Chinese Aircraft Carrier Projects (pre-Liaoning)

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...
Perhaps, No.
Because we all known that carrier program was in 1970, when China had no usable air-launched ASM,and so,your articles means long-range missiles for strikes, aircraft for air control & defense,OK?
 
At the same time (70s), China didn't even got a design project for 500-600km range anti-ship missiles also, so this can be a bit suspicious...
 
Jesus!Somebody said they see some interesting things about 891.
Man,What can I say?How lucky they are!
 
Resister1976 said:
Jesus!Somebody said they see some interesting things about 891.
Man,What can I say?How lucky they are!
Click to expand...
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate. All those...moments will be lost...in time. Like...tears...in rain."

"What is Jerusalem worth?"
"Nothing... Everything!"
 
Resister1976 said:
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate. All those...moments will be lost...in time. Like...tears...in rain."

"What is Jerusalem worth?"
"Nothing... Everything!"
Click to expand...
Doctor who esq quote?
 
Holy moly, are these legit?! Where is the J-7J intake?
PS: Just clicked the link, everything is there.
 
Based on additional leaked materials, the previously leaked 707 Project hull lines diagram was not a complete hull lines diagram of the ship. By referencing the hull lines diagrams of the US “Forrestal” (CV-59) and the Soviet 11431 Project “Kiev” depicted in the same diagram, it can be determined that all hull lines diagrams in the figure only depict the hull lines from the keel to the hangar deck.
52dd4cdb2367922616afd429d6a7ab73.jpg 32843e7c1767995c76a22ba0c10499e2.png bc4e29427030c94e3724e97bdd8d0dce.png
Additionally, by referencing the hull lines of the old Japanese Navy's “Taiho” with a double-deck hangar on the same diagram, its hull lines terminate at the upper deck above the lower hangar, while the lower deck of the lower hangar is indicated by a dashed line. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the 707 Project likely adopted a double-deck hangar design as a compromise to meet the required high-speed performance (≥35 knots).
Another screenshot from the same book (i.e., “On the Mechanical Performance of Medium-Sized Aircraft Carriers” published by the China State Shipbuilding Corporation) indirectly confirms that the hull research for the 707 Project likely only extended to the underwater section.
108ad288f87ed3d36060a2bd5ebefa7d.jpg d113ab24b03b5e5d1e85c6ddc1215c45.jpg
 
Martes said:
Oh, surely everybody can, but I was rather under an impression that it was not exactly politically acceptable to mention or rely on Japanese examples in official documentation in 1970's China.
Click to expand...
No,there aer no political issues,The Chinese even have two plans to convert the cargo ships built by Japan into helicopter carriers
 
Martes said:
Are there any images?
Click to expand...
Just a old book,all in Chinese, I can post some table
123.png
China bought 8 RO-RO ships from Japan in 1970s.
PLAN trying to convert one of them into a helicopter carrier（There are two choices: one big and one small）,This should be one of the ships
421b7ff690529822ac05d288deca7bcb0a46d405.jpg
Another plan is to modify the scientific research vessel Xiangyanghong 10
7D6DCEEECCA78621BACF40F2DDF5D168.jpg 1351284F35DFF938F9BBA2AE5AEA4D89.jpg
124.png
The bottom row in the table should be the invincible class, but there are many errors
 
Last edited:
Thanks, so is that some kind of catamaran carrier project, representative of the actual layout, or just a distorted representation?
 
lancer21 said:
Thanks, so is that some kind of catamaran carrier project, representative of the actual layout, or just a distorted representation?
Click to expand...
Looks like a SWATH carrier.

Awfully short catapults, though. I'm guessing ~200ft ish?

The port-side island is interesting. Probably required due to lack of space on the starboard side with the elevator there.

Whole thing looks to be ~650ft long. Any hints on expected displacement? My Chinese is non-existent.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Looks like a SWATH carrier.

Awfully short catapults, though. I'm guessing ~200ft ish?

The port-side island is interesting. Probably required due to lack of space on the starboard side with the elevator there.

Whole thing looks to be ~650ft long. Any hints on expected displacement? My Chinese is non-existent.
Click to expand...
expected displacement:23000t.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Translation, por favor?
Click to expand...
The world's existing aircraft carriers are all conventional, evolved from general surface ships. In recent years, numerous reports have recommended small waterplane area twin-hull (SWATH) hulls. Compared to conventional hulls, these offer better wave performance, a wider flight deck area that's easier to deploy, and significantly reduced displacement. However, their excessive draft and beam create additional burdens on slipways (docks), ports, and berths. To date, there have been no reports of these types being used for aircraft carriers abroad, as China is currently in a transitional phase of developing smaller vessels to accumulate experience in their development and operation. my country, on the other hand, has no experience in the development and operation of SWATH hulls, so the type chosen as the first choice for aircraft carriers in this article is likely premature. Selecting a conventional hull as the basis for aircraft carrier feasibility studies is a reasonable approach. Compared to existing aircraft carriers worldwide, this type is not inferior. Based on foreign experience in aircraft carrier development, conventional hulls can also achieve excellent overall fluid dynamics and structural performance indicators with sufficient preliminary research and appropriate technical measures. The small waterplane area catamaran type can be used as the goal for the future development of aircraft carriers and can be arranged for long-term preliminary research.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom