What's new

Chinese Carrier Battle Group

looking at a couple of things, could China be doing the American thing?

America started with Kitty Hawk, onto Enterprise, then to the Nimitz, of course, our first three home made isn't going to be on that level, maybe the last one, but could we be doing one a class, then mass produce the last one, if it fits. I mean there could be a fifth one if the fourth one isn't up to standard, but it looks to me that is the direction we are going.

either way, by looking at the naval ambitions, it's clear a few Soviet era carriers are not going to satisfy requirements.
 
.
looking at a couple of things, could China be doing the American thing?

America started with Kitty Hawk, onto Enterprise, then to the Nimitz, of course, our first three home made isn't going to be on that level, maybe the last one, but could we be doing one a class, then mass produce the last one, if it fits. I mean there could be a fifth one if the fourth one isn't up to standard, but it looks to me that is the direction we are going.

either way, by looking at the naval ambitions, it's clear a few Soviet era carriers are not going to satisfy requirements.
You mean learning to walk before running, yes makes sense unless you're Indians. They want to run before knowing how to crawl.
 
.
looking at a couple of things, could China be doing the American thing?

America started with Kitty Hawk, onto Enterprise, then to the Nimitz, of course, our first three home made isn't going to be on that level, maybe the last one, but could we be doing one a class, then mass produce the last one, if it fits. I mean there could be a fifth one if the fourth one isn't up to standard, but it looks to me that is the direction we are going.

either way, by looking at the naval ambitions, it's clear a few Soviet era carriers are not going to satisfy requirements.

After the Type 001A, our next carrier is the modernized Kitty Hawk, then we will skip the Nimitz class and jump directly though the Gerald Ford class.

001A -> Improved Varyag
002-> Modernized Kitty Hawk
003-> Gerald Ford
 
.
So we are developing carriers with outdated technology. I'd rather have no carrier rather than building outdated junk.

No innovation whatsoever in the Chinese-Military Industrial Complex.

We will always be an imitator, never an innovator like the western countries.

This is not just a military problem, even in the civilian economy, there is no breakthrough innovations.
 
.
After the Type 001A, our next carrier is the modernized Kitty Hawk, then we will skip the Nimitz class and jump directly though the Gerald Ford class.

001A -> Improved Varyag
002-> Modernized Kitty Hawk
003-> Gerald Ford

But how? Is Chinese Shipyard advance enough to build an 100,000+ ton AC with an US Navy style arrestor catapult, logistic supply, complex electronics (and don't get started on water pluming, hydrologics and distillation systems and nuclear propulsion). Besides, even if China can build an Ford level AC, aren't Chinese shipyards in Dalian, Shanghai, Xi amen at full capacity? China probably has 70 new naval vessels being built now (Type 52s, Type 96, Type 053 etc) and an carrier like the Ford needs more material, and more importantly, manpower and machinery.

So we are developing carriers with outdated technology. I'd rather have no carrier rather than building outdated junk.

No innovation whatsoever in the Chinese-Military Industrial Complex.

We will always be an imitator, never an innovator like the western countries.

This is not just a military problem, even in the civilian economy, there is no breakthrough innovations.

Damn that's pessimistic :laughcry:. Chinese has technological break through, esp in maritime exploration e.g. New deep water Submersibles in the Pacific.
 
.
We need:

- Type 055 cruisers (20)
- Type 052D destroyers (20)
- Type 054B or Type 057 frigates (20)
- Type 056A corvettes (30)

- Type 095 SSN (20)
- Type 096 SSBN with JL-3 SLBM (10)

- Type 901 AOR (20)

- Type 071A LPD (10)

- Type 075 LHD (10)
 
. . .
Z-20 was a shameful copy of the Blackhawk.
Could it be possible that the blackhawk had the best design possible for a heli? Look at cars, all high performance cars are low to the ground, aerodynamic, etc. You will not see a high powered sports car that is track capable sitting high like an SUV.
 
.
Could it be possible that the blackhawk had the best design possible for a heli? Look at cars, all high performance cars are low to the ground, aerodynamic, etc. You will not see a high powered sports car that is track capable sitting high like an SUV.

PLAAF requirement for the helo is, it must be able to store inside hanger of frigates and easy transport by Y-20. In that case, blackhawk design indeeds fit best for all the scenario for transportation.

Z--20 could have fitted with foldable landing gears like the NH-90H but its take up volume and in emergency crash. Fixed gears will be more practical and easier to maintain.
 
.
if copying is the buzz word for establishing a weaponry industry there are tens of thousands of pictures and drafts on the net for blackhawks, f-22 missiles rockets stealth ships
somalian pirates will be the next arms exporter of the world
grow a brain and stfu!
 
.
So we are developing carriers with outdated technology. I'd rather have no carrier rather than building outdated junk.

No innovation whatsoever in the Chinese-Military Industrial Complex.

We will always be an imitator, never an innovator like the western countries.

This is not just a military problem, even in the civilian economy, there is no breakthrough innovations.

Building an aircraft carrier platform is not an easy task.

No joke, USA is at least 50 years more advanced in the aircraft carrier platform compared to the rest of the world.

You can't innovate without to play the catch up mode first.

China is becoming innovative in the other areas, but in this domain of aircraft carrier, we have to admit that we are still toddler compared to USA, this is the reality, not boasting our ego.

We should be capable to build the supercarrier that is comparable to the Gerald Ford class after 2020.

But how? Is Chinese Shipyard advance enough to build an 100,000+ ton AC with an US Navy style arrestor catapult, logistic supply, complex electronics (and don't get started on water pluming, hydrologics and distillation systems and nuclear propulsion). Besides, even if China can build an Ford level AC, aren't Chinese shipyards in Dalian, Shanghai, Xi amen at full capacity? China probably has 70 new naval vessels being built now (Type 52s, Type 96, Type 053 etc) and an carrier like the Ford needs more material, and more importantly, manpower and machinery.

The most crucial parts for us is the EMALS and the new type of nuclear reactors.

With the break through of these technologies, then it would be a problem for China to build a supercarrier like the Gerald Ford class.
 
Last edited:
.
After the Type 001A, our next carrier is the modernized Kitty Hawk, then we will skip the Nimitz class and jump directly though the Gerald Ford class.

001A -> Improved Varyag
002-> Modernized Kitty Hawk
003-> Gerald Ford

Then the Type 001 won't be nuclear powered if it's an upgrade of the Liaoning, I was hoping it would be a smaller version of the Ulyanovsk. 002 using a steam catapult than emals.
 
Last edited:
. .
Building an aircraft carrier platform is not an easy task.

No joke, USA is at least 50 years more advanced in the aircraft carrier platform compared to the rest of the world.

You can't innovate without to play the catch up mode first.

China is becoming innovative in the other areas, but in this domain of aircraft carrier, we have to admit that we are still toddler compared to USA, this is the reality, not boasting our ego.

We should be capable to build the supercarrier that is comparable to the Gerald Ford class after 2020.

I commend you for your very realistic and rational post. Nice to see some realism here and not just hyper-nationalist chest thumping.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom