Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by mikmykWS »

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0&cid=1101
China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, can carry four Z-18J airborne early warning (AEW) helicopters, six Z-18F anti-submarine helicopters, two Z-9C rescue helicopters, and 24 J-15 shipborne fighter jets, the Chinese-language Shanghai Morning Post reported on Aug. 28.

Definitely not unreasonable.
ExNusquam
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:26 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by ExNusquam »

Saw this on Alert5 a few days ago - two squadrons of multi-role jets is more than acceptable for a CV. It's what the French carry and what the Russians are moving towards.
User avatar
NakedWeasel
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by NakedWeasel »

I'll make a gentleman's bet that we'll never see that many J-15's on the Liaoning. They'll build an indigenous flat top and put it to sea before they do that. That said, that is a VERY similar airwing that I dressed her out with in a hypothetical PRC Vs ROC scenario I've built. Because, without the PLANAF carrier-based air, it's just not as much fun- especially when the US Navy shows up.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
Coiler12
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:11 pm
Contact:

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by Coiler12 »

I had thirty J-15s on the Liaoning for my scenario featuring it. Good to see I was only off by six fighters.
AlmightyTallest
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:00 pm

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by AlmightyTallest »

For me, carrying a complement of aircraft is one thing, the other is the combat capability of those aircraft.

Liaoning is crippled because of the lack of steam catapults, and so her aircraft can't necessarily sortie with heavy combat loads, or if they do, they greatly sacrifice the internal fuel load and range for the aircraft. So there's other technical aspects to consider about the effectiveness of the systems.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130928/DEFREG/309280009/Chinese-Media-Takes-Aim-J-15-Fighter

What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”

The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles.

To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”

Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will make the J-15 an “unlikely match” against other foreign carrier-based fighters.

“Even the Vietnam People’s Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.”

So you could set up a few aircraft with Air to air only loadouts, and a strike group focusing on the heavier weapons for example.
User avatar
SSN754planker
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:48 pm

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by SSN754planker »

24 J-15 fighters seems to me to be the "lets see how many we can get on board for photo ops and propaganda" number. Operationally it looks like 18 J-15 will be more realistic. I have tested this in Command and with 24 fighters, the ships magazines can't even arm all of them before it empties.

18 is do-able if split into roughly half AAW/ASUW roles. this gives more flexibility and not having to be tied to a replenishment ship after every sortie. (which is another art the Chinese have yet to master. At sea replenishment is an art unto itself.)

The Liaoning is NOT as big as a US carrier and does not have the huge magazines of a Nimitz class. Id say the magazine size as it is modeled in Command is just about right. This reflects the ship not being even close in capability as a USN carrier.
MY BOOK LIST
ST1/SS SSN 754
Rudd
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:34 am

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by Rudd »

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0&cid=1101
China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, can carry four Z-18J airborne early warning (AEW) helicopters, six Z-18F anti-submarine helicopters, two Z-9C rescue helicopters, and 24 J-15 shipborne fighter jets, the Chinese-language Shanghai Morning Post reported on Aug. 28.

Definitely not unreasonable.
Found this pic and it looks like it will work to me. I count, I think 23 J-15s on the deck(including one taking off), plus 4 Z-9s(1 in the air) and than of course hangar space.
Image
Also there's the Kuznetsoz hangar bay illustration and pics from here
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by mikeCK »

Don't know. Not sure how you recover aircraft with all that crap on deck. Photo op maybe
Hongjian
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:11 pm

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by Hongjian »

Above picture is a CG.

At the moment, there are only 10 confirmed serial production J-15s on the Liaoning, excluding the 5 or so prototypes.

On the other hand, 24 seems reasonable, as several PLAN officers often leaked that number and the Admiral Kutznesov was designed for that complement of Su-33s as well. In that case, time will tell.

In terms of loadout, there's arguments that the Chinese media criticism about the J-15s being 'crippled by the lack of steam catapults' might not be entirely accurate. This article here has some good points:

Image

As supported by internal documents describing the maximum take-off weight of the J-15 from the Liaoning:

Image
Image
Image

The second picture shows; with at least 18 knots wind over deck (which means that the carrier must sail with 18 knots herself when there's no headwind), a J-15 with its maximum T/O weight of 32.8 tons can take off from the two 110m take-off positions on the Liaoning. But the J-15 will get dangerously close to water surface, down to an altitude of 22m before regaining lift and altitude, which is 2 meters more than the 'danger-zone' set by the Soviet naval aviation for their Su-33s.

Much more comfortably, the J-15 can take off with max payload when the Liaoning is sailing with 20 or 25 knots. From the single third position (195m "long-runway"), the J-15s could take off with maximum payload with little to no wind over deck. But of course this is kinda inefficient, as there is only one launch-point for the "long-runway".

Bottom line: The Liaoning isnt the perfect carrier, but it actually does its job with the J-15 under the correct cirmcumstances.





thewood1
Posts: 9107
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by thewood1 »

The short of it is that its not a global power projection platform like a US carrier is supposed to be. It is at best a regional power projection platform that has to be part of a larger integrated plan. You see people complain about the vulnerability of a US carrier to cheap ASM counters. The Liaoning is most likely more vulnerable with a more limited air wing. Against a single US CVBG, it will have to depend on significant land aviation support, along with other non-naval support.

And that is not even considering that the air wing has never been in a high-tempo combat setting. That type of situation is where air wings and their supporting elements start to really get visibility into all the bugs that are inherently part of doing something new.
Rudd
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:34 am

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by Rudd »

Oh boy, I hate CGs.

Thanks Hongjian, great info/post as usual!
User avatar
jdkbph
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:43 pm
Location: CT, USA

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by jdkbph »

ORIGINAL: thewood1

The short of it is that its not a global power projection platform like a US carrier is supposed to be. It is at best a regional power projection platform that has to be part of a larger integrated plan.

I would argue it's not even that. It's a tech demonstrator, a floating laboratory (think USS Langley (CV1) or USS Ranger (CV4)), a show piece... and perhaps an attempt to serve notice that they're serious about starting down the path toward a credible blue water force.

As of the moment, and looking into the near future...? In no way would this type of ship, even assuming it was fully operational, provide a capability to perform global power projection or SLOC control type missions beyond the range of LBA. They are now, and into the foreseeable future, simply trying to mount a credible A2/AD threat around their own coastlines (and any off shore LBA facilities that they might be able to... er, ahem... dredge up).

As to effective carrier combat operations... something the USN would actually have to take seriously? IMO, they're probably 20 to 30 years away. Assuming of course that they have the will to stay the course.

JD
JD
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by Dysta »

Put in the other way: how Russian Kuznetsov project their own naval power with experienced, but partially inferior systems and lack of maintenance?
User avatar
ClaudeJ
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Bastogne

Re: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by ClaudeJ »

hey there,

a copy-paste from Discord, from when we were looking for a near futuristic composition. That CVBG appear in Nukkxx's Françafrique PBEM scenario.

For the PA Shadong group, I would recommend this:
- Shandong (CV-17, type 002 #3187, Captain Obvious...)
- Qinghaihu (AOE 885, type 908, #2494) (Tanker, but only 16 knots. As a rich option, you have the Chaganhu, type 901 #2980 which makes up to 25 knots and is larger, which seems to me to fit with a deployment at the other end of the world)
- Nanchang (DDG 101, type 055 #2834. An air defense cruiser, at 13000 tons)
- Yinchuan (DDG 175, type 052D #2296. An air defense destroyer)
- Xi'an (DDG 153, type 052C #696. A multirole destroyer, with good anti-aircraft defense capabilities)
- Xianning (FFG 500, type 054A++) (an ASW frigate with towed sonar and variable depth sonar)
- one or two submersibles. Normally, these are 039 Yuan, but so far from the naval bases, I think a probably a SSN would be deployed. And would be in the area before the BG.

The air group could be composed of:
- 24-32 J-15 #2496
- 4x Z-9D #5011 (Pedro and SAR)
- 3x Z-18YJ #3303 (AEW)
- 8x Z-8FQ #3707 (ASW)

On board the other ships, 1x Z-9D #4928 (SAW. 2x on the Nanchang)

Note: there would only be one operational J-15D.
As of December 2019, there were 30 pilots and 24 operational J-15s aboard the CV-16.
To date, there would be 50 J-15s produced.
One should not be lured by the advertised maximum parking capacities. I think that overloading the CV would result in a loss of fluidity in operations.

All of this is based on articles I could find online, especially those by Rick Joe from "The Diplomat" magazine, who was recommended to me by Andreas Rupprecht, a specialist in Chinese equipment.
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4 Go, Windows 10 64bits, 32 GB RAM, Regional settings = French, Belgium
(Previously known as JanMasters0n)
thewood1
Posts: 9107
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by thewood1 »

I just bought this book a few weeks ago:

https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Air-Powe ... C59&sr=8-1

A great book that details the complete OOB, aircraft, and weapons of the PLAAF and PLAN. Can't recommend it enough. While the authors a are a little overly optimistic on some capabilities, they go into very good detail on variants, InOp dates, and organization.
User avatar
ClaudeJ
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Bastogne

Re: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by ClaudeJ »

Thank you, thewood1!
How does it compare with Rupprecht's books?
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4 Go, Windows 10 64bits, 32 GB RAM, Regional settings = French, Belgium
(Previously known as JanMasters0n)
thewood1
Posts: 9107
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by thewood1 »

I have a few of Rupprecht's books also. I find Gordan's book much more comprehensive. And For the price of Gordan's book, you can only get one of Rupprecht's books. And you 5-6 for the same content.
BDukes
Posts: 2577
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

Re: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by BDukes »

thewood1 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 6:01 pm I have a few of Rupprecht's books also. I find Gordan's book much more comprehensive. And For the price of Gordan's book, you can only get one of Rupprecht's books. And you 5-6 for the same content.
One is square and the other is more like a rectangle. :P
Don't call it a comeback...
User avatar
ClaudeJ
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Bastogne

Re: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by ClaudeJ »

Appreciate the feedback mate. Not easy to choose. Well, not easy to buy them all :D
My experience is that I find Rupprecht's books more reliable (he's doing the legwork all year long, check his Twitter eg.), while Gordon barely update his material (I still find figures copied from the late '80 Jane's in the last edition of his books on Sov/Russian aircraft).
However, you are absolutely right, Rupprecht's are expensive, and its scope is more focused.

Oh, on the very topic of this thread, I forgot I have Newdick's Carrier Aviation in the 21st Century, Aircraft carriers and their units in detail.

It's quote good, but sometimes feel shallow. Each author surely know his stuff, but I almost felt I would be reading a magazine rather than a book. I guess it could fit it the "mook" category.
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4 Go, Windows 10 64bits, 32 GB RAM, Regional settings = French, Belgium
(Previously known as JanMasters0n)
thewood1
Posts: 9107
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Chinese Carrier Air Group Composition

Post by thewood1 »

Keep in mind that the date on that book is 4-5 years old. The Gordan book is less than a year old. In Chinese aviation, thats a life time.

There are a number of those books I have considered from Harpia several times and then realized they are five years old. For China, thats just too old. I have to refresh my go-to books every couple of years.
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”