Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

mikmykWS -> Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/30/2014 12:28:10 PM)

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140828000110&cid=1101

quote:

China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, can carry four Z-18J airborne early warning (AEW) helicopters, six Z-18F anti-submarine helicopters, two Z-9C rescue helicopters, and 24 J-15 shipborne fighter jets, the Chinese-language Shanghai Morning Post reported on Aug. 28.


Definitely not unreasonable.



ExNusquam -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/30/2014 2:19:03 PM)

Saw this on Alert5 a few days ago - two squadrons of multi-role jets is more than acceptable for a CV. It's what the French carry and what the Russians are moving towards.



NakedWeasel -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/31/2014 12:51:29 AM)

I'll make a gentleman's bet that we'll never see that many J-15's on the Liaoning. They'll build an indigenous flat top and put it to sea before they do that. That said, that is a VERY similar airwing that I dressed her out with in a hypothetical PRC Vs ROC scenario I've built. Because, without the PLANAF carrier-based air, it's just not as much fun- especially when the US Navy shows up.



Coiler12 -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/31/2014 12:27:45 PM)

I had thirty J-15s on the Liaoning for my scenario featuring it. Good to see I was only off by six fighters.



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/31/2014 2:11:01 PM)

For me, carrying a complement of aircraft is one thing, the other is the combat capability of those aircraft.

Liaoning is crippled because of the lack of steam catapults, and so her aircraft can't necessarily sortie with heavy combat loads, or if they do, they greatly sacrifice the internal fuel load and range for the aircraft. So there's other technical aspects to consider about the effectiveness of the systems.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130928/DEFREG/309280009/Chinese-Media-Takes-Aim-J-15-Fighter


quote:

What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”

The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles.

To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”

Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will make the J-15 an “unlikely match” against other foreign carrier-based fighters.

“Even the Vietnam People’s Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.”


So you could set up a few aircraft with Air to air only loadouts, and a strike group focusing on the heavier weapons for example.



SSN754planker -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/31/2014 3:18:12 PM)

24 J-15 fighters seems to me to be the "lets see how many we can get on board for photo ops and propaganda" number. Operationally it looks like 18 J-15 will be more realistic. I have tested this in Command and with 24 fighters, the ships magazines can't even arm all of them before it empties.

18 is do-able if split into roughly half AAW/ASUW roles. this gives more flexibility and not having to be tied to a replenishment ship after every sortie. (which is another art the Chinese have yet to master. At sea replenishment is an art unto itself.)

The Liaoning is NOT as big as a US carrier and does not have the huge magazines of a Nimitz class. Id say the magazine size as it is modeled in Command is just about right. This reflects the ship not being even close in capability as a USN carrier.



Rudd -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/13/2015 10:43:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140828000110&cid=1101

quote:

China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, can carry four Z-18J airborne early warning (AEW) helicopters, six Z-18F anti-submarine helicopters, two Z-9C rescue helicopters, and 24 J-15 shipborne fighter jets, the Chinese-language Shanghai Morning Post reported on Aug. 28.


Definitely not unreasonable.

Found this pic and it looks like it will work to me. I count, I think 23 J-15s on the deck(including one taking off), plus 4 Z-9s(1 in the air) and than of course hangar space.
[image]http://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/China-CV-16-Liaoning-aircraft-carrier-pla-navy-J-15-flying-shark-takeoff-2.jpg[/image]
Also there's the Kuznetsoz hangar bay illustration and pics from here



mikeCK -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/14/2015 12:10:01 AM)

Don't know. Not sure how you recover aircraft with all that crap on deck. Photo op maybe



Hongjian -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/14/2015 1:12:23 AM)

Above picture is a CG.

At the moment, there are only 10 confirmed serial production J-15s on the Liaoning, excluding the 5 or so prototypes.

On the other hand, 24 seems reasonable, as several PLAN officers often leaked that number and the Admiral Kutznesov was designed for that complement of Su-33s as well. In that case, time will tell.

In terms of loadout, there's arguments that the Chinese media criticism about the J-15s being 'crippled by the lack of steam catapults' might not be entirely accurate. This article here has some good points:

[image]http://i62.tinypic.com/2rzxds1.jpg[/image]

As supported by internal documents describing the maximum take-off weight of the J-15 from the Liaoning:

[image]http://i57.tinypic.com/1ny807.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i59.tinypic.com/w6tnaf.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i61.tinypic.com/atujk3.jpg[/image]

The second picture shows; with at least 18 knots wind over deck (which means that the carrier must sail with 18 knots herself when there's no headwind), a J-15 with its maximum T/O weight of 32.8 tons can take off from the two 110m take-off positions on the Liaoning. But the J-15 will get dangerously close to water surface, down to an altitude of 22m before regaining lift and altitude, which is 2 meters more than the 'danger-zone' set by the Soviet naval aviation for their Su-33s.

Much more comfortably, the J-15 can take off with max payload when the Liaoning is sailing with 20 or 25 knots. From the single third position (195m "long-runway"), the J-15s could take off with maximum payload with little to no wind over deck. But of course this is kinda inefficient, as there is only one launch-point for the "long-runway".

Bottom line: The Liaoning isnt the perfect carrier, but it actually does its job with the J-15 under the correct cirmcumstances.








thewood1 -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/14/2015 1:41:31 AM)

The short of it is that its not a global power projection platform like a US carrier is supposed to be. It is at best a regional power projection platform that has to be part of a larger integrated plan. You see people complain about the vulnerability of a US carrier to cheap ASM counters. The Liaoning is most likely more vulnerable with a more limited air wing. Against a single US CVBG, it will have to depend on significant land aviation support, along with other non-naval support.

And that is not even considering that the air wing has never been in a high-tempo combat setting. That type of situation is where air wings and their supporting elements start to really get visibility into all the bugs that are inherently part of doing something new.



Rudd -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/14/2015 1:49:44 AM)

Oh boy, I hate CGs.

Thanks Hongjian, great info/post as usual!



jdkbph -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/14/2015 6:17:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

The short of it is that its not a global power projection platform like a US carrier is supposed to be. It is at best a regional power projection platform that has to be part of a larger integrated plan.


I would argue it's not even that. It's a tech demonstrator, a floating laboratory (think USS Langley (CV1) or USS Ranger (CV4)), a show piece... and perhaps an attempt to serve notice that they're serious about starting down the path toward a credible blue water force.

As of the moment, and looking into the near future...? In no way would this type of ship, even assuming it was fully operational, provide a capability to perform global power projection or SLOC control type missions beyond the range of LBA. They are now, and into the foreseeable future, simply trying to mount a credible A2/AD threat around their own coastlines (and any off shore LBA facilities that they might be able to... er, ahem... dredge up).

As to effective carrier combat operations... something the USN would actually have to take seriously? IMO, they're probably 20 to 30 years away. Assuming of course that they have the will to stay the course.

JD



Dysta -> RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition (8/15/2015 9:05:50 PM)

Put in the other way: how Russian Kuznetsov project their own naval power with experienced, but partially inferior systems and lack of maintenance?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875