Type 075 landing helicopter dock (LHD)

So effectively they probably plan to use them together... one as a helicopter carrying landing vessel with landing ships and armour, and the other with more helicopters and fighters.

That is a serious gamble in terms of VSTOL fighters...

The fire doesnt seem to have hurt the ships inside that bad looking at these pictures.

They look fine but all we can see are likely areas that have been washed and repainted... it is impossible to tell what damage was done from a photo like that, but thanks for posting... they do look good.

That means the chinese didn´t copy the fire control system from the muricans.

Here we go.....

Meh... so what... a bit of smoke... who cares...

What I found most interesting was how weathered the deck looks... if they are going to use VSTOL fighters on there then they need to work on some surface that can take high temperature airflows for a few seconds...

The other thing I found strange is the front edge of the flight deck... I remember with the Kiev class they made all sorts of changes to the shapes and barriers to optimise the airflow over the deck, and to prevent areas of turbulence.

I would think a flat deck carrying helicopters it would be more important because helicopters are not like normal aircraft... when you hover it is easier to hover with your nose pointed into the prevailing wind... if the direction shifts then you need to turn your nose... which is fine on the Kiev normally, but on a different type with helicopters that are not coaxial Helix based designs that have tail rotors swinging the tail around on a deck is exceptionally dangerous...

GarryB wrote:Meh... so what... a bit of smoke... who cares...

What I found most interesting was how weathered the deck looks... if they are going to use VSTOL fighters on there then they need to work on some surface that can take high temperature airflows for a few seconds...

The other thing I found strange is the front edge of the flight deck... I remember with the Kiev class they made all sorts of changes to the shapes and barriers to optimise the airflow over the deck, and to prevent areas of turbulence.

I would think a flat deck carrying helicopters it would be more important because helicopters are not like normal aircraft... when you hover it is easier to hover with your nose pointed into the prevailing wind... if the direction shifts then you need to turn your nose... which is fine on the Kiev normally, but on a different type with helicopters that are not coaxial Helix based designs that have tail rotors swinging the tail around on a deck is exceptionally dangerous...

Jesus christ dude, if this was a russian vessel u would be giving it high prays.
The vessel it out on its first trail, that was the whole point.

But im sure even when they get the type 003 carrier out you Will be complaining about something

Returning home after her first sea trails.

Jesus christ dude, if this was a russian vessel u would be giving it high prays.
The vessel it out on its first trail, that was the whole point.

But im sure even when they get the type 003 carrier out you Will be complaining about something

If it was a Russian ship you and others would be bitching about its smoking habit and I would be saying it does not matter... but I would be wondering why the deck seems to have no consistent coating at the very least of paint but more obviously the heat resistant material they use on aircraft carrier decks for situations where jet engines direct their thrust directly at the deck during rotation for takeoff and also during a failed attempt to catch a cable...

The squared off front looks like one of those model planes you get that is made of blocks of balsa wood that you are supposed to spend days sanding down to a curvy more aerodynamic shape... like they haven't read the instructions properly and just assembled it as is...

The bow could be reinforced for breaking up waves, prevent too much spray, & the  future skirump; the flight deck coating would be applied later, before any flight trials.

Third vessel on its way.

walle83 wrote:

Third vessel on its way.

This is just the beginning. By 2030 China will have 8 heavy carriers and 8 LHD. US navy will be retiring some carriers due to worsening economy and liberalism make that 8 carriers.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Third vessel on its way.

This is just the beginning. By 2030 China will have 8 heavy carriers and 8 LHD. US navy will be retiring some carriers due to worsening economy and liberalism make that 8 carriers.

Congrats on spending all that money on floating targets.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Third vessel on its way.

This is just the beginning. By 2030 China will have 8 heavy carriers and 8 LHD. US navy will be retiring some carriers due to worsening economy and liberalism make that 8 carriers.

I doubt even China will be able to construct 6 carriers in 10 years time.
I would gess 5-6 carriers in total by 2030.

Type 001 (old Varyag) 2012
Type 002 (updated kuznetsov class) 2019
Type 003 (First flat top carrier with catapults) 2022
Type 004 (First nuclear powerd carrier) 2025
Type 005-006 (Updated serial built nuclear carrier) 2028-2030

6 different carriers. That will be a mess to use.

lyle6 wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Third vessel on its way.

This is just the beginning. By 2030 China will have 8 heavy carriers and 8 LHD. US navy will be retiring some carriers due to worsening economy and liberalism make that 8 carriers.

Congrats on spending all that money on floating targets.

Capital ships vastly improve soft power. US is nothing without 11 carriers.

6 different carriers. That will be a mess to use.

the USN had different classes of CV/Ns too. Their fighters will be able to cross deck among them- even an F-18E/F offered to India can take off the skirump.

Capital ships vastly improve soft power. US is nothing without 11 carriers.

no, that's hard power; soft power is by hospital, research, supply ships & icebreakers.

Isos wrote:6 different carriers. That will be a mess to use.

They are not that different. Each carrier improves upon the previous one. For example, Type 001 has Type 346 radar used on Type 052C. Type 002 has Type 346A radar used on Type 052D.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

6 different carriers. That will be a mess to use.

the USN had different classes of CV/Ns too. Their fighters will be able to cross deck among them- even an F-18E/F offered to India can take off the skirump.

Capital ships vastly improve soft power. US is nothing without 11 carriers.

no, that's hard power; soft power is by hospital, research, supply ships & icebreakers.

There is no soft power without hard power. As Mao once said. Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Capital ships vastly improve soft power. 

it can't be "improved" it- only increased or decreased. learn English & logic!

There is no soft power without hard power.

True; they complement each other. How much soft power does India have with her 3 CVs?
 The US 11 CVNs is too much hard power, since they were misused since WWII. Just "talking softly while carrying a big stick", as T. Roosevelt advised, didn't increase American soft power- it only increased misery at home & abroad.

Capital ships vastly improve soft power. US is nothing without 11 carriers.

Having 11 carriers means that at best they could deal with 4 or maybe 5 different small situations at once around the world independently, or perhaps two decent sized invasions, and other smaller situations.

They are not that different. Each carrier improves upon the previous one. For example, Type 001 has Type 346 radar used on Type 052C. Type 002 has Type 346A radar used on Type 052D.

As they improve and develop better designs and new equipment they can update the older ships with newer equipment during their upgrades during their operational lives, so commonality can be increased over time.

It is not a question of how many carriers or other support ships China can build, it is more a question of what they plan to do and what numbers of ships they need to achieve that plan.

Once you have a shipyard that can build carriers, then replicating those facilities over the next few years in other shipyards increases the number of ships you can build so you capacity to build them will rapidly greatly exceed your capacity to operate them... China does not need 10 carriers, and operational costs would be a burden on the economy.

Having some carriers that can deploy Chinese power to various corners of the world however would be a good thing and help insure Chinese interests are not stepped all over by the west.

Just building lots of ships means nothing if you are not upgrading military ports for them to operate from, not to mention support ships to provide supplies to let these ships operate for long periods away from Chinese waters.

The Soviets set up moorings in the Mediterranean Sea , which is a bit like a floating dock where ships and subs could sail up and get water and food and fuel and ammo and fresh crews... imagine if China set up such a mooring 200km past Taiwan in the northern Pacific Ocean with 10-20 Chinese Destroyers and a dozen subs using it as their base to operate throughout the Pacific from... supply ships from China delivering food and water and fuel and weapons and replacement crews as needed... you could have it based around a couple of flat topped cargo ships with S-400 batteries sitting on the deck to defend it from air attack and of course all those ships and subs could be moored with their noses pointing outwards so they can use their sonar to detect incoming subs... a few helicopters on those cargo ships would help distributing cargo and also hunting subs and AEW roles....

In fact the Russians have platform type ships for research in difficult places like the Arctic that are designed to operate for years with their own needs largely met to let a few dozen people work for months or years at a time... something like that at the core with floating piers for ships and subs and also for supply ships to deliver material... put a decent air control radar on the central research lab ship... give it a mission of monitoring pollution in that region of water.... study plastics and bacteria and the effect on the food chain...

GarryB wrote:
Having some carriers that can deploy Chinese power to various corners of the world however would be a good thing and help insure Chinese interests are not stepped all over by the west.

Just building lots of ships means nothing if you are not upgrading military ports for them to operate from, not to mention support ships to provide supplies  to let these ships operate for long periods away from Chinese waters.

True, however China have been busy with ship building here also. About 8 new large replenishment and support ships has been commissioned since 2013. Most notable the recent fast combat support ship, the Type 901 class. Comparable to the US Supply-class.

Of course they have, they are not idiots... if there is one thing they are very good at it is planning.

And more importantly the US has 11 or 12 or 13 carrier groups because an aircraft carrier is a big ship and every few years you need to get it up on blocks and give it an overhaul and upgrade so everything is working properly, and new stuff gets added.

That means every few years the carrier will not be available for from 6 months to a couple of years depending on the upgrade or the problems being fixed, so one carrier is never a good thing... you really need two or preferably three, because while one carrier is in the docks getting upgrades your other carrier just out of the docks and upgrades is in training to test any new upgrades and to teach crews how to operate a sea for real... your third carrier is at sea operational ready for immediate use.

Obviously if tensions are building you can delay the overhaul of one carrier and keep it operational a bit longer, plus the in training ship that was about to go operational can go operational early and the ship in overhaul at the moment could have its essentials put back in and upgrades delayed till next time so you could have all three carriers available if you really needed them, but most of the time you would assure two were available with three carriers where the one in training and the operational one could be sent to a hotspot.

It would be really unlucky for all three to be unavailable.

The US had so many carrier groups because they wanted a continuous global presence so they had some in the Atlantic and some in the Pacific and some in the Med and some in other places around the world so no matter where the situation was happening they could get there fairly quickly.

China does not need to police the worlds oceans... she might have most of her carrier forces nearby most of the time and send one or two carrier groups for visits... nothing like a carrier group visit to Africa or the Pacific Islands or Central and South American countries to boost trade and also military ties... have a few exercises... sell some stuff... invest in growth and development of other countries so when they grow you both get richer...

But they wont keep building military ships at this current rate because it would be an enormous waste and they would have ships sitting at their piers with nothing to do except require paint and maintenance.

Once they have the number of military ships they want they will likely shift to producing commercial ships... tankers, cargo ships, etc etc.