Well, if China is in such a rush to build two Carriers and she could do so in only six years. Why has she not returned the ex-Varyag to service. Clearly, a much easier undertaking than two brand new ships.

Its not like the bigwigs in Beijing made a new years resolution to invade Africa in 2015, they have all the time they want. If China set a deadline of 6 years, if means thats how long they calculate it will take.

As for the Varyag, well who says it won’t be returned to service? They have been working on her for years, and recent information would suggest that there is a good chance that the PLAN wants her to be seaworthy in 2-4 years.

That would give them another 2-4 years to test concepts, develop tactics and train crews so the new-built indigenous boats would have experienced crews and sound tactics as soon as they come from the yards.

Wanshan:

As I have said before, an important factor that you might not have considered is that for all the carrier types you listed, all of them were trying to push out the envelop of their respective nation’s carrier tech, to produce something bigger, better and more powerful then anything that has come before.

China has an advantage over all the others in that they have the past lessons of many to learn from, and most likely have mature technology and design philosophies to draw upon. They may have an even bigger head start if they are basing their carrier on the Varyag, because the bulk of the design work has already been done and validated.

As for the dry dock. Well the new Shanhai yard has only one, but so has Dalian, and who has been studying the Varyag all these years?

If they can build one in 6 years, they can build two, side-by-side in the same time, as they have done with all of their newest heavy surface combatants.

All this ‘China never done that before’ line is getting very old. Not only has China been mass producing ships larger then carriers (super tankers, LNG tankers etc), it has also been building ships more complex then carriers (nuclear subs). What more, China has also spent the last several decades methodically studying carrier designs from as many sources of it can get their hands on.

China’s first carriers will not be some ground-breaking revolutionary ship that will change the nature of carrier ops forever, it will be a modest distillation of all the different designs over the past 50 years that best suits China’s needs, tactics, budget and technology. That sets it markedly apart from the vast majority of all the other carriers that have come before it, and that makes the whole project a lot easier.

Wanshan

I think a lot will depend on how advanced the PLAN wants to make their carriers. Most of the carriers in your list are nuclear, not conventional, and most are America super-carriers, which are larger then what the PLAN plans and consequently would take longer to build.

If the PLAN chooses to take the Varyag as the basic design and then only make some modest changes, then they may well be able to turn out a pair of carriers in 6 years.

I think it won’t be the building, but rather the shake down that will take the PLAN longer then normal, and that is probably why they are even considering returning the Varyag to service – so they can train the crews and develop the tactics so they can put the new carriers to operational use after only a short shake down, instead of wasting years trying to figure out how best to run and use them.

Obviously, a stationary ship would not require propulsion, nor a defensive weapons/sensor suite. Though this may not be correct, I tought that carriers turn into the wind at speed to launch aircraft. So, I’m not sure that a (loaded) SU-33 can take of from a stationary ship, which would kind of limit the value of the ship for training. Also, if a (loaded) Su-33 could take of from a stationary training ship, what – if any – is the training advantage of a stationary training vessel over a (much cheaper) land based stationary practise site?

Carriers tend to turn into the wind to give their planes a little more airspeed over the wings. But in most cases that is not going to be more then 50,60 knots combined, and will most likely be a lot less in most conditions, so the difference is going to be negligible. Especially for training, when the planes will not be carrying warloads and could easily opt to go up half-tanked or less to further save on weight.

Even a stationary carrier will have many advantages over land based tracks, chief of which would be the psychological effect (or more precisely, the conquering of) of trying to land on a tiny moving deck in the ocean.

The movement of the ship in the water will also be something no land based strip could hope to simulate.

What I see as the biggest issues with a non-power deck would be the facing of the ship and its movement.

Carriers not only face into wind for take-offs, but also for landings. If the ship is not powered, then that would be pretty difficult to do. But if the carrier is not facing the right direction, a crosswind could make a landing much more difficult. What more, a powered ship moving at speed will also bob and sway a lot less then a ship drifting on the currents, which would add again to the level of difficulty.

All that would make the training a lot more difficult then it need be. True you want to train your crews well to be able to handle extremely difficult conditions out in the real world, but there is little need to make the learning curve so steep. Especially when you consider what would be put at risk.

Any info on how many helos the task force is packing? The destroyers can house one apiece, and I think the supply ship also has a hanger, but the quest is, is it making use of it?

From the looks of the numbers and equipment, it would seem that the PLAN plan to deploy SF teams with heavy weapons on some merchant ships as they enter the danger zone to provide maximum coverage, while the helos would act as a rapid response force, with the destroyers and their embarked patrol craft doing a circuit patrol.

Here is one …

http://www.afwing.com/intro/idf-1.htm

Deino

How authentic is that picture? The Config C drawing looks uncannily like the Mig29 while the ‘404’ design seems like the spitting image of the F16XL. Many of the other drawings look a little familiar but I do not have time to look into the details right now.