Chinese Aircraft Carrier Projects (pre-Liaoning)

Some pictures from the source in the opening post.
 

Attachments

  • China Project 891 pic2.jpg
    China Project 891 pic2.jpg
    174.9 KB · Views: 332
  • China Project 891 pic3.jpg
    China Project 891 pic3.jpg
    193.3 KB · Views: 301
  • China Project 891 pic4.jpg
    China Project 891 pic4.jpg
    206.8 KB · Views: 297
  • China Project 891 pic5.jpg
    China Project 891 pic5.jpg
    243.1 KB · Views: 316
  • China Project 891 pic6.jpg
    China Project 891 pic6.jpg
    193.3 KB · Views: 328
Also wasn't delta winged aircraft less suitable for carrier fighters due to the instability at lower speed?
 
Tzoli said:
Also wasn't delta winged aircraft less suitable for carrier fighters due to the instability at lower speed?
Click to expand...

Before fly by wire - yes. Although there was only Skyray so...

I remember a story that when Clemenceau was retired in the fall of 1997, the chineses made a proposal to buy it (just like they dismantled that australian carrier: to learn).
 
Those maybe completely different information.

The pages @cattalonX shown are from a thesis which mentioned a model-scale designed for water tank testing, which based on the hull shape of Forrestal while shrinking to the size of Essex. It's not necessary the actual 891, but could be part of the process to evolve to it. The HMAS Melbourne they got in 1985 should benefit them much in designing the 891 also.
 
BROF said:
No it is not. The Mitchell Brown BS-5 on the Clémenceau PA-54 class were made in England. Your "source" is wrong.
Click to expand...
Because there's nothing about Clemenceau and BS5

In fact, the connection between France and China's aircraft carrier was in 1995, when France wanted to send the decommissioned Clemenceau to China, but it needed to give the order for the refit to France, just like the Indian and Russian aircraft carriers

Of course, the Chinese are not stupid
 
Last edited:
cattalonX said:
Because there's nothing about Clemenceau and BS5

In fact, the connection between France and China's aircraft carrier was in 1995, when France wanted to send the decommissioned Clemenceau to China, but it needed to give the order for the refit to France, just like the Indian and Russian aircraft carriers

Of course, the Chinese are not stupid
Click to expand...
Article in Global Security quoted by "AE220". Nothing to do with Chinese being stupid or not.
 
There were multiple attempts for China trying to obtain carrier and carrier design during the 90s, with France, Russia, Spain, Italy being the targets
 
cattalonX said:
View attachment 727804


Scale model and size
Length （waterline）264.435m
breadth （waterline）34.278m
max breadth（Should be the flight deck） 64m
depth（to the flight deck） 25.404m
depth（to the hangar deck）15.839m
displacement 432886 KN（about 44154t）
Click to expand...
With that size, that project is in the league of the CdG ?
So F/A-18 / Rafale /F-4J/S/N + E-2 could operate, if this was a Western Cv (real)?
 
AE220 said:
is this related to the project 707 on global security?
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/707-project.htm
Click to expand...
Yes,if you fortunately see some interesting things,such as 707's lines plan.
Someone wants to find her mother,but humorously find her daughter: Project 891.
If you remove 891‘s outboard structure and bulbous bow,and then,let 891 become narrow,you will see.
It's like restoring CV-9 Essex from SCB-125 state to its original state
 
Last edited:
Resister1976 said:
Where are you see it?
Interesting.
Click to expand...
Someone is going to model the hull from this, but they still don't know what the superstructure looks like
It's supposed to be from an old book, but nobody put it on the Internet
 
Last edited:
Resister1976 said:
Yes,and so?
Click to expand...
Implies that in any "disagreement" between flight deck and antiship missiles, the flight deck wins every time.

Either the ASMs go entirely, or just go over the side onto sponsons. And with the ASMs off the flight deck, the forward SAM launcher can be moved back to immediately in front of the island.
 
Resister1976 said:
Yes,and so?
Click to expand...
https://weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309405122812309537157考虑到本舰舰载机全系歼击机和直升飞机，缺乏对敌水面舰艇编队攻击的能力，故又装配了射程为500-600公里的中程导弹，这样给本舰增加了对大型导弹舰和航母的打击手段。在不影响飞行甲板和机库等重要部位布置的情况下，装载舰对舰导弹，即可起到舰载轰炸机的作用或者超过轰炸机的作用。
Considering that the ship's carrier-borne aircraft are all fighters and helicopters, lack the ability to attack the enemy's surface ship formation, so it is equipped with medium-range missiles with a range of 500-600 kilometers, so that the ship has increased the means of striking large missile ships and aircraft carriers. Without affecting the arrangement of important parts such as the flight deck and hangar, the loading of ship-to-ship missiles can play the role of carrier-borne bombers or exceed the role of bombers.

At least for the purposes of these articles, the flight deck takes precedence over the missile
 
cattalonX said:
Considering that the ship's carrier-borne aircraft are all fighters and helicopters, lack the ability to attack the enemy's surface ship formation, so it is equipped with medium-range missiles with a range of 500-600 kilometers, so that the ship has increased the means of striking large missile ships and aircraft carriers. Without affecting the arrangement of important parts such as the flight deck and hangar, the loading of ship-to-ship missiles can play the role of carrier-borne bombers or exceed the role of bombers.
Click to expand...
So basically they followed Soviet pattern - long-range missiles for strikes, aircraft for air control & defense?
 
cattalonX said:
https://weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309405122812309537157考虑到本舰舰载机全系歼击机和直升飞机，缺乏对敌水面舰艇编队攻击的能力，故又装配了射程为500-600公里的中程导弹，这样给本舰增加了对大型导弹舰和航母的打击手段。在不影响飞行甲板和机库等重要部位布置的情况下，装载舰对舰导弹，即可起到舰载轰炸机的作用或者超过轰炸机的作用。
Considering that the ship's carrier-borne aircraft are all fighters and helicopters, lack the ability to attack the enemy's surface ship formation, so it is equipped with medium-range missiles with a range of 500-600 kilometers, so that the ship has increased the means of striking large missile ships and aircraft carriers. Without affecting the arrangement of important parts such as the flight deck and hangar, the loading of ship-to-ship missiles can play the role of carrier-borne bombers or exceed the role of bombers.

At least for the purposes of these articles, the flight deck takes precedence over the missile
Click to expand...
China does have a Harpoon-class missile in their inventory, so it's not like their fighters have zero way to attack surface ships.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom