Is China Moving Toward a Carrier?

After more than a decade of spec­u­la­tion about China obtain­ing an air­craft car­rier, there appears to be some move­ment in that direc­tion — although not related to pro­cure­ment of a ship. Rather, there are reports that 50 Chinese naval offi­cers have begun a pilot train­ing pro­gram at the Dalian Naval Academy to pro­vide a cadre of carrier-​​based aviators.

The Chinese Navy already has a large, shore-​​based air force, which includes more than 400 air­craft, mostly fighter/​attack types, but also a score of Chinese-​​produced Tu-​​16 Badger strike air­craft as well as train­ing and trans­port air­craft. There are some 26,000 per­son­nel assigned to the naval air arm, accord­ing to the web site “Periscope.”

The train­ing pro­gram for the 50 stu­dents is reported by some sources to cover a four-​​year period. The train­ing will largely be con­ducted at the Faculty of Automation Engineering at the Dalian school, which in one of sev­eral Chinese naval edu­ca­tion insti­tu­tions. The stu­dents will also learn sea­man­ship along­side their col­leagues who will become sur­face ship and sub­ma­rine specialists.

The pro­gram will include flight train­ing. The major ques­tions are (1) will their flight train­ing include car­rier oper­a­tions and (2) how and when will China acquire a car­rier. With respect to the first, while sim­u­lated carrier-​​deck train­ing can be con­ducted ashore, at some stage the stu­dent pilots must go aboard ship. This could be done through agree­ments to train aboard a for­eign car­rier — pos­si­bly Russian or Indian. The U.S. Navy peri­od­i­cally per­mits car­rier ops from its car­ri­ers for the carrier-​​less Argentine naval air arm.

The sec­ond issue — of Chinese car­rier pro­cure­ment — is far more per­plex­ing. Press reports con­tinue to declare that the Chinese Navy is reha­bil­i­tat­ing the never-​​finish Soviet car­rier Varyag, moored at Darlian since 2002, to con­struct­ing a nuclear-​​propelled “super car­rier” of almost 100,000 tons, i.e., the size of the U.S. Nimitz (CVN 68)-class car­ri­ers. Both of those options are highly unlikely. Other than a new coat of paint, the Varyag has had no work done on her since arriv­ing at Dalian; she lacks elec­tronic gear, radars, and other vital equip­ment, and her engines are inop­er­a­ble. The sit­u­a­tion is exac­er­bated by the fact that many of the equip­ment pro­duc­ers for the Soviet car­rier pro­gram are no longer mak­ing the appro­pri­ate equip­ment or are no longer in busi­ness. The cost of mak­ing the Varyag oper­a­tional would be sim­i­lar to that of con­struct­ing a new ship. (The Varyag design dates to the 1970s.)

Similarly, the cost and effort to design and con­struct a 100,000-ton ship as China’s first car­rier could instead pro­duce two ships of per­haps half that size, a much more effi­cient approach to the prob­lem. And, of course, hav­ing two ships avail­able would pro­vide more at-​​sea time for the carriers.

New con­struc­tion ships could cer­tainly be built in China, which has pro­duced very large mer­chant ships, although destroy­ers are the largest war­ships that have been built in the coun­try. A class of LPD amphibi­ous ships of about 17,000 tons full load is now under con­struc­tion. Another option would be to have a car­rier built in the Ukraine, where the Black Sea Shipyard No. 444 con­structed all pre­vi­ous Soviet air­craft car­ri­ers. Those ships were the largest war­ships to be con­structed out­side of the United States since the end of World War II. The Ukrainian gov­ern­ment would cer­tainly wel­come a con­tract from China to con­struct a major war­ship in the yard.

Of sig­nif­i­cance, in the late 1980s the Chinese Navy had another naval train­ing pro­gram in which nine pilots were grad­u­ated from a three-​​year train­ing course. They were then assigned to ship­board duties and, report­edly, all have become destroyer com­mand­ing offi­cers. Some observers believe that these men could become the com­mand­ing offi­cers of a future Chinese car­rier force. The pro­gram was inter­est­ing because Chinese naval avi­a­tors — like their Soviet coun­ter­parts — are not “line” offi­cers in the Western sense and nor­mally do not serve as ship’s com­pany, and can­not suc­ceed to com­mand of a ship.

Another com­pli­ca­tion is the issue of carrier-​​based air­craft. In the past, Chinese Navy pilots have report­edly under­taken short-​​run take­offs and land­ings using the indige­nous J-​​8 fighter on a sim­u­lated car­rier deck, but the aircraft’s poor aero­dy­namic per­for­mance makes it impos­si­ble for real ship­board oper­a­tions. The indige­nous, third-​​generation J-​​10 and J-​​11 fight­ers are poten­tial can­di­date, but both would require sub­stan­tial struc­tural mod­i­fi­ca­tions before they could take off and land on a car­rier deck.

The Russian press has reported the Chinese pur­chase of up to 50 Sukhoi Su-​​33 Flanker-​​D fighter-​​attack air­craft. These fight­ers, man­u­fac­tured by the Komsomolsk-​​on-​​Amur Production Association, were to be deliv­ered to China 2007–2008. But none are known to have entered Chinese ser­vice — assum­ing that the reports of their sale are cor­rect. The Su-​​33 (for­merly Su-​​27K series) are flown aboard the Russian Navy’s only air­craft car­rier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. (The Chinese Navy has expe­ri­ence with Sukhoi air­craft, cur­rently hav­ing 24 land-​​based Su-​​30MKK2 fighter-​​bombers since 2004. Thirteen coun­tries fly vari­ants of the Su-​​27 Flanker series, includ­ing the Chinese Air Force.)

There is no ques­tion: The Chinese Navy is seek­ing to develop a car­rier capa­bil­ity; but there are many, many ques­tions about how that goal will be achieved.

– Norman Polmar

October 24th, 2008 | Polmar's Perspective | 41378 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/10/24/is-china-moving-toward-a-carrier/Is+China+Moving+Toward+a+Carrier%3F2008-10-24+12%3A19%3A28Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.