"PLAN Officers to Train on Brazilian Aircraft Carrier " Topic

Publication: China Brief
Volume: 9
Issue: 12June 12, 2009 10:14 AM
By: Russell Hsiao

NAe Sao Paulo

In a May 9 interview with Brazilian defense, strategy and intelligence news website Defasanet, Brazilian Defense Minister Nelson Jobim stated that Brazil and China had reached an agreement to train personnel from the People's Liberation Army Navy ( PLAN ) in Brazil. In the interview ( available in Portuguese ) , Jobim announced that the two sides reached a training agreement to stage PLAN officers aboard the NAe Sao Paulo, Brazil's Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier ( Defesanet, May 13 ) .

Continued here… link

Looks like China's getting practice at carrier operations, and Brazil might be getting assistance with Nuclear submarine construction ( yeesh, from China ) , and money to enable repair and modernization of the Sao Paulo.

Steve Jolly

Why would they need to do that for their floating casino, they bought from the Russians? ;-)

I didn't know the Brazilians had a carrier.

Like that will last. Do the chinese even have any idea what it costs to operate a carrier that far from home? The logistics are huge and expensive.

EDIT

Okay, I misread that. I thought it was a Chinese carrier.
Still a lot of money to send fighters to Brazil.

I'm guessing it will be primarily officers concerned with handling flightdeck operations. The 'casino' has a ski-jump so training on a flat deck Clemanceau won't be all that valuable for pilots, engineers don't need to learn on a vastly different power plant and weapons and sensors will also be completely different. Ship handling might be helpful since a carrier certainly handles differently than anything else the PLAN drives.

They want to develop at least a green water capability (near-shore power projection capability), and I believe they want true blue water ops for at least a portion of their fleet, in order to help enforce their claims to the South China Sea, and for power projection in the region.

The Indians have a carrier, so the Chinese want one too.

Given their huge increase in economic power recently, money doesn't seem to be an issue for them.

It will be interesting to see how the Japanese react to the development and deployment of a Chinese carrier.

The Japanese will plotz a big one.

It will be interesting to see how the Japanese react to the development and deployment of a Chinese carrier.

Well, if history is any precedent…

Well the Japanese have those new 'Helicopter Destroyers' coming online.

Red China needs so capability to stand off the US when it invades Formosa.

Actually the São Paulo is already leased out periodically for training by other nations. Argentina has been using the carrier for several years and they don't even own a carrier anymore.

China is a significant economic partner in the region, there is a lot of Chinese investment in Brazil and they are the largest market for Brazilian iron ore and other mineral exports. The Chinese have for example put billions into upgrading Brazil's rail network. In turn Embraer, the world leader and largest producer of small to medium passenger aircraft and bizjets is setting up licensed producion facilities in China.

Interstingly when I searched the Defesanet archive I couldn't find any such article for May 13.

"Red China needs so capability to stand off the US when it invades Formosa".

I doubt it will be able to do much from the bottom of the sea, but the fish in the area should enjoy the new reef….

The 'casino' has a ski-jump so training on a flat deck Clemanceau won't be all that valuable

I hope we get royalties if they are using the ski-jump idea…

I did a quick survey of military Chinese aircraft about a year ago and gained the impression they were 20-30 years behind their western counter parts. But I'm no expert. How do other members assess their capability?

You may be surprised to hear that China has 4 decommissioned carriers only one of which is a casino. The other three are elsewhere and are being studied and or modernized, They are variants of the Soviet "Kiev" class one of which is the Varyag (?) obtained from Ukraine.

Sources in China suggest that when and not "if" China builds carriers they will be similar to the Kiev's in the 50,000T range with around 30 -40 aircraft (modified Yak 38's and Mig 29's ) . The PLAN has announced that they will not be competing with the US carrier groups as quoted …even 20 Chinese carriers would not be a match for a single USN nuclear carrier.

Carriers are seen as means of force projection as even a small carrier in a situation looks impressive if used for things like anti-piracy or humanitarian relief. Carriers could also be used to increase the poor ASW capabilities of the Plan and also as training aids for submarines and other attack assets.

For interesting reading on Naval Power in Asia I would suggest " Asia Looks Seaward: Power and Maritime Strategy" edited by Toshi Yoshihara and James R Holmes, 2008
ISBN 978–0–275–99403–7 (alk. paper)

Chortle wrote:

I did a quick survey of military Chinese aircraft about a year ago and gained the impression they were 20-30 years behind their western counter parts.

OK. And what new designs of military aircraft have entered squadron service in the West over the past 20 years?

All the best,

John.

Errr John how about Rafale, Grypen, Eurofighter/Typhoon and Just entering servicev the F-22. Thats not to mention new technolgies which have upgraded aircraft like the F-15/16/18 the Mirage series and Tornados.

Chortle the PLAAF has and still is improving, I would put them about 10 or so years behind these days. Well apart from the USA the Raptor changes the whole game not just the rules. Co-operation with other countries and western industry has also added to the capabilities. With a bit of luck we will get some 1/600th chinese types soon

Fatman

"…The PLAN has announced that they will not be competing with the US carrier groups as quoted …even 20 Chinese carriers would not be a match for a single USN nuclear carrier…."

But they should have Vietnam, Philippines, and any other claimants to the Paracels and Spratleys sweating!

Gracias,

Glenn

Agreed.

No doubt, the Indians and Japanese won't be very happy either.

You may be surprised to hear that China has 4 decommissioned carriers only one of which is a casino. The other three are elsewhere and are being studied and or modernized, They are variants of the Soviet "Kiev" class one of which is the Varyag (?) obtained from Ukraine.<q/>

I am surprised.
"Varyag" was a Kuznetsov class and of the Kievs the two that I know of in China are fun fairs… one is just up the road from me.
hksw.org/Minsk.htmCheers,
Cheers,
Peter

Sorry,
The link should be less cheerful:
hksw.org/Minsk.htm
Cheers,
Peter

I dunno about that, Mapleleaf.

In order to safely operate STOL or CTOL aircraft, you need a ship of certain minimum size, which means that any Chinese-built carrier is going to be a good 900 feet long at a minimum. The Essex-class carriers of WW2 were 872 feet long, and aircraft the size of the F4 are too big to be handled safely. The Midway-class were 968 feet long, and too small to handle the F14 or S3. The Forrestal-class are 1070 feet long (same as the Kitty Hawk), and the Enterprise/Nimitz carriers are over 1100 feet long. Basically, any nation wanting to operate CTOL aircraft needs to build (or acquire) a 1000-foot long ship. Even the Brits and French are building carriers that size.

I'm not sure how well the new Chinese fighters compare to the Super Hornets, but I'm pretty sure they're comparable to the F18, and that large a carrier allows a substantial group of aircraft.

As the US discovered with the Ex-USS America SINKEX, it's pretty much impossible to sink a modern carrier without using strategic-level firepower, the Hangar Deck is too much volume to let the carrier sink.

The Sukhois are actually much better, at least in terms of top speed, and overall maneuverability, compared to the Super Hornets.

Not sure about their radar, but the Su's do have room for a large, powerful radar system, and supposedly a rear facing radar as well.

I imagine their pilots are nowhere near as good however.

Lion in the Stars, the Ark Royal was only a smidge over 800' and operated F4s so it is possible. The new carrier we are building is only 920, you don't need a super carrier to operate these aircraft – you need one to operate them in large quantities.

Info on the Chinese carrier program: link

It is interesting that the Russians warned the Chinese it could take them 10 years or more to develop the knowledge and skills to run a carrier. Chinese are up for it.

Does not seem like a time line people in the West are capable of seeing anymore. More than 2 minutes and they are outraged.

And then there is always this Chinese carrier:

bobhenneman.info/china.htm

Hadn't realized that the brits had figured out how to land an F4 on a carrier that small, but I was mostly quoting the info from wikipedia about US carrier development (where the US did NOT deploy F4s on the . Some of that may have been width of flight-deck issues as opposed to length, I'm not sure.

@SirTainly: is that 920 feet waterline length or flight deck length? If it's waterline length, then your 'little' carrier is about 100 feet shorter than the Nimitz-class overall.

My guess is that this set of training is for flight ops personnel and shipdrivers. both of those skills are very different when your floating airfield is moving at 30 knots compared to concrete-in-the-ground.

Sorry don't know which measurement it is, from wikipedia ;). I hadn't realised how big the new carriers were though, practically the same width as a Nimitz too! Displacement seems to much lower though 65K vs 103K, wonder where the difference lies?

Well, 1 cubic meter of fresh water is 1000 kg, so that's probably just the difference in length. 30 meters difference in waterline length times a beam of 40m, and carriers draw about 10m, so there's an instant 12,000 tons.

A gas-turbine plant is much lighter than a nuc plant, too. I mean, look at the difference between a diesel-powered WW2 fleet boat (27 foot beam) and a modern nuc boat (36 foot beam). Almost 5000 tons greater displacement from the Gato class to the Los Angeles (roughly triple the displacement).

An even scarier comparison is the difference between a 688's 7000 tons (360' loa, 36' beam) versus the Seawolf's 9200 tons (360' loa, 40' beam). A little less beam makes a significantly lighter ship.