CV-17 Shandong (002 carrier) Thread I ...News, Views and operations

[Tam]

I agree with Vktor. The financial cost and opportunity cost of ship yard capacity make it unlikely that the Chinese will retro-fit a ski jump carrier, especially once they have a working model of something like a Ford class carrier. The several months of valuable dock space and money just to buy one catapult. Don't forget, these are still carriers with some capability, so the incremental increase is small compared to the cost.

I don't think refitting these carriers would cost as much as building a new one, which is in the billions. Several months to do it is a short time period compared to building a carrier (at least 5 years), at least a year to fit it out, another year or more to trial and train it.

Dock space is abundant, and the Chinese shipyards are facing overcapacity. Money isn't short, however the tolerance for wasting them might be short.

Ships are going to last. They will last for decades. The PLAN still keeps old ships and there are still Ludas in service. China isn't going to build 5 02s and refit two 01s in exchange for 6 02s; they will build 6 02s and still refit these 01s. I don't expect the Liaoning and 01A to be gone in two decades. I expect them to last for at least five. They may still be there around 2050. Look at all the preceding history how the PLAN has kept and refitted their old ships --- many of whom were done drastically. These includes ships that didn't have VLS, and were VLS'ed. There are ships that I can't explain why they are still around, but they are still around, like the Type 052s.

The difference of adding a steam catapult can mean a huge difference even just 24 plans, since you can now have full loads with them and add AEW variants. There is going to be a huge increase in combat potential, and the difference can be enough to win or loss wars, and the cost of a steam catapult would be nothing compared to that.

 

[Intrepid]

Apparently there are 2 camps here. One who thinks Liaoning will be refurbished at a later date to retrofit cats while the other not. I myself am in the second camp for reasons already stated however I also respect the opinions of those who believe in the former.

I do not think Liaoning will be refurbished later to retrofit cats. I think the two Chinese STOBAR carriers are prepared to install cats and it is decided shortly before their mid-life overhaul if they get cats or not. Technically, it is no problem to retrofit the two carriers with cats.

 

[plawolf]

As much as the talking pundits and bobheads like to crow about it, the possibility of a Cold War turning hot happening in the next 10-20 years is just about as likely as man forgoing war as a means to an end.

The two possibilities are nothing like equally likely. Please do not be disingenuous.

Taiwan is always a possible flashpoint, and now you can add Korea and the SCS to possible sources of conflict.

But the golden rule is that the threat of conflict is not kept at bay through wishful thinking, but by being prepared such that the other guy doesn’t perceive a weakness as to be tempted to attack you.

For the justification of a dated carrier design to be so radically out fitted would require China to be embroiled in a long distance off shore conflict with a somewhat capable foe over a strong enough interest.
Such a combination of issues is not to be found the continents of Europe, Africa and the American Continents. Not until China has build up a sufficient network of investments and interests, and that will not happen in the next 20 years at best.

For starters, those carriers would not only be useful in some far off fight. They would be first and foremostly important for homeland defence. When faced with potentially 10 enemy carriers, do you want 6 or 8 or more yourself?

Secondly, have you not heard of the Belt and Road initiative? China is investment near astronomical sums in that project, which is China’s new grand project that will secure China’s future for the next century or more. You can bet that adversaries will try to target that, and China may well need to fight to defend it.

Future more, any possible conflict between China and the US is going happen at the immediate periphery of Asia. In that area, China's home field advantage of land based air assets will much more important than any retrofitted carrier. Going any future beyond their immediate turf would mean that both country can only rely on their navies's assets. In which case a Type 001A with just one catapult will be crushed by even a decommissioned Kitty Hawk.There is a difference between having a lot of ships and having a lot of "capable" ships, having a fleet of 6 Type 002s will be much more potent than 5 Type 002s and 2 Type 001s

You make it seem like the choice is between more 002s or refitting the 001A and maybe Liaoning, when that was never the choice. The real choice is to have just more 002s and 003s, or have those AND have the 001A and Liaoning refitted with CATs.

And yes I am dismissive of the limited utility that the CV-16 and CV-17 can bring, as at best a standard retrofit proposed would only give them just one catapult to work on. Trying to put more would entitled reworking or removing the ski-ramp entirely to accommodate the forward catapults. This would require even more time, money and dock space to make work. Why would the PLAN consider such a venture when the Type 003 are most likely to be commissioned in numbers already by the time CV-16 and CV-17 are due for an overhaul, which would be in the 2030-2040s.

When you have fitted 4 CATs do the 001A and Liaoning, just how much more effective would an 002 be compared to that? Not a great deal! Which is the whole point. You will be spending cents on the dollar to give your carrier a quantum leap in capabilities.

So, rather than spend 1 billion and 1 year to bring the 001A and Liaoning up to 80-90% combat capability of a type 002, you think they should spend 10 billion and 5+ years to build more 002s and spend hundreds of millions and years scrapping the Liaoning and 001A early?

China is pretty much in Cold War mode already, where money is not really an issue, so the PLAN doesn’t need to make penny wise pound stupid decisions to manage their budget.

If they can make a good enough case, special budgets will be made available.

 

[Red Moon]

There are two debates here. The first, and original one was a technical one about whether China's first two aircraft carriers would be retrofitted with catapults at some point. I would tend to agree that it would greatly improve the usefulness of those vessels, and if the cost is not prohibitive (as argued by Intrepid), based on past and current practice (as argued by Tam), I would expect the PLAN to take that route.

But there's a problem. Are the first two STOBAR carriers equipped for electromagnetic catapults? Can they be converted to IEPS? If not, then the PLA Navy has to further experiment and refine steam catapults, and find a way to integrate this energy aspect of things into the existing propulsion systems. Either way, there's a new technological hurdle: is solving one or the other of these worthwhile for only two medium sized carriers carriers? I don't know the answer.

The other debate is a geopolitical one, and although I agree with many of the points made by Plawolf, I disagree that they have anything to do with this problem, because of the time-frame involved. Tensions are indeed increasing, but I expect them to peak within the decade (2018-2027). That's too soon for any refit.

In 10 years' time, China's economy will be significantly bigger than that of the US by any measure. It will have much bigger industrial output, more exports and even more imports. In terms of major surface combatants, China's navy will also be more powerful, even if it is only on a regional level, due to the disadvantage in aircraft carriers. China's economic growth rate will still be very high, and interconnectivity within China and between China and Southeast Asia, Central Asia and much of South Asia will begin to approach European levels. Everybody in between will take note, and this, in turn, could have a very negative impact on the dollar. It's not for nothing people in certain countries are freaking out.

 

[Tam]

The two STOBARs would have to use steam catapults, which were already developed anyway and tested alongside the EMAL as we have seen in the test strip satellite images. There is also the possibility that the third carrier can be using steam catapults instead of EMALs. So there is no development cost, as the steam catapults are already developed.

 

[reservior dogs]

Tam: "post: 511638, member: 12758"]I don't think refitting these carriers would cost as much as building a new one, which is in the billions. Several months to do it is a short time period compared to building a carrier (at least 5 years), at least a year to fit it out, another year or more to trial and train it.

Dock space is abundant, and the Chinese shipyards are facing overcapacity. Money isn't short, however the tolerance for wasting them might be short. "

While normal dock space might be abundant, currently, only one and maybe two shipyards can build carriers. They are using this precious resource to ramp up the learning curve as they should. After CV20 and CV21 are built, they can probably pump these things out pretty fast. Maybe a year will be spent assembling the modules on the dock compared to a few months spent on the same dock to retrofit CV16. Compared to a Ford class carrier for a few additional months of dock and crew time, the additional benefit just does not seem to be worth the effort. Now of course they can train more people and upgrade some dock equipment to have three, four, five carriers going at once, but at some point, that goes against economy of scale. If you scale up higher than your long term production plan, the extra capacity will have to be re-allocated. The reason the Chinese are more successful compared to the Russians is that they learn and follow the economic principles that work from the West.

 

[Tam]

Tam: "post: 511638, member: 12758"]I don't think refitting these carriers would cost as much as building a new one, which is in the billions. Several months to do it is a short time period compared to building a carrier (at least 5 years), at least a year to fit it out, another year or more to trial and train it.

Dock space is abundant, and the Chinese shipyards are facing overcapacity. Money isn't short, however the tolerance for wasting them might be short. "

While normal dock space might be abundant, currently, only one and maybe two shipyards can build carriers. They are using this precious resource to ramp up the learning curve as they should. After CV20 and CV21 are built, they can probably pump these things out pretty fast. Maybe a year will be spent assembling the modules on the dock compared to a few months spent on the same dock to retrofit CV16. Compared to a Ford class carrier for a few additional months of dock and crew time, the additional benefit just does not seem to be worth the effort. Now of course they can train more people and upgrade some dock equipment to have three, four, five carriers going at once, but at some point, that goes against economy of scale. If you scale up higher than your long term production plan, the extra capacity will have to be re-allocated. The reason the Chinese are more successful compared to the Russians is that they learn and follow the economic principles that work from the West.

Space isn't the problem, carriers are dwarfed compared to the container ships and bulk carriers these shipyards pump out like hamburgers in McDonald's. Liaoning and Carrier #2 are dwarves compared to these. Its not likely that refitting Liaoning and CV17 would be using the dock space reserved for 100,000 carrier, or 300,000 DWT bulk carriers. Since Chinese shipyards were cranking out Chinamaxes (365m length) all over when these carriers were being made or fitted, that does not feel like there was ever a bottleneck.

While space is easy, training is another issue, which is why every shipyard large enough to build one, should try one. No better training than to jump both feet into the water and the lack of training isn't the issue when the answer is go train more. 002 is going to be built by a shipyard that hasn't built a carrier yet. Maybe CSSC shipyards to the south may get a shot. A global downturn in freighter orders, and your headache is fill these mega shipyards, which are also state owned enterprises, so you will have the CCCP breathing down on your neck.

To what extent the refit would require the carriers to dry dock and how long it would take, are also matters for consideration. But then again, carriers under construction are not going to occupy a dry dock for years. They will only use the dry dock for final assembly as the modules are built elsewhere.

Like Intrepid was saying, I do think these carriers were designed and built with the option for going catapults built in, should they decide to do so. Whether they will decide to do so is another thing, we know that PLAN strategy is built on the back of long term strategic planning but flexible enough for short term adjustments with regards to the situation.

I think the Liaoning and CV17 carriers are going to be with us for at least 40 to 50 years, and somewhere during that time, some decision will be made. I don't believe the CCCP or the PLAN would have signed off if these costly projects are going to be just for training only or stepping stones leading to another.

 

[PanAsian]

There are two debates here. The first, and original one was a technical one about whether China's first two aircraft carriers would be retrofitted with catapults at some point. I would tend to agree that it would greatly improve the usefulness of those vessels, and if the cost is not prohibitive (as argued by Intrepid), based on past and current practice (as argued by Tam), I would expect the PLAN to take that route.

But there's a problem. Are the first two STOBAR carriers equipped for electromagnetic catapults? Can they be converted to IEPS? If not, then the PLA Navy has to further experiment and refine steam catapults, and find a way to integrate this energy aspect of things into the existing propulsion systems. Either way, there's a new technological hurdle: is solving one or the other of these worthwhile for only two medium sized carriers carriers? I don't know the answer.

The other debate is a geopolitical one, and although I agree with many of the points made by Plawolf, I disagree that they have anything to do with this problem, because of the time-frame involved. Tensions are indeed increasing, but I expect them to peak within the decade (2018-2027). That's too soon for any refit.

In 10 years' time, China's economy will be significantly bigger than that of the US by any measure. It will have much bigger industrial output, more exports and even more imports. In terms of major surface combatants, China's navy will also be more powerful, even if it is only on a regional level, due to the disadvantage in aircraft carriers. China's economic growth rate will still be very high, and interconnectivity within China and between China and Southeast Asia, Central Asia and much of South Asia will begin to approach European levels. Everybody in between will take note, and this, in turn, could have a very negative impact on the dollar. It's not for nothing people in certain countries are freaking out.

That's exactly why tensions may boil over and a potential crisis against China's core interests may be fomented by opponents of its rise within 5 years. I think calmer heads will prevail, I certainly hope so, but there are no guarantees.

Space isn't the problem, carriers are dwarfed compared to the container ships and bulk carriers these shipyards pump out like hamburgers in McDonald's. Liaoning and Carrier #2 are dwarves compared to these. Its not likely that refitting Liaoning and CV17 would be using the dock space reserved for 100,000 carrier, or 300,000 DWT bulk carriers. Since Chinese shipyards were cranking out Chinamaxes (365m length) all over when these carriers were being made or fitted, that does not feel like there was ever a bottleneck.

While space is easy, training is another issue, which is why every shipyard large enough to build one, should try one. No better training than to jump both feet into the water and the lack of training isn't the issue when the answer is go train more. 002 is going to be built by a shipyard that hasn't built a carrier yet. Maybe CSSC shipyards to the south may get a shot. A global downturn in freighter orders, and your headache is fill these mega shipyards, which are also state owned enterprises, so you will have the CCCP breathing down on your neck.

To what extent the refit would require the carriers to dry dock and how long it would take, are also matters for consideration. But then again, carriers under construction are not going to occupy a dry dock for years. They will only use the dry dock for final assembly as the modules are built elsewhere.

Like Intrepid was saying, I do think these carriers were designed and built with the option for going catapults built in, should they decide to do so. Whether they will decide to do so is another thing, we know that PLAN strategy is built on the back of long term strategic planning but flexible enough for short term adjustments with regards to the situation.

I think the Liaoning and CV17 carriers are going to be with us for at least 40 to 50 years, and somewhere during that time, some decision will be made. I don't believe the CCCP or the PLAN would have signed off if these costly projects are going to be just for training only or stepping stones leading to another.

I don't know about 40-50yrs for the Liaoning but I do think the CV17 design and actual production was done due to China appreciating both the deterrence value and actual combat capability of ski jump carriers for its core interest scenarios in the near future. While larger catapult carriers are obviously desirable they will not be ready in time to be of any value in any near term scenario.

 

[Intrepid]

Always keep in mind: the 2nd Chinese carrier was not included in the original plan. It was added later, so as not to be without an alternative, if the original plan is too ambitious and contains things that are unsolvable.

 

[asif iqbal]

guys I am constantly checking for updates and all I see is back and forth arguments? Give it a rest mods send in a warning !