shipyard 444 (now Nikolayev South) in Nikolayev December 6, 1985.[3] Design of the carrier was undertaken by the Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau.[4] She was launched December 4, 1988, but she was renamed Varyag (Varangian) in late 1990, after the famous Russian cruiser.

Construction stopped by 1992, with the ship structurally complete but without electronics. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, ownership was transferred to Ukraine; the ship was laid up, unmaintained, then stripped. In early 1998, she lacked engines, a rudder, and much of her operating systems, and was put up for auction.

It was purchased at auction for US$20 million by Chong Lot Travel Agency, a company widely believed to be a front for Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)[5] Chong Lot stated that the ship would become a floating entertainment center and casino in the Chinese SAR of Macau. However, this has been proven incorrect as the ship is docked in Dalian and painted PLAN grey. The Chinese Navy has reportedly named the carrier Shi Lang and received delivery of the ship in October 2010.[6] Defense News and Intelligence sources claim that the ship has been refitted and will be put through Sea Trials in the summer of 2011.[7]

On June 8, 2011 the chief of China's General Staff of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has confirmed that China's first aircraft carrier is under construction.[8]

You can bet safely it's not for training exercises. They've lied about everything regarding it up to this point.

Buffman · 31-07-2011 4:04pm

Overheal wrote: »

You can bet safely it's not for training exercises. They've lied about everything regarding it up to this point.

Yep, they already built a concrete replica of Varyag about 2 years ago apparently, so presumably they've been using that for training.

Not China's first concrete carrier either, there's a replica US carrier near Shanghai, but it houses a museum.

Lanaier · 02-08-2011 6:10am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm gonna be leaving the country soon, so my RDF days are pretty much behind me. I left with the parting words "Well if the Russians, or Chinese, or zombies, or aliens come and threaten Ireland, I'll be back to take my place."

Stuff like this it sure makes it look like I'd have to keep airfare to get back to Dublin wherever I go......

(I wonder how long I'll be on the books in the unit?)

Yes, the chances of that carrier being used to somehow attack Ireland are quite high.

There is also an old Ukranian carrier being used as a museum (and for raves) near Tianjin.
Must have been a slow news day for the guardian, this story is a couple of months old.

Morpheus · 03-08-2011 10:50am

you remain on the books for 2 years before going on the non effective list (i think!)

BlaasForRafa · 03-08-2011 4:15pm

Buffman wrote: »

Yep, they already built a concrete replica of Varyag about 2 years ago apparently, so presumably they've been using that for training.

Not China's first concrete carrier either, there's a replica US carrier near Shanghai, but it houses a museum.

What kind of training would the chinese be using the concrete carrier for?

When the russians want to practive carrier take off and landings they use a normal runway with the outlines of a carrier painted on and ramp built on it

pegasus1 · 03-08-2011 5:37pm

they built the carrier, now they've just realised they don't know how it works!

pegasus1 · 03-08-2011 5:43pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

When the russians want to practive carrier take off and landings they use a normal runway with the outlines of a carrier painted on and ramp built on it

so do the americans re their version of the harrier, this was mentioned on the ark royal docu on a while back..

Buffman · 04-08-2011 1:11am

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

What kind of training would the chinese be using the concrete carrier for?

Crew training possibly, save them having 1500+ 'rookies' on board their first carrier and maybe decrease the on board training time.

Fred Cohen · 04-08-2011 11:58pm

Lemming wrote: »

Could also be an answer to the issue of China's current inability to keep more than a few dozen fighters in the air for a prolonged period of time due to limited in-flight refuelling capabilities. With a carrier, they would extend their influence/force projection as the aircraft don't need to travel particularly far from their base of operations.

As reference, I've lifted the following from a recent article on Wired.com

As to the American involvement, how about 4 Chinese carriers (with support groups) to the east of Taiwan and a diplomatic treat "stay the fu*k out or we call in the mortgage on your planes"

Lemming · 05-08-2011 1:53pm

Fred Cohen wrote: »

As to the American involvement, how about 4 Chinese carriers (with support groups) to the east of Taiwan and a diplomatic treat "stay the fu*k out or we call in the mortgage on your planes"

How about "4 Chinese carriers with support groups? I can't believe our luck. Sink 'em Johnny!".

The chinese would not send four carriers + groups all out in one big flotilla or even in the same theatre like that. And in any case, they'd be easy pickings for the US military. Anyone who denies the US naval/air presence is staggering is either willfully deluded or spinning pure agenda.

Thrill · 07-08-2011 3:25pm

Aug. 6 update on Varyag

The PLAN ’88′ crew support ship berthed next to Varyag has left port this afternoon.

According to eye witnesses at Dalian, a large number of people were seen carrying their luggage up the aircraft carrier. “About to sail” flag has been raised on the ship.
Unconfirmed report says a Type 39A SSK, one Type 051C (Shenyang) destroyer, one Sovremenny (Fuzhou) destroyer and one Type 054A (Xuzhou) frigate are nearby to escort the carrier once sea trials start.

http://alert5.com/2011/08/06/aug-6-update-on-varyag/

johngalway · 10-08-2011 11:03am

This from CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/08/10/china.aircraft.carrier/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

One question, what is that in the water on the outside of the carrier? It's a boom or net of some kind?

tricky D · 10-08-2011 4:54pm

Yup, common around .mil ships, anti-sub/torpedo/divers. Check some naval shipyards on Google Earth and you'll find plenty of them. Eg. 36°56'51.91"N 76°19'56.77"W

Cork boy 55 · 10-08-2011 7:01pm

For the sailors sake I hope is does turn out like their high speed rail

http://www.thechinatimes.com/online/2011/08/979.html

This happened the same day as the Norway attack
so a lot of people missed it.

Screen-grab-from-Russia-Today-video-showing-Chinese-rescuers-July-24-2011-working-around-the-wreckage-of-several-train-cars-in-Wenzhou-in-east-Chinas-Zhejiang-province-after-the-high-speed-train-crash-from-the-day-earlier..jpg

Screen-grab-from-Russia-Today-video-showing-Chinese-rescuers-July-24-2011-working-around-the-wreckage-of-several-train-cars-in-Wenzhou-in-east-Chinas-Zhejiang-province-after-the-high-speed-train-crash-from-the-day-earlier..jpg

Tabnabs · 16-08-2011 1:24pm

An interesting read here from a freelance naval strategist (great job title!)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MH17Ad02.html

Excerpt:

However, even if it becomes operational, the carrier and its air groups will be hugely vulnerable and China is unlikely to risk using it in any confrontation with rivals in the South China Sea.

Without catapults or arrester wires, the carrier will not be able to operate any airborne early-warning aircraft needed to provide comprehensive radar coverage for fleets. This means the carrier will have limited area awareness, unable to see or respond to threats beyond the horizon of ship-based radar. Logistical constraints will also limit the time the carrier can spend at sea: the People's Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N) possesses only five seaworthy replenishment ships, none of them over 22,000 tons.

The biggest liability, however, will be inadequate protection. China has two Type 52C destroyers with active phased array radar that enables them to track multiple incoming missiles and aircraft - with four more under construction. But integrating that radar with China's domestically developed HHQ-9 anti-air missiles so they can shoot down supersonic sea-skimming missiles will prove exceptionally challenging. Nor can the carrier rely on sub-surface protection. Without very-low frequency radio communication systems, China's long range patrol submarines would struggle to operate tactically in defense of a carrier group.

cyrusdvirus · 16-08-2011 3:57pm

Fair enough the author writes about difficulties that the PLA-N might have against supersonic sea skimming missiles.

The speed of sound at sea level is generally accepted at 768 mph

Speed of a Harpoon missile is 537 mph.

Tomahawk, speed about 550 mph

Exocet, Speed about 700 mph

Komoran, speed about 684 mph.

Penguin, speed about 684 mph.

That's a list of most of the western anti shipping missiles that i can think of. And if it came down to a firefight, it's quite probable that the Varyag will be up against western missiles.

The Russian Navy missiles generally tend to travel quite a bit faster. The SS-N-19 Shipwreck for example will happily motor along at about 1900mph

Buffman · 16-08-2011 7:20pm

Tabnabs wrote: »

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MH17Ad02.html

Without catapults or arrester wires, the carrier will not be able to operate any airborne early-warning aircraft needed to provide comprehensive radar coverage for fleets. This means the carrier will have limited area awareness, unable to see or respond to threats beyond the horizon of ship-based radar.

I wouldn't really agree with that point, an airborne early-warning aircraft doesn't necessarily have to be an airplane.

[Embedded Image Removed]
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRAm1lxi1otNQ25bot5A5fnkjH86lQZxzUXJpW5HGirx4DTL_uy

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRAm1lxi1otNQ25bot5A5fnkjH86lQZxzUXJpW5HGirx4DTL_uy

Donny5 · 17-08-2011 11:12am

gatecrash wrote: »

Fair enough the author writes about difficulties that the PLA-N might have against supersonic sea skimming missiles.

The speed of sound at sea level is generally accepted at 768 mph

Speed of a Harpoon missile is 537 mph.

Tomahawk, speed about 550 mph

Exocet, Speed about 700 mph

Komoran, speed about 684 mph.

Penguin, speed about 684 mph.

That's a list of most of the western anti shipping missiles that i can think of. And if it came down to a firefight, it's quite probable that the Varyag will be up against western missiles.

The Russian Navy missiles generally tend to travel quite a bit faster. The SS-N-19 Shipwreck for example will happily motor along at about 1900mph

What about the RIM-67. Smaller warhead, but 4,000+ kmph.

cyrusdvirus · 17-08-2011 11:27am

Donny5 wrote: »

What about the RIM-67. Smaller warhead, but 4,000+ kmph.

How many missiles with a 62kg warhead will it take to knock out a carrier?

seanmacc · 17-08-2011 12:11pm

gatecrash wrote: »

How many missiles with a 62kg warhead will it take to knock out a carrier?

One, if you hit the right spot I'd imagine.

banie01 · 17-08-2011 12:40pm

Donny5 wrote: »

What about the RIM-67. Smaller warhead, but 4,000+ kmph.

The RIM-67 is a long range anti aircraft missile with a very very limited secondary anti ship capability.
It is also no longer in service(Retired late 90s early 2000's) having been replaced by RIM-156 which is in turn being replaced by the RIM-174.
The RIM-66/67 if I recall correctly was only tested once in actual anti surface combat.
Against the Iranians in @1988 where 7 or 8 missiles were launched against an Iranian corvette of light alloy and composite construction(Similar to the french La combattante/German Tiger class) with absolutely no armour protection apart from splinter protection on the gunshield ad magazines. And even then the hull burned out and sank over days after being abandoned.
The vessels loss was due more to a serious lack of damage control rather than effective missiles.

seanmacc wrote: »

One, if you hit the right spot I'd imagine.

While the combination of the kinetic energy of the warhead and the blast would have an effect on smaller/unarmoured vessels, on anything from destroyer size up it would be very ineffective.
The fact that the warhead is an annualar blast type with directional fuzing, designed for fragmentation and damaging aircraft will always be a limitation on its potential damage against a hardened target.
It would be a serious threat to personnel in enclosed spaces and light skinned ships in a penetrating explosion, but near useless against armour!

Couple the ineffectiveness of the warhead in the antisurface role with its target being armoured and employing correct/standard arming procedures and a well trained damage control crew...
And honestly barring a spectacularly lucky hit on a munitions trolley or similar(Which due to procedures adopted after the Forrestal disaster in the gulf of Tonkin are kept safe and unfuzed until actually arming aircraft, and provided an object lesson in munitions safety to every Navy in the world) it would be a nigh impossibility.

banie01 · 17-08-2011 12:46pm

Buffman wrote: »

I wouldn't really agree with that point, an airborne early-warning aircraft doesn't necessarily have to be an airplane.

Just goes to show how poorly researched that article is!
Good spot Buffman!
The Brits have been using AEW Seakings since @ 1983, and indeed the spanish are using similar.
The Indians are using a Klimov based AEW chopper they sourced from the Russians from whom I'm sure the Chinese could buy similar...
Heck even the Italians have the Merlin AEW!

'China says aircraft carrier to be used for research and training'

Comments