via IDRW.org
SOURCE: CHINA DAILY MAIL Qianzhan.com said yesterday in its report: China has to put an end to its old practice of countries Following others' footsteps. Sources say que through meticulous engineering and mechanical analysis, China will conduct research and development of the first 180,000-ton double hull aircraft carrier in the world. If successful, it will be the Chinese territory with movable maritime hegemony.This is wild. Crazy. Is it possible? We've seen the idea floating around Chinese military forum sites for a while but could they actually pull this off? That would make one juicy target.
Question. What do we have in inventory that can take out a Chinese Capital Ship? Harpoons? SDB's? JDAM's?
We're going to need new anti-ship missiles.
What's the advantage above and beyond building two smaller ones? Larger types of aircraft I suppose but wouldn't 2 smaller ones be more survivable and more strategically flexible and easier to build?
ReplyDeletemore survivable as in one hit could only sink or put one in dry dock and the other would still be out and about
Deletewell their is the holy grail of aircraft carrier operations...the ability to land C-130 sized airplanes...if you can do that then it opens everything up. you're talking about real bombers operating at sea..not attack aircraft but real deal bombers. additionally double hulled ships are suppose to be more stable and even more capable of handling battle damage.
DeleteFor the purpose of bragging rights, of course. The biggest man made structure(The Great Wall), the greatest palace(The forbidden city), the biggest firewall(The Great Firewall), the tallest building in the world(A 1000 m tall building in construction in China), and now the biggest carrier in the world.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYeah, I guess I get where you guys are comin from, and I can see where it would be more stable and maybe allow for battle damage control (ie less likely to roll over before they can counter-flood or otherwise work on the damage I guess, but its one flight deck to hit rather than two. And contrary to the picture wouldn't having the island off on one side still be the better arrangement than having it in the middle like that?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFWIW, was done in early 60's
Deletehttp://www.aviationguy.com/2013/06/06/c-130-lands-unarrested-on-an-aircraft-carrier/
Cheers
well aware but it was a one off experiment. if it can be done on a regular basis then you have something awesome.
DeleteIt takes a supersonic anti-ship missile to defeat the heat seeking interceptor missile to reach Chinese carriers; Lockheed's JASSM based LRASM missile relying on stealth won't cut it because it can't penetrate the inner layer defense; this is why all of Chinese neighbors, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and India are developing supersonic anti-ship missiles to deal with Chinese carriers and the US is falling behind this supersonic antiship missile race.
ReplyDeleteThere's always subs
Deleteyeah, but we don't know to what standards the Chinese are building their ships. if they're making them armored in the style of battle ships of yesteryear then we're looking at a worst case scenario.
Deleteone thing that's always bothered me is that the Chinese ships are slower than their Western counterparts.
also consider this fact. todays weapons could not sink a WW2 battleship because it was so heavily armored. all our weapons are precision base but small. i just don't know if we could launch enough bombs or missiles to do the job if they armored up correctly.
I could be mistaken but I was under the impression that, back when they were still cruising, the main threat that was considered capable of sinking an Iowa was submarines, HE warhead missiles were considered less dangerous to the armored structure than torpedoes breaching/breaking the hull. Thats probably something I read in Red October rather than anything official but isn't armor somewhat rare on modern warships?
Deletevery rare. i'm only guessing but i can't explain why all the chinese ships are listed as being slower than their western counterparts. my only thought was that it has to be armor. they're not armed any heavier..the electronics wouldn't account for it and they do make world class maritime engines so again, i thought it had to be armor.
DeleteThere is nothing as far as terminal engagement that an SS AShM has or can do that a sub-sonic AShM can do. In fact, supersonic AShMs are extremely easy to detect by both long range defenses and short range defenses. In addition, they are easier to spoof vs imaging stealth AShM like LRASM and NSM. SS AShMs aren't a panacea and aren't inherently better than sub-sonic stealth AShMs. They both use different methods to reduce the engagement window in the terminal phase, but with proper AWACs support, the SS AShM will be detected well before the terminal phase.
DeleteAs far as chinese ships being slower, I would guess engine and propulsion technology gaps rather than armor. The problem with just up-armoring, is that you have to get to effectively battleship levels before it is effective. And even then, you're just a tandem warhead away from it being useless again. 1/2" or 2" steel isn't going to matter to the payload of a modern AShM, it will penetrate both before exploding.
Solomon
DeleteYou don't have to worry about the building standard of Chinese warships. Several Japanese SDF officials boarded Chinese destroyers for a tour, and their impression was that the ship was built by someone who never fought a naval war; there were hardly any flooding and fire control features. The ship had non-sealing wooden doors, for example.
How old/new were those destroyers?
DeleteThe 80s era ones were pretty bad, but I am guessing the last decade has seen huge improvements.
@Slowman
DeleteI don't believe you. I can't see the Chinese allowing SDF personnel onboard one of their frontline DDGs. Just not plausible at all.
The latest rumor on Chinese military sites is that the new "VSTOL" has had it's first flight. Obviously, impossible to know yet if this it true or what exactly are they talking about, not sure if it is the rumored fighter jet "a la F35B" or if the even more rumored Quad rotor tilt rotor. We could be in for one hell of a surprise if it is true, especially since I believe it is the Quad rotor. The Chinese seem to be worried about Marine Corps V22 and I wouldn't surprised at all if they went straight for the Quad rotor, C130 size tilt rotor.
ReplyDeleteIt would silence all the idiots that say that China can only copy Western designs and Russian engines,,,China could build a twin hull carrier, not sure though that they are ready to take such a leap.
The tilt rotor is notoriously dangerous and tricky.
DeleteCHina cannot skip to the super size version unless they want to have a full of disasters and mishaps on their hands.
In reality china needs to start much smaller than the VF-22 and build its way up. It will take them a long time, and yes this is still copying western designs.
this would be a stupid design, just a bigger target and you can sink two for the price of one along with double the airing and crew lost.
ReplyDeleteWhen two ships next to each other would be the exact same thing, could be spread out so they are harder targets, and could be deployed in different places at once.
This would be the epitome of China buying into a saturday morning cartoon image to make up for the fact it doesn't actually have a capable navy, any experience, or any record to be proud of or worth noting.
In my opinion, this design would make china the laughing stock of the world. Try harder to give yourself anything to brag about except what matter will you?
Will,
DeleteWhat the article describes is a catamaran ship, not two hulls welded together.
I see a distinct advantage to a double hull design. Shallower draft for equal displacement verses a monohull of the same displacement. I wonder where China would want a shallow draft aircraft carrier to be stationed? This strikes me more as a power projection platform for the SEAsia theater than a deep strike platform (although it could do that like any other aircraft carrier).
ReplyDeleteThere would NOT be shallower draft for the same displacement. Weight is weight which is displacing water = displacement. One or two hulls at the same weight will displace the same. Therefore no savings in draft.
ReplyDeleteThere would be more stability.
But there much greater, in fact utterly unprecedented structural stresses keeping the two hulls together.
And every multihull pays an immediate weight penalty from that vital connecting structure, thus taking away either load-carrying-capacity or adding draft...
My take is that this is a catamaran carrier with two full length runways, one for landing and one for take off. Bigger the ship is, less takeoff/landing burden it places on the aircraft it hosts. With two 400 m long runways, the Naval J-20 would be able to take off with a full load and landing approach with afterburner off, because there is enough landing runway distance to kick in the afterburner when it misses the arrest wire during landing, instead of approaching with a full afterburner on as is done with current US carrier op.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, the F-35B can be done away with the USMC aviation if the Pentagon is willing to introduce stretched LHDs acting as STOBAR carriers.
People can be easily spooked by a fake design that's been circulating around the net for years
ReplyDeleteyep.
DeleteA catamaran carrier makes little sense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOk, any ship can be sunk. We can start weaponizing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MA-31
ReplyDeleteor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote.
O rjust dust off the design and start making this with a conventional warhead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pershing_missile
How many times does one need to see this CARTOON, before it gets old?~
ReplyDeletebefore they were flights of fancy...now we get word that china is actually doing it. its not old...its brand new.
DeleteTwenty Twenty, to displace more water you either need to go deeper below the surface, or displace more water closer to the surface. The total water displaced is the same, but the DRAFT OF THE VESSEL CAN BE DIFFERENT. What a catamaran design does is displaces more water closer to the surface and achieves stability by having two points of contact with the water. A monohull design achieves stability by having a deeper draft to draw stability from a keel and ballast. Please read up on it before you insist that I'm wrong http://www.aeroyacht.com/catamaran-learning-center-2/catamaran-shallow-draft/
ReplyDeleteand the beat down of the day goes to that hard charging, deployed but still hard as nails...American Mercenary!!!
DeleteWhere to begin on this one ??!!
Delete" What a catamaran design does is displaces more water closer to the surface"... Why ??!! And would that water vary in 'weight' ??...
..."and achieves stability by having two points of contact with the water..." You could have 'two points of contact' fore-and-aft and be no more stable than a mono-hull...
"A mono-hull design achieves stability by having a deeper draft to draw stability from a keel and ballast"... only under a particularly narrowly defined range of assumptions.
These are all unspoken-assumptions-driven perspectives.
Which brings us back to the initial statement.
And as you examine the wide range of multi-hull geometries for all sorts of purposes, you'd find that your postulations would not necessarily match many of those either...
At any rate, so far this thinking is neither new nor has been proven as a structural proposition. And that is before we wonder where she could actually
be serviced, be defended against modest-size SSKs, say, of Vietnamese flag, etc.
And, AM,
Deletelooking at the link you reference, he's grinding his salesman-ax happily innocent of millennia of mono-hull knowledge of every size, purpose and weight-carrying capacity. He's neither a pioneer / universally-recognized capacity on multi-hulls, nor has he done his homework on, for instance, 90'x16'x3'6" sailing mono-hulls...
One doubts that our Chinese friends would be studying his PR-sit. And if they did, nobody would have to be very worried about that Super-Super-Carrier project.
; it means wider possibility of dimension optimization without any restrictions by the transverse stability; a possibility of increasing the non-sinkability of the vessel by providing watertightness to the volume of the above-water platform and its rational dividing by water-tight bulkheads; it means higher safety of all multi-hulls in a comparison with the monohulls; higher safety and survivability of power plant machinery due to greater variability of the safest accommodation of its main components; it means higher survivability of all multi-hulls, especially - of combat ones; higher seaworthiness means higher part of time of sailing, when all needed demands of passenger and crew comfort are fulfilled.
Deleteits not PR.
multihull vessels are more survivable, more stable, have more volume to carry loads etc...i don't know why this is hard for you to understand since it seems to be widely accepted in the industry.
instead of attempting to slam AM, maybe you should explain yourself MUCH MUCH better. as things stand it seems like you're talking out of your ass.
Ooh, more anatomy-stuff...
DeleteOn the other matters...since Giant cats are presumably so well-thought of, where would we be able to admire them in their routine work ?
As to the rest of the list of desirables, per given weight or draft or volume why would you not want to do this on a mono-hull ?
Or is this just another new 'gospel', like SES fads that came and went, all powerful aircushion-concepts, 60kts luxury-goods trans-Atlantic freighters, or perhaps magic bubbles on which burn half the fuel, all the way to now learning from PLAN dream ships ? Have CAD - will dream ??
Once something has been proven to work - fine, assuming it is affordable, reliable, functionally indeed superior.
AM 'slams' - AM gets a response.
That link as a 'reference' ...really.
Solomon,
Deletewhat do you think will happen structurally if you depend on the air-volumes in the connecting structures - meaning one or both hulls are 'down' - to keep her afloat in anything but the smoothest of waters ?
Massive connecting structures cost massively in all sort of ways - assuming they'd be plausible to do 40-kts.
I'm all for optimism - but...