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

[Hendrik_2000]

The arrangement continues ...

 

[Intrepid]

What is going on from the upper bridge to the flight deck? Could this be a bundle of network cables, which are then routed inside?

 

[plawolf]

What is going on from the upper bridge to the flight deck? Could this be a bundle of network cables, which are then routed inside?

View attachment 47249

Cables should all be internally routed if not already installed. Zero point running then external temporarily.

Most likely those are tubes for ventilation and/or air conditioning, as it is pretty hot in China by this time of year.

 

[drunkmunky]

maybe some kind of coating work or welding work that needs ventilation?

 

[Deleted member 13312]

That is not a valid assumption, specifically in the China-US context with a Taiwan scenario. China's military modernization is clearly being conducted with that in mind and China's ski-jump carriers are plenty useful as is when it comes to operations up through the 1st island chain given their other complementary naval, air, and ground capabilities.

Let put it this way :
If a possible conflict is to take place within the next 10 years : Then retrofitting the Type 001s would be pointless as they will never be ready by the time the shooting starts.
If the conflict takes place in the next 20 years : Then retrofitting the Type 001s would be even more pointless as there will be much more capable carriers in service, and these carriers demand dock space and labour that would be taken up by the Type 001's retrofitting.
In the current situation the ski jump carriers are useful no less in part because the PLAN has nothing better to replace them with. But when the first Type 002 comes along their value will fall rapidly.
And if they are to serve within the first island chain in a possible conflict then there is less pressure for them to have catapults because they can rely on strike and EW support from land based assets. What they can provide in return is air escort which in their current state they are quite capable to do already.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

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

.

And how many dry docks are capable of supporting ships within the 70 to 100 thousand tons class ? Because those are the only ones that can fit a carrier for retrofitting. A simple overhaul might last 1-2 years for a STOBAR conventionally powered carrier, a complex refitting might take up to 3 or 4. These are years that a nuclear powered, or even a conventional carrier but with full cats will be denied their turn in the dock.
Refitting a carrier is vastly different from refitting any other smaller ship. Especially for something as complex as a catapult.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

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.

And there is the other saying of a dumb preparation, for any potential conflicts within the first island chain, what the opponent will look at first would be China's long range bombers and submarine fleet. Because logistically and strategically, these assets represent a far greater threat then a carrier with a single cat. And what I said isn't wishful thinking, with the current US administration being more of a burden then an asset. The US will need at least a decade or more before they can be confident in fighting a peer war. So long as China plays it's cards right, it can set the tempo of the engagement.

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?

If I am going to have a choice of 6 super sized and potentially all nuclear carriers with 4 catapults apiece or 8 carriers which have 2 retrofitted ski jumps carriers with just 1 catapult each. The choice is painfully obvious. Even a single one of the former choice would be worth more than 2 Type 001As in terms of range, air wing compliment and endurance.

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.

And have you heard that half of those projects would not come to fruition until the next decade at least ? There is no rush for China to establish a huge carrier fleet just yet. And even then, it will need a much more capable carrier than a retrofitted Type 001 if it is ever planning to take on a enemy that can actually shoot back unlike what the USN is doing in Syria. I repeat : Every year spend on retrofitting a Type 001 is another year a Type 002 is delayed in construction or overhaul.

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.

But it IS a choice. It is not like the Type 001/As will retrofit themselves. The shipyards will need to divert manpower and dock space to retrofit them, which saps away resources for the 002s and 003. And if we look at the only other navy that builds carriers in significant numbers, the USN, we will see that carrier building is a multi decade endevour. Very often we see the first carrier reaching the end of its serivce life after the last ship of the class is commissioned. Long term carrier building is a cycle whereby the next carrier class is laid down as soon as the last carrier of the preceeding class is commissioned, case in point the Gerald Ford is laid down within the same year the George W Bush is commissioned. There is little chance that the PLAN can spare much attention to the Type 001/As if it wishes to maintain a ready carrier fleet that is relatively modern.

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.

Disregarding the fact that the Type 002 would still have greater range, endurance and a air wing that will be greater than both the 001A and Liaoning put together. Let's just stop and think for 1 second how long it would take to fit not just one (which was the original intention as allegedly by some for the Liaoning and the Type 001A) but FOUR catapults. Stripping down the ski jump, ripping up the flight deck and rebuilding the first 3 floors down minimum would take at least 3-4 years, by which time another Type 002 or even a Type 003 could have been built and launched.

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?

If you think that refitting the Type 001A and Liaoning with up to four catapults would take merely a year and 1 billion dollars.I can say for certain that you are seriously underestimating the effort for such an undertaking. And I never suggested that the Liaoning and 001A be scrapped early, in their current form they can perform well enough within the first island chain with land based support. But long range offshore support should be relegated to the far more capable 002s and 003s.

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.

The USSR lost the last Cold War because they spend by some estimates 20-25 % of their GDP in military budget and neglecting to maintain their infrastructure and economy. That is what "special budgets" will get the PLAN. It will make them complacent, wasteful and self-entitled.
And spending resources to retrofit carriers of limited capability instead of focusing on acquiring the desired design is a classic example of a penny wise pound stupid decision. If the rumors are true then the Type 002 is already under construction in the JNCX, if the PLAN manages its cards right they can potentially have up to 4 Kitty Hawk class carriers launched by 2030.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Deleted member 13312]

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.

Comparing carriers to container ships is highly faulty because carriers have to adhere to a far higher level of standards and specifications than a civilian ship.

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.

Then again China also have the strategic planning for fielding a large fleet of LNG tankers and petroleum tankers as part of it's energy security concerns, so any future carriers will have to compete with large tankers for dock space. China is actually in the process of streamlining its shipbuilding industries, shutting down unprofitable shipyards or merging them into groups. So it would not be suprising for JNCX or Dalian to close some docks.

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.

Uh, are you sure ? Cause the Type 001A spend 4 years in a dry dock itself. Even the USN with their vast knowledge of carrier construction still have carriers sitting in dry docks for years at a time. Even with module construction, large scale welding will still need to take place in huge open areas and checking them for potential faults will take even more time as well. Add in the fact that the dry dock is usually reserved during the time the carrier is undergoing sea trials for potential fixes and you can add another year of inactivation of the said dock.

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.

Thing, "short term" in carrier construction and retrofitting is measure in years. While geopolitical issues can blow over within months. There is always a distinct dissonance between these 2.
I agree with you that the Liaoning and CV-17 will most probably serve out their useful lives with the PLAN, and that they are not merely training assets and posses some measure of military capacity. But it is doubtful that the PLAN would radically improve upon them.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

When faced with potentially 10 enemy carriers, do you want 6 or 8 or more yourself?

An edit to my earlier reply. What I meant to say is that between a choice of 6 true CATOBAR super carriers and 5 CATOBAR super carriers + 2 retrofitted carriers. I would choose the former.
It is foolish to think that retrofitting existing carriers will not come at the cost of the construction of future carriers. So no, the PLAN cannot have it's cake and eat it too, as in it cannot expect to have all its Type 002 and 003s commissioned asap if it wants to retrofit the CV-16 and CV-17.

 

[Tam]

Comparing carriers to container ships is highly faulty because carriers have to adhere to a far higher level of standards and specifications than a civilian ship.

We are talking about space here. Do understand that this civilian and commercial shipbuilding industry learned to build warships by building commercial ships first, and from there, learned to build warships next. The lack of experience has proven to be not a problem when you upgrade your own building experience in the first place by jumping right in to the task.

For the purposes of fitting catapults, we are not talking about building a new ship.

And for some of these freighters, we are talking about a keel that can withstand 300,000 tons, or three aircraft carriers. That's no meager engineering feat.

Then again China also have the strategic planning for fielding a large fleet of LNG tankers and petroleum tankers as part of it's energy security concerns, so any future carriers will have to compete with large tankers for dock space. China is actually in the process of streamlining its shipbuilding industries, shutting down unprofitable shipyards or merging them into groups. So it would not be suprising for JNCX or Dalian to close some docks.

They are not closing docks. They are consolidating companies, namely state owned, to fewer but larger state owned companies.

Furthermore, large tankers would require larger docks than what's used to fit the Liaoning.

Excess capacity are in the smaller docks build to make smaller ships. Their military usefulness won't be in building aircraft carriers, but perhaps warships from 20,000 tons and below.

There are not just shipyards along the coast, but right up and deep into the major rivers, like the shipyards that build the Yuan class submarines and LSTs.

Uh, are you sure ? Cause the Type 001A spend 4 years in a dry dock itself. Even the USN with their vast knowledge of carrier construction still have carriers sitting in dry docks for years at a time. Even with module construction, large scale welding will still need to take place in huge open areas and checking them for potential faults will take even more time as well. Add in the fact that the dry dock is usually reserved during the time the carrier is undergoing sea trials for potential fixes and you can add another year of inactivation of the said dock.

Refitting can take as long as building a ship. And besides there is no other place to store the ship, which needs to be dry and whole, since its not in sections.

Those US shipyards are only dedicated to building military warships, and that's it. They don't have commercial shipping business to ever require these docks.

If they specifically made a dock for the Liaoning and the CV17 construction, its possible that this dock maybe superceded or rendered obsolete by the demands for an even larger dock to build super containers ships, 90,000 to 100,000 tons aircraft carriers, to 300,000 bulk freighters. Unless you are planning to use the dock for equal size container ships, build 055s, AOEs or 075s out of them, these docks won't be used for future aircraft carrier and supership construction.

Thing, "short term" in carrier construction and retrofitting is measure in years. While geopolitical issues can blow over within months. There is always a distinct dissonance between these 2.
I agree with you that the Liaoning and CV-17 will most probably serve out their useful lives with the PLAN, and that they are not merely training assets and posses some measure of military capacity. But it is doubtful that the PLAN would radically improve upon them.

History has shown the PLAN does go far to keeping their older ships as alive and useful as long as possible, even undergoing radical upgrades. I'm not really sure if adding a catapult can be considered that radical an upgrade, the USN has done this in numerous occasions.

Adding a catapult tremendously increases what that limited 24 aircraft in a Liaoning type can achieve. Instead of just J-15s with the half arsed load they have, even with two YJ-83s and two PL-8s, you can have a fully set up J-15D with all the AEW pinnings. That can make a huge if not decisive difference in a conflict.