Chinese aircraft carriers: Type 002 'Shandong', Type 003 'Fujian', Type 004

Tomboy said:
It's not, it's simply that both 1160 and 003 is based off heavily modified 1143 as a starting point. So it's more like both share a common parent design
Click to expand...
Not really. Look at the Russian wiki -

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Авианесущие_крейсера_проекта_1160
1160 was developed simultaneously with 1143, but then turned into 1153 and ultimately abandoned. Partly the plans were used for 1143.5 (Kuznetsov) which is not a large Kiev, as one would think, but rather a shortened 1153 with a ski-jump, and then 1143.7 (Ulyanovsk), which merges both of them with a ski-jump and a nuclear propulsion.

Tomboy said:
probably due to nuclear propulsion.
Click to expand...
Note that Ulyanovsk was laid down and constructed to 18%, so all the design work was complete and I bet China has all those papers since the 90s.

No guarantee, of course, that 004 wouldn't be a copy of an American carrier, because likely they have all that documentation as well, but we'll eventually see what they choose.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
And more believable, too - China isn't reinventing the 70-yr old wheel, fighting half ceuntury of experience with 0. They're diligently aiming at current level as a basepoint, and then competing from it.
Click to expand...
I am agreeing with all your comments before this line.

Thing is, what China doesn't have is 70 years experience operating carriers for 6+ months at a stretch. They don't have people who have been operating planes off carriers for their entire careers, who were taught by people who had operated planes off carriers for their entire careers. They're having to develop that institutional knowledge in a culture where questioning your elders just doesn't happen. Give them 15-20 years and they'll have the first generation of Sailors who had to learn things the hard way as the Command Master Chiefs (or equivalent), and that's where and when they'll legitimately be threatening USN supremacy.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I am agreeing with all your comments before this line.

Thing is, what China doesn't have is 70 years experience operating carriers for 6+ months at a stretch. They don't have people who have been operating planes off carriers for their entire careers, who were taught by people who had operated planes off carriers for their entire careers. They're having to develop that institutional knowledge in a culture where questioning your elders just doesn't happen. Give them 15-20 years and they'll have the first generation of Sailors who had to learn things the hard way as the Command Master Chiefs (or equivalent), and that's where and when they'll legitimately be threatening USN supremacy.
Click to expand...
Right, you have to know how to use them and have the experience. The naval battles between Japan and the US in WW2 was some of the most intense fighting ever and with heavy losses on both sides, lives and ships.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thing is, what China doesn't have is 70 years experience operating carriers for 6+ months at a stretch. They don't have people who have been operating planes off carriers for their entire careers, who were taught by people who had operated planes off carriers for their entire careers. They're having to develop that institutional knowledge in a culture where questioning your elders just doesn't happen. Give them 15-20 years and they'll have the first generation of Sailors who had to learn things the hard way as the Command Master Chiefs (or equivalent), and that's where and when they'll legitimately be threatening USN supremacy.
Click to expand...
From the commissioning of the USS Langley to the Battle of Midway was only about 20 years. So, the "70 years" figure is just a scare tactic.

"They're having to develop that institutional knowledge in a culture where questioning your elders just doesn't happen." — The military, by its very nature, is an institution where authority cannot be openly challenged. In most cases, "your elders" equates to "your superiors." Which military in the world would consider questioning superiors a virtue? This is just another tired cliché criticizing the PLA for being rigid and lacking innovation.

Likewise, when assessing the U.S. military, I won’t say like “its ranks are flooded with junkies.” Such words is no different in nature from criticizing the PLA for “not tolerating questioning of elders”—neither contributes to a rational or objective evaluation of actual military capability.

As for "Give them 15-20 years," I'm not sure when you're starting the count. This year? If we count 20 years from now, that would be 2045. By then, the PLAN will likely have 4 to 5 supercarriers in active service, with over two decades of experience operating them. At that point, the PLAN will no longer be a challenger—it will be an equal supremacy, sharing dominance on the Pacific.
 
TwoTribes said:
From the commissioning of the USS Langley to the Battle of Midway was only about 20 years. So, the "70 years" figure is just a scare tactic.

"They're having to develop that institutional knowledge in a culture where questioning your elders just doesn't happen." — The military, by its very nature, is an institution where authority cannot be openly challenged. In most cases, "your elders" equates to "your superiors." Which military in the world would consider questioning superiors a virtue? This is just another tired cliché criticizing the PLA for being rigid and lacking innovation.
Click to expand...
I served on subs as a junior enlisted. E5, Second Class Petty Officer to be precise. Yeoman, which translates to "admin guy" for job title but "Helmsman/Planesman," "Lookout," "Force Protection," "Atmosphere Monitoring/OTTO Fuel detector," "Rig for Dive," and "Tagout body" for jobs on the sub.

If an officer was wrong, I was required to correct them. At least after I got my dolphins, so by definition actually knew what I was talking about. And yes, Junior Officers did occasionally do something wrong. More senior officers much less often. I still had to correct my Navigator, once.

I did have to be diplomatic about it unless it was an immediate life&limb issue.
  • "Sir, that doesn't sound right. Shouldn't it be [whatever]" if it wasn't going to kill someone or break equipment.
  • If it was going to kill people or break equipment, "STOP! DO NOT DO THAT! [person at risk] could DIE" or "You will BREAK [equipment]" (and soothe ruffled feathers after)

I believe that the airedales have a similar rule for life and limb. Because they regularly lose at least one person over the side every deployment.



TwoTribes said:
As for "Give them 15-20 years," I'm not sure when you're starting the count. This year? If we count 20 years from now, that would be 2045. By then, the PLAN will likely have 4 to 5 supercarriers in active service, with over two decades of experience operating them. At that point, the PLAN will no longer be a challenger—it will be an equal supremacy, sharing dominance on the Pacific.
Click to expand...
I'm going from the first 6-month deployment of the Chinese carrier with air wing embarked. If that has happened already, cool, let's start the count! I think I was leaning more towards ~2040, personally.

And did I not say that at that point China would legitimately be threatening the US? When China can field 4 carriers and air wings, they'll equal the forces the USN maintains in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. And at about 6-8 carriers they'll be able to surge as many as the USN.

I'm not sure how many carriers China will eventually make. Their population suggests they could man and support 20+, though they'd need to significantly increase their GDP first. China's 2024 GDP is 64.22% of the US, so they should be able to support 8 carriers.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I served on subs as a junior enlisted. E5, Second Class Petty Officer to be precise. Yeoman, which translates to "admin guy" for job title but "Helmsman/Planesman," "Lookout," "Force Protection," "Atmosphere Monitoring/OTTO Fuel detector," "Rig for Dive," and "Tagout body" for jobs on the sub.

If an officer was wrong, I was required to correct them. At least after I got my dolphins, so by definition actually knew what I was talking about. And yes, Junior Officers did occasionally do something wrong. More senior officers much less often. I still had to correct my Navigator, once.
Click to expand...
This is called respecting professionals, not "questioning your elders," and it's the same in the PLA.

Scott Kenny said:
And did I not say that at that point China would legitimately be threatening the US? When China can field 4 carriers and air wings, they'll equal the forces the USN maintains in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. And at about 6-8 carriers they'll be able to surge as many as the USN.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying that "threat" is a bit of a mismatch for the fleet size at that time. In my view, it was more like "vying for equal status."
 
Scott Kenny said:
They don't have people who have been operating planes off carriers for their entire careers, who were taught by people who had operated planes off carriers for their entire careers.
Click to expand...
Are we forgetting that China has been conducting carrier ops for over a decade now, With Liaoning entering service in 2012? Fujian might be the largest and most capable, and first CATOBAR carrier they have, but it's not their first but already the third carrier. So I think they surely have the basics nailed down, with the nuances of a large catapult carrier being something they have to learn by doing it first.
 
Last edited:
32 tons?The display in the hands of the catapult operator shows that the KJ600 weighs 32 tons.


Interestingly, the propeller of the E2 aircraft rotates counterclockwise, with the rudder on the right side, while the KJ600's propeller rotates clockwise, with the rudder on the left side.
 
The KJ-600 is certainly one heavy aircraft don't you think SUPER=BUG? 32 tonnes at maximum take of weight. How does that compare to the E-2 Hawkeye for comparison?
 
Thanks Dilandu. So it looks like the KJ-600 is not that much heavier than the E-2, being only six times as heavy if my maths is correct.
 
Drat thanks for that Nx4eu, looks like my maths has let me down unfortunately, 6 tons was what I was meaning. Oh well.
 
SUPER=BUG said:
32 tons?The display in the hands of the catapult operator shows that the KJ600 weighs 32 tons.


Interestingly, the propeller of the E2 aircraft rotates counterclockwise, with the rudder on the right side, while the KJ600's propeller rotates clockwise, with the rudder on the left side.
Click to expand...
What's downright hysterical is they even copied the one non-functional rudder. They could have at least taken the opportunity to make it unnecessary.
 
Sferrin said:
What's downright hysterical is they even copied the one non-functional rudder.
Click to expand...

My understanding that the "Non-functional rudder" is there to give extra lateral stability to compensate for the aerodynamic effects of the radome assembly mounted above the fuselage, if you look at the C-2 Greyhound (The E-2's airframe is basically modified C-2) its' tailplane/rudder assembly is lacking those extra fixed "Rudders".
 
Last edited:
There is no doubt that Americans are the most knowledgeable when it comes to aircraft carrier operations. If one wants to develop aircraft carriers, learning from Americans is a very reasonable approach. Americans have already demonstrated that the answer to the problem is the E-2D, so naturally, the Chinese would provide their own solution process for the same problem, resulting in the KJ600. The KJ600 only resembles the E-2D in appearance (aerodynamic layout); the radar, engines, and onboard electronic equipment of the two aircraft make it clear that they are different planes. To use a more apt analogy, their relationship is like that between the A320 and the Boeing 737. Additionally, that rudder is indeed useful.
 
SUPER=BUG said:
The KJ600 only resembles the E-2D in appearance (aerodynamic layout); the radar, engines, and onboard electronic equipment of the two aircraft make it clear that they are different planes.
Click to expand...

A case of form following function or what is referred to as convergent evolution in biology.
 
NMaude said:
A case of form following function or what is referred to as convergent evolution in biology.
Click to expand...

There are dozens of different ways to design a carrierborne AEW. Just look at Lockheed S-3 potential variants, or CSA program for example.
Basic concept: aircraft, helicopter, UAV, balloon?
If a conventionnal route is selected...
Wings: straight, light sweep, tandem, rhomboid?
Engines: turboprop, turbofan, propfan? How many? Two, three or four? Under or above the wing? Side-mounted?
Radar: rotodome, fixed arrays, nose or side-mounted?

The KJ-600 is a blatant case of: "we know it works, let's do the same down to the scoop placement and wings tie-down attachments, but make it bigger because whatever reason (need for more range, bulkier electronics, available engines, other)."
 
I think the issue at hand is that people have this idea that closely following an existing design is something inherently negative. I.e the negative connotations of the concept of "copying". When in fact, especially with regards to military hardware it can often be a shortcut to deliver a needed capability safely and timely, get a grasp of the overarching concept and operation and then go from there and develop iterative or successive systems based on the lessons learned.

One such example from China itself is the Z-8L, when they bought SA321s, then produced the localized Z-8 which eventually became the Z-8L which is essentially a completely different helicopter.

I think there is no doubt that the KJ-600 is going to be an important piece in PLAN formations and will be a capable system. Likeness to the E-2 or not, it won't matter to the people who would have to deal with them in combat situations.
 
EmoBirb said:
I think there is no doubt that the KJ-600 is going to be an important piece in PLAN formations and will be a capable system. Likeness to the E-2 or not, it won't matter to the people who would have to deal with them in combat situations.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

The Soviet naval AEW bird, Yak-44E, would have been very similar in shape to the Hawkeye as well. Just (a lot) heavier, to allow for more fuel carried.
 
wuguanhui said:
Yup, if a country has 75 years of experience with aircraft carriers, they shouldn't be too surprised that others look at them for tried and tested solutions.
Click to expand...
75? Try over a century. The USS Langley was commissioned in 1922. In WW2, between escort, light, and fleet carriers, the US deployed around a hundred carriers fighting all over the world.
 
Not forgetting the Royal Navy Sferrin. The Royal Navy has put so much work in the past into how modern carriers look and work, steam catapults angled flight decks arresting gear etc.
 
FighterJock said:
Not forgetting the Royal Navy Sferrin. The Royal Navy has put so much work in the past into how modern carriers look and work, steam catapults angled flight decks arresting gear etc.
Click to expand...
Very true, but the Royal Navy has dropped out in many ways over the last 50 years.
Further leading edge developments will be driven by the US and China.
 
That was because of the Labour government down at Westminster cancled the original Queen Elizabeth carrier back in the late 1970s leaving us with only the small Harrier carriers that entered service during the 1980s.
 
FighterJock said:
That was because of the Labour government down at Westminster cancled the original Queen Elizabeth carrier back in the late 1970s
Click to expand...

I thought that was cancelled in the late 1960s.

SUPER=BUG said:
If the news is true, it is rumored that the hull of the 004 ship has begun to come together.
Click to expand...

IIRC 004 will be the PLA:N's first CVN.
 
SUPER=BUG said:
If the news is true, it is rumored that the hull of the 004 ship has begun to come together. Perhaps it will be launched around 2028.
Click to expand...
Combined response:
NMaude said:
IIRC 004 will be the PLA:N's first CVN.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, 004 is supposed to be a CVN.

But there is another Fujian-class under construction as well.
 
NMaude said:
FighterJock said:
That was because of the Labour government down at Westminster cancled the original Queen Elizabeth carrier back in the late 1970s leaving us with only the small Harrier carriers that entered service during the 1980s.
Click to expand...

I thought that was cancelled in the late 1960s.
Click to expand...

22 February 1966.
 
Thanks BlackBat242, I did not know that the original Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier was cancled back in 1966, the 1960s were a bad decade in terms of millitary spending with the cancelation of both the QE and the TSR.2.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom