Pictures are circulating about China’s new organically designed carrier concept, bruited as a replacement for the Varyag design sold to China in 1998 as a “floating casino.” Now re-named Shi Lang (after the Imperial Chinese admiral who vanquished Taiwan), the ship is scheduled to undergo sea trials later this year.
The new design is a twin-hulled vessel, potentially using SWATH technology to enhance sea keeping at speed. It shows two parallel flight decks around a mid-mounted island structure. The flight deck layout is interesting – it would allow fully simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft without the constraints of conventional carrier flex deck operations. The helo landing pads aft and below the flight deck would certainly have some “interesting” effects with any kind of wind over the bow.
SWATH designs, although they confer certain advantages, are difficult to engineer, expensive to build and even more cruelly costly to maintain. Underway replenishment would be difficult – to say the least – without a side-mounted aux conn of some sort, as would inport docking and underway evolutions. Nothing on this scale has ever been accomplished.
I’m no naval architect, but I sincerely doubt this design ever leaves the scratch pad.
Skeptics probably had similar thoughts about USS Langley.
This design looks like something out of Popular Mechanics in the 1940s, many of which never materialized, but some things did. It may not be successful, but may be a pardigm breaking concept that eventually can evolve into a dramatically different carrier after a century of doing things “the old way.”
Given the present economic conditions in China, and the amount of money we send them, they can use just part of the interest we pay them every year to try this thing out. They can afford to try out radical concepts like this, while we can no longer afford the upkeep or crews for our carriers, or even build escorts, let alone new carriers.
It seems to me that a SWATH design would be more vulnerable to battle damage, too: it would seem a whole lot harder to control listing from a hull breach simply by selective pumping of water ballast with a SWATH, for instance.
Eric Hines
Yeah, I tend to agree with you; especially regarding the funky helo pads.
But I have to say, the concept drawing are impressive; that this is HUGE! Using the Fighter aircraft and what look like a pretty large early warning aircraft in one of the drawings. I know operating C-130 size aircraft, without a catapult, is not unheard of, but I’d have to think there was a good reason that we didn’t make it SOP to do so.
And I didn’t see any catapult either, but may need to enlarge the image more so as to scrutinize it better.
This concept is do-able, no doubt; but would it be a practical system to implement? And for all that SWATH is billed as, how would it really handle in rough water, where the wave heights are measured in tens of feet?
Maybe it’s just a red herring.
A couple of thoughts on the catapult item: I wonder if a concept drawing simply didn’t consider the standard catapult worth depicting. The middle runways, just forward and aft of the superstructure look way too short for an unassisted launch. Otherwise, I wonder if the carrier aircraft fleet is going to be VSTOL–Harrier sorts of things. That would tend to run against the purpose of a carrier, though, as such aircraft generally don’t have legs or significant offensive weapons.
That E-2 clone better not be very much off center when it lands with all those other aircraft parked, apparently literally, under its wings.
As for what looks like a missile pod on the bow–might that actually be a PRC FLOLS that encourages the pilot to get on glide slope/path and call the ball in a timely manner?
What are the wind-shear capabilities of helicopters?
Eric Hines
The aircraft depicted look like Su-33 (or rather the new Chinese stealth aircraft, which looks from pictures to be about the same size) and An-14 type aircraft, which gives a decent idea of scale. Those aren’t STOL aircraft.
It’s indeed HUGE, what space to have 4 parallel runway tracks for 4 of those aircraft (each of which has a wingspan larger than an F-15).
I doubt it’s all that vulnerable to battle damage. Make the twin hulls bouyant enough and it might even be more survivable than a single hull design.
Actually, the AEW aircraft in the drawing is more likely a KJ-2000, the current Mainstay derived early warning aircraft used by the Chinese. And it’s a LARGE aircraft, based on the 165 foot wingspan of the Il-76 from Russia.
That was what I thought – it looks like an A-50 Mainstay (the AWACS version of the IL-76). Anyone want to try Carrier Ops in a C-141 or C-17?
Oh, wow ! I love this design, IT’S GOT ACTUAL GUNS, in mounts no less. And a huge trolling motor on the bow for R&R too. Build me one!
It looks like one of my son’s LEGO set box photos.
The drawings are interesting, especially the fighters. Is there a canard with fore-swept wings in production now?
Ask the Russians. They don’t have a Naval version of the Berkut yet, but I’m sure it’s only a matter of time.
Yeah, experimental. We played around with the concept too, the X-29. Heck the Germans played with it back in the 1940s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_287
But they all seem to peter out after just a few being built for testing.
NASA built “cranked arrow” F-16 and tested it for a while…
The late AGM-129A Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) was a forward swept winged, nuclear armed, long range cruise missile built by General Dynamics/Convair in San Diego when I worked there in 1983-1993.
To a minor degree, McDonnell Douglas was given a contract for second source for the missile to be built in the Titus Florida area.
It was carried by the B-52 with six on each wing, and four on a rotary launcher in the bomb bay. I heard stories of them doing compatabilty tests with the B-1′s but I’m not sure they were ever qualified.
Perhaps with a hull redesign to something similar to that of a wave piercing hull, such as former HMAS Jervis Bay, and the concept could bear fruit. It would be interesting to see the computer modeling of ship’s handling in a big sea, and its effect on aircraft recovery. Eric’s point about battle damage is noted, but with a larger central hull, and given the ability to pump out flooded sections, that may be diminished somewhat.
Definitely lose the aft landing pads, as the burbles would be hell to handle and they’d be decks awash most of the time. There would be some serious rewriting of shipboard NATOPS, what with two active landing and launch areas working at the same time; frequency control!
Right hand pattern? MOVLAS station 3?
I hope, for their sake, that it’s not built by the same people who designed their bullet trains.
I hope, for our sake, it is.
Wow. Would you look at the size of that Target?
No kidding – all that is missing is the giant BULLS-EYE.
CHI-COMS like to talk a good game….they seem to even believe their own PR….glad that all will eventually add up to naught for them as the citizens of China will eventually see all the ” Runing Dog” BS was just that – lotsa BS.
China is a powerhouse but so was the good old USSR until the people thought better of getting their MTV and computers than lock stepping into the future following tired COMMIE dogma….stand by, CHANGE will be coming to the CHI-COMS in the near future.
Oh please, please, please let them build it. I mean really invest loads of their time and treasury in building it. And lots and lots of time and treasury to build the air wing and the associated support vessels. Then let the sub-bubs loose, just so we can send the Chinese military attache in DC a copy of a nice picture of the thing in the sights of a periscope.
And no water shots, neither. he!
Who wants water shots? Give me rum shots!
In jello?
Looks like something from a Japanese anime series instead of a possible design. When the Chinese build one I suspect she’ll be arranged like the QE CV’s. Given the idiocy in UK policy it wouldn’t surprise me the CHICOMS buy either QE or PoW and use it for a prototype.
I seem to recall the USN looking at these designs…and rejecting them. A SWATH has loads of deck area, but the internal volume is limited. There’s a reason why things are the way they are.
Mike, a SWATH ship would be pitch-perfect for a Sea Control type carrier though. I seem to recall that we actually looked at one as a possible SCS design too, and the Russians took a serious look at small catamaran carriers back in the 80′s.
Considering that the PLAN seems to be eagerly getting on the SWATH train already, I think something like the Soviet design is far more likely to end up in PLAN service than the fanciful musings of a Chinese kid with an old copy of Photo-Paint. When it’s said and done, I think China’s growing fleet will resemble Elmo Zumwalt’s small-but-many navy more than the Rickover’s fewer-bigger-sophisticated fleet.
Pure fanwanking. Closest bit to reality might be the aforementioned trolling motor.
About that logistic support: could one design a support ship designed to sail between the two hulls? (For that matter – a logistic support submarine??????? Surface between the two hulls?) If you’re going to think outside the box, …
I could be very wrong, but I don’t think this artwork came from any serious government proposal. I saw these last year, and they look like the fanciful imagination of someone good with PC graphics programs. Furthermore, this is coming from Strategypage. . They’re the web equivalent of the old International Combat Arms magazine from the 80′s … basically, entertaining but vacuous pulp reading.
Considering that China has thus far limited the size of their naval vessels and hasn’t tried for a home run like a Bismarck, I have serious doubts that this came anywhere from authentic PLAN sources.
Probably just some fun by some fans and not a serious proposal, but a couple general responses.
I’m no expert but I think:
1.) The whole point of a SWATH hull is that it rides heavy seas better because the majority of the hull is underwater. There’s just a knife edge of hull at the actual water/air interface that slices through any waves, while just tens or so feet below the surface of even heavy seas the degree of vertical motion is greatly reduced so the hull moves up and down much less. They are very stable, and that’s their whole point. They are much more expensive, structurally complex, more difficult to layout machinery, bunkerage room and other spaces, and are more maintenance intensive though. And while there is less drag because of a very long, thin planform at the water/air interface (related to scantling number I think) they’re not really all that great at prolonged high speeds because they can’t plane, which, err, some other ships do.
2.) The helo pad arrangement is really no different than behind a frigate, cruiser, cargo ship, etc. and aerodynamically is not a problem at all even at high speed. That’s how the vast majority of our current helos operate at sea already and have for decades. Actually, as a deck layout issue, it would allow you to land and shut down helos between cycles without clobbering the LA until the helos are dragged off.
“I hope, for their sake, that it’s not built by the same people who designed their bullet trains.”
That would be the Germans.
Lex and friends… have you ever sailed in a catamaran? If you have, then you know that everything is fine and dandy, streaking across the waves until… suddenly it isn’t, and you majestically flop over, dumped in the drink. I know, I know, this huge creature has stabilizers and that won’t happen. Wouldn’t bet on it though, not with my only fragile little pink body.
Marianne
Marianne,
Oh yes I did. Me and my mom, back when I was 11 sailed a catamaran with expert crew (who just sold us our 13 foot FJ which the rest of my family was fitting out for it’s test sail.) He hotdogged on one of the pontoons holding the tiller in one hand and mainsheet in the other and….wait for it…… fell overboard. I know I’d never been sailing before. My mother had never been sailing before. It was really fun. I enjoyed it a lot.
I went to Annapolis to sail in a series of races with my girlfriend. Her mom insisted on going with us darn it. She taught me to drive stick shift since that was the car we’d be taking. Yes I know, TMI.
Anyway, there was a restaurant there on the waterfront. Had the coolest poster I ever saw. Two WWII sort of Destroyers SWATHED together surfing down the face of this giant wave with all sails set. It was something like a Frezza painting but looking at it brought back the thrill of my first ride in a sailboat and seeing the only guy who knew what he was doing fall over the side and very quickly fall behind.
It was Fort Riley, Lake Milford and I had not yet read “Once an Eagle” and did not until that moment understand that mothers can really do everything. She grabbed tiller, sheet, came about, tacked upwind and rescued the lout.
BY the time they made the ship stiff enough to be able to take sea state 6 or better, the ride would be so rough, and the ship so heavy, they couldn’t use the thing. Also, they’d have to make each hull quite large to be able to have a decent hanger deck which would prevent making the speed expected of a Catty. In fact, the propulsion requirements would most likely go through the roof. I think Lex is right, it will never leave the boards.
But, I hope the Chinks invest a ton of resources, and waste lots of time on it.
you guys ever hear of the stupid mobile sea base concept?
how about some of the lame ideas for offshoring San Diego airport by building a ‘floating’ airport?
do we have any sea based laser fire control systems? I heard they were the coming thing way back in 1985.
Did you know they still salt the roads in Ohio? What kind of barbarian does that? My car is going to rust! There are rusty cars here!!
Heh! Some that salt was spread by my guys in Morgan County too. Yep, we were barbarians. One of our unofficial holidays was opening day of deer season. I knew nothing was gonna get done that day. I went out to the county barn one of those opening days and sat talking with the few guys that did come in. That was about 3 of them and the woman who was janitor and timekeeper.
Overhanging helipads, enclosed on one side… clearly whoever drew this thing never heard of Bernoulli.
I wonder where some of you think helicopters land aboard ship.
In the back, aft of the superstructure, stack, hanger, stuff like that. Did you think it was easy?
Walk in the park man. Seriously. When t ships go to flight corpen to recover aircraft it is to make simple and easy a difficult maneuver. Where’s the burble and difficult if the SORM says for these things to all stop head to windward and wait for the things to land?
Um, where do you suppose they are going to park it? Huge looks like an understatement. As for UNREP. The oiler’s gonna take station on it. Just like they do a carrier. All they have to do is sail constant course speed, and let everyone else do the work.
SWATHs do have excellent stability in any sea state that doesn’t reach above the lower decks. Think iceberg, the majority of the buoyancy (at least in the US designs I’ve seen) are submarine like compartments below the water line. This is where all the engineering and propulsion systems would be located. The comment about limited internal volume applies here. Above the water line you need sufficient sea board to allow waves to pass underneath the superstructure without slapping the underside. Because the actual surface area that interacts with sea does not change significantly, there is very little change in buoyancy. So pitching due to waves is minimal. Rogue waves are still a bitch.
The stringers and connectors between the two hulls will have enourmous dynamic stresses, (ever bent a paper clip back and forth? similar concept to what will be happening) I think this is why we don’t have many large SWATH platforms ourselves. It’s an engineering issue at that point. I’m guessing it just wasn’t cost effective to build and operate large SWATHs.
It sure looks neat though. Would love to see the underside schematics.
I’d never considered battle damage. How many subs survive hull penetration? Whoops, there goes all our bouyancy. I think we’re talking lots of vertical access to below decks and NO latteral. That’s a lot of up and down to move about the lower decks. Necessary in the design, but sucks if you have to walk it. I feel for the Sounding and Security watch.
OK, I went and looked at that picture again…SWATH??!! OMG, look at those fantails. That ain’t no SWATH design. Forget everything I said and think Japanese Animae. They took two destroyers or cruisers and put a flat board on top of them.
/cry
As far as taking one out goes, what could be beter than getting a sizeable explosive charge up under & between the two hulls? double your bang for the buck, with blast containment and hydro focusing.
I sense a certain degree of fan-boyism at work with the illustrations – but neverhteless, let ‘em blow the resources trying to build it. We went through our own period of trying to break the conventional norm in the run-up to the Ford class (remember this?) but went with a variation of the Numitz hull for a number of good, economical and warfighting reasons.
w/r, SJS
SJS – Agree entirely. In fact, I strongly suspect the entire thing is just a giant fan-boy exercise for “the ultimate Chinese aircraft carrier.” It looks like something that would be designed by many military technology message board groups – utterly fantastic, ridiculously capable, but with a complete lack of insight into small details like naval construction limitations, operational restrictions (unrep as mentioned, among others), and building ways. Based on the rough scale of the IL76 type aircraft, the thing would be in the vicinity of 2000 ft long.
I agree – I’d love China to spend a couple hundred billion trying to develop and build this thing. They might even build one, which would prompt everyone to wonder why it spent almost its entire career tied up pierside.
If it ever put to sea, you’d see a very large crack right down the middle and through the island. Unless it was built so stiff as to be like a piece of rock with a screw attached, it would flex in the middle and break during the first storm it tried to weather.
Is it just me or does that aircraft carrier look like nothing more than a pontoon boat with catapults and guns? There’s a reason one never sees a pontoon put to sea.
– Max