A problem with this data - which has been filtering around the backchannels for a while and is briefly mentioned in a Strategypage item (at least the name is) - is that the Varyag is not supposed to have any engines.  It does not make a lot of sense to work up the deck for landings if they have to open the decks to put in engines.  That caused some analysts to speculate this ship might be used as a static training platform - as was done with HMAS Melbourne's actual flight deck about 1985.  But you don't commission a static hulk as a warship in your navy. 

 

Jane's Fighting Ships lists the 81 and 82 number series as "auxiliaries."  However, the two ships with those numbers are flagships - and 83 can be interpreted in exactly the same way.  The idea a launching is not public is SOP in PLAN - the launching of a Yuan type submarine being the only exception I can think of - and that was a technical surprise.  [Except for Strategypage there was no mention of a new AIP type conventional submarine in the West before it was publically shown at Wuhan shipyard].  PLA consideres the status of new warships "state secrets" and even to photograph them is a crime in PRC.  Don't expect a formal announcement until after the ship is in a naval base and operational for some time (as was done on 7 Dec by PLA Daily for the new LSD type vessel in the South Sea Fleet - a ship built in the covered ways of Shanghai and long a mystery - we knew she had a flight deck and that there are more building in the three ways there - and that she was too small to be a full carrier). 

On the matter of engines and Varyag, I found a report they were "in tact" in 2005 - and so I did some digging.  It appears that the original report - that "the engines were removed to serve as spares for Kuznetzov" - may indeed have been correct - insofar as the 8 vertical boilers are concerned.  It does not appear - and we have imagery during her period in Ukraine - that they opened up the decks to remove the turbines however.  In which case the problem of providing propulsion is reduced to providing steam and control systems - both of which could easily have been fabricated on board during years of work at Dailan shipyard.  There is also a web report the engines were in tact on a web site dedicated to watching China defense issues - which tends to confirm the report I have independently - although in both cases it appears to require one believe those who actually work inside the ship.  These sorts of reports turned out to be true re the LSDs built under cover in Shanghai - and it does not make a lot of sense to commission a ship with no propulsion or indeed to refit the flight deck of such a ship - but you are free to draw your own conclusions.  I think the drydocking of the ship and full treatment of the hull (meaning cleaning, red leading, then finish painting), the fitting of steering gear, etc. combine with commissioning and assigning a crew to be decisive:  this is a warship working up.

Another indicator of carrier intent is the ordering of carrier variants of the Su-27 family for the PLANAF:  it appears the order was for 48 Su-33 and that 50 will be delivered (a peculiar SOP of Russian/Chinese aircraft deals is 2 "free" planes in the mix).  There are also reports of a J-10 variant for carrier service, and ONI reported that it was the long term preference of the PLANAF for carrier duty some years ago.  [PLA does prefer local production if possible, long term, because it is cheaper and less subject to cut off if the supplier becomes unhappy for any reason.  Naval action might result in international sanctions - so this is a consideration.]  Why buy carrier planes now - unless there is some need for them in the near term? 

Why buy carrier planes now - unless there is some need for them in the near term? 

I can think of over a dozen modern airforces who use carrier rated (and still tail hooked) aircraft in their airforces and yet have no carriers in their ORBAT.

I wish this nonsense of associating the HMAS Melbourbe hulk with PLAN fleet air arm training would die out.  Seriously, what lunatic is going to attempt touch and goes on a static flight deck that has no runway length, has no catapults (we absolutely gutted them into unuseable pieces that wouldn't work even if they were all bought back together) - and the fact that there is also no arresting mechanism available.  Lets also not forget that carrier was decommissioned because it could not be used for larger CTOL jet fighter aircraft.  Lets also not forget that there are far better and more efficient ways to train carrier pilots.

 

The constant references to HMAS Melb as an attempt to imply or associate latency of training in modern T&L's is just abject nonsense.  HMAS Melb benefit lay elsewhere - it does not lie in T&L training

 

 

The SU-30 purchase by China for the PLAN really does not mean they will ever operate from a carrier.  The SU-30s are currently used as land based strike fighters along with the PLAN FH-7.  The most telling addition to the SU-30 will not be a tail hook but a refueling probe. 

 

The Viagra's sister ship that is operational in the Russian Navy (the Nutsoff) flys the MiG-29SK for obvious reasons - take off with weapon's loading.  The design of the Viagra restricts the take off and landing weight so the fighters fly with limited fuel and weaponry.  This restriction limits operational radius and capability to a fraction of the land based rating.  The heavier SU-30 has a real problem operating from this class of carrier - a botched landing can punch a hole right through the flight deck.  Thus, based on strict physics, any wing of jets operating from the Viagra would be a token CAP with limited performance - even one-way.

 

The PLAN has also made it clear they favor the FC-1 over the J-10 - most likely to replace the aging fleet of land based J-7s (MiG-21 copies).  However, the PLAAF is pushing the J-10 down the PLAN's throat.  Despite the canard style controls, the J-10 is not likely to make any appearance with a tail hook.  It is poorly designed for a carrier role - note the cockpit location high up as compared to a real canard carrier jet - the Rafale.  This will make it difficult to land on a carrier.

 

Really the only viable alternative is either full CTOL with catapult or VSTOL such as the F-35 or Harrier.  We are not likely to see either technology introduced into the PLAN in the forseeable future.

 

I for one would relish the PLAN pouring more more more money into the Viagra.  It is such a waste as compared to investing in something really dangerous like more SSNs.

Softwar, BSD is referring to news items from a year ago that China was specifically buying Su-33 carrier variants.  I think you understood that, but you typed Su-30 so I just wanted to make sure.  When they start getting them (signing a deal does not mean it is already happening, just ask the Iranians), then we can start the clock as to how soon before they're ready to beginning training on the Aircraft Platform called Varyag/Shilang.  Of course, there's still the lacking of any showing so far not only of the jet airwing but even of the ship itself being ready for sea.  Still, that should happen some year soon.  Softwar is quite correct to point out that Su-33s would have to operate lightly loaded from the Shilang, but that would be okay for practicing take-offs and landings so some PLANAF pilots can actually at last become carrier qualified, as in what it really means to be carrier qualified and be able to land on a moving deck without dying, and not just learning to touch down close to a spot on the runway.  I'd guess the timeline will be something like:  get some carrier-capable jets over the next several years, transition some trained Su-30MK2 pilots to them in several months, meanwhile get the Shilang ready for sea and operating over the next several years, and then start training in carrier operations for the next couple years until an air wing and their crews (including on board ship) are trainied.  By that time maybe China will have finally built a real carrier of her own, and be ready to take on board this newly-trained air wing--say in about 2015 or so (if all goes well).

 

DJ - good points all.  Yep - I know of the proposed purchase of the SU-33 and that was indeed my intent in the posting - noting that the tail hook is the biggest change over the land based SU-30 (of course the beefed up airframe and landing gear do make a diff) but the SU-33 is less of a carrier plane than the MiG-29SK which has some major feature changes to make it carrier capable.  As I pointed out - I would be more concerned about refueling probes on the Sukhoi more than a tail hook. 

 

As you point out - that SU-33 deal is very iffy at best - the J-11B tiff between Russia and China has all the military aircraft purchases up in the air - not just the SU-33 but the IL-78 tanker as well.  The Chinese are determined to screw themselves out of the deal because they would rather build knock-offs of the Russian designs with no payments than buy Russian or pay the license fees.  Too bad - so sad.

 

As you pointed out - it takes more than building the hardware (jets and carriers) to make an operational weapon system.  The kind of training, logistics and funding required makes me lean toward 2020 or later considering the kind of complexity and how China can handle the technology.  Still, even flying SU-33s in 2015 puts them up against a wide range of threats that outclass them to such a point that its not worth the effort.  So - again I relish the thought of the PLAN pushing for a carrier and carrier aircraft. 

 

I still blame the Clinton administration for buying into the "its a casino" excuse when the Viagra was sold to China.  It was suppose to go to Macau and become a floating hotel.  However, Clinton buddy/pal/illegal donor Ng Lapseng arranged to have it transferred to Dalian where it rests to this day as a PLAN warship.  Ng owns the Macau Fortuna hotel/casino/brothel.  Ng also spent loads of time in the White House - there is a wonderful pic of him with Bill and Hillary in the White House.

 

BSD continues to show he knows nothing about ships, planes, training, weapons, strategic thought, and he can not read western news articles.

 

He comes off like a huge PRC fan boy in drag. I know he is trying to convince us of how mean the PLA is, but he acts like myth or htj. Ignorance like that gets old.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

These are the only ways that you will get Su-33's to operate off the Varyag at full warload:

 

- Change the engines power to weight - and ensure that engine weight does not increase as it will effect launch (as it currently does)

- Install JATO or RATO - and be prepared to lose hardpoints (something that defeats the purpose of maximising warload anyway)

- Increase runway length or recalculate launch angle with rerated engines

- Reduce plane weight without compromising load out points

 

The fundamental difference is that the russians didn't build aircraft carriers to perform fleet air arm roles as per the USN, RN, MN etc..... and the chinese either rewrite the doctrine to suit the platforms limitations - or they build a real carrier where STOBAR limitations (volley rate, form up rate, package issues etc....) are neutralised.

 

Just because a vessel has a flat deck and some planes doesn't mean that it's an aircraft carrier.  Its simple maths. get a USN CVN and the Varyag and work out how long each can launch a given strike package repeatedly (or rolling) against a sophisticated defender - and don't cheat by assuming that land based air will pick up package assistance roles.

 

For the really enthusiastic, estimate the weight of  a dry 65,000 tonne vessel, then estimate the weight of engines and drivetrain to propel a 65,000 tonne vessel, assume that some of the bunkerage is in place and "wet", add in the weight for a wet "engine" and then go back and have a look at the depth/draught markings over time and note the difference.  Guess what?  the drive train and bunkerage to at least nominally lubricate those engines (as they will need cycling over) weighs as much as a large frigate - and Varyag has had no change in the way she sits in the water for years.

 

The only engines in that ship are "Lombardi" generators designed to  give power to low level electrical demands such as lighting and basic electronics.

 

 

 

 

This is interesting.

The Chinese DID put the catapult from Melbourne back together - and DID use it (mounted on barges at Shanghai) - to test launch J-6 type (i.e. MiG-19 derivitive) aircraft.  So "impossible" turned out not to be impossible after all.

 

Fellow Australian - and fellow PLAN carrier skeptic - You Ji - who is also Chinese in the same sense you are -

is very expert in PLA matters - regarded as the best in your country.  HE is the one pushing the "nonsense" about Melbourne - as late as a 2002 paper on PLAN carriers - as relevant to the subject.  And so did the two principle admirals who advocated carriers in PLAN history - the one in charge at the time Melbourne was scrapped - and his successor in the 1990s - who now appears to actually be the officer in charge of the Varyag/Shilang project.  Once again - you are unusually wide of the mark - expressing a view that is technically speaking perfectly out of sync with reality.  Usually your points are very plausable and quite possible - but not here.

 

As for your view that this sort of training is useless to the point no one would do it - well - since someone IS doing it - clearly that is also wrong.  But at least it makes sense from a Western point of view.  I think here it is you that are not "linked" to Chinese thinking - as you said of me in your previous post.  The Chinese are not doing this the way we would do it - and have different concepts in mind/use.  I think for one thing the PLANAF uses offshore aviation platforms right now - ones that are as stable as a flight deck in the middle of a runway - and this is good practice for short runway operations.  I think they might be able to ground a carrier hulk in shallow water and achieve sort of an "instant airfield" effect in a new location - and note they have two such hulks available (unless Varyag herself is a third such hulk, in which case it is three - and why collect them if they have no use?). I remember the Lilly Pad concept - and a related one using wooden elements instead of steel ones - which can be used to assemble a short runway in a sheltered lagoon or lake in 40 minutes.  So short of proper carrier operations as we envisage them there appear to be applications for this sort of take off/landing regime.  As for real carrier ops, it might be a good way to select pilots, and it might be a way to gain a force able to be used as a body for limited operations (e.g. take off with a non carrier plane embarked before the mission, then continue operations with other aircraft). 

 

The one thing missing from Chinese carrier programs is a dedicated air group.  But this same thing is missing from ALL Chinese naval aviation programs - no helo is based on any ship either.  Basing ashore is the PLA norm in PLANAF and the new Coast Guard.  I think this is wise and deliberate - and may imply an intention to use ALL land based air (other than gigantic H-6 type machines) from carriers or other offshore platforms - at need. At least one a