DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Polmar's Perspective » Is China Moving Toward a Carrier?

Is China Moving Toward a Carrier?

chinese-fighter-pilot.jpg

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

Share |

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.

« « Say Hello To SERPA | The Beam of Life » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. stephen russell says:
    October 24, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    China could Upgrade that ex Soviet carrier given her funds EZ & modify aircraft for role.
    Very scary, Chinese carrier off HI,
    Pearl Harbor 2?
    Blue Water Navy at Sea since 1991.
    Very doable or Chinese adapt plans & build carrier New from scratch.
    Very doable, but long time.

    Reply
  2. gawker says:
    October 24, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Why do we expect that China wants carriers?
    Unlike Japan or the US that needs air power a long way from home (respectively SE Asia and WestPac), China has the luxury of being able to reach out without the need to leave home.
    Maybe short runway training is due to the Chinese fear of having their airbases being targeted.

    Reply
  3. tontochoc says:
    October 25, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Forget the carrier, they only have a handful of modern destroyers and frigates. They could only pout one Carrier Battle Group to sea leaving no modern surface escorts for anything else.
    I can’t see India giving them any assistance as besides animosities, the Indians may have not have a carrier when the two rust buckets retire and there is nothing to replace them. The Russian carrier is so far behind schedule it has become arunning sore in relations with Russia.
    Whos going to provide the aircraft? Russia, France or the Uited States. It’s going to a be along time into the future befote it happens. Europey

    Reply
  4. Dennis says:
    October 25, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    I am going to have to agree with gawker on this one.
    Even thought China is trying to show its “major power” status, its main international goal for the foreseeable future is the taking of Taiwan.
    With that in mind I do not see China spending the money for a long range carrier.
    Maybe a short range carrier. One that can launch, but not recover aircraft non-VSTOL aircraft.
    This would allow them to use smaller ships, give them the ability to attach from the sea, and project power hundreds of miles from the mainland.
    Of course even this is a wild speculation. The last ships to launch but not recover aircraft (at least not from the air) I think were WW2 battleships. They would launch seaplanes that would be recovered from the ocean.
    The most likely reason for the cross training is to have Navy officers who know how to operate with the Air-Force.
    Even in China it is probably hard to get all the branches to play nice.….

    Reply
  5. George Skinner says:
    October 26, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Why would China want aircraft carriers? Because China is far more dependent on foreign oil than the U.S. or Russia. All of that oil is transported to China by sea, and it wouldn’t be particularly difficult for any half-assed navy to interdict the sea lanes and cut off the supply. That’s the pleasant explanation. The less comforting explanation would be that China has designs to be an expansionist power, and they need carriers to project military power effectively.

    Reply
  6. shantanu chatterjee says:
    October 29, 2008 at 3:47 am

    Don’t worry guys we Indians/Russians have brahmos 2(mach 8 hypersionic cruise missile) in the works :)
    Aircraft carries are only effective if you have complete battlefield dominance or else they are sitting ducks for Su-30mkis armed with Brahmos1/2(and similar aircraft) which will be our most likely response to a chinese incursion in our far east.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The real issue is not what type of plane but trying...
      Bill
    • Paris Hilton: Patriot
      Omg! You can find her pictures and video here...
      WebWarez
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Marine Air Light? Wait…don't they...
      LtCol Ben
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Except its really not that stealthy… The...
      chaos0xomega
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Is an F-22 capable of landing even on a big deck carrier,...
      joe
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      From a national security perspective we should do all we can to keep...
      mike
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Please define what is "best". Boeings plane is cheaper and...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      F4 was origionally a Navy Fighter, so coming up with a...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The US Navy was right to bypass congress and develop the...
      Tony C
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The fly-away cost of a F-22 is between 130 and...
      The Norwegian
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage