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

[Deleted member 13312]

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.

I do understand, what I am refuting is the notion that civilian shipbuilding can be so easily transferred over to naval , especially modern, shipbuilding. Even a military ship below 10,000 tons would have to have more watertight spacing, armored protection and crew amenities then even a civilian ship 10 times its size. Building a 300,000 ton standard keel is a feat, but try building it so it can withstand a torpedo strike as well.
And while fitting a catapult is not on the level of building a new ship, we are still talking about a process of which a ship would need to be partially deconstructed and rebuild and still remain sea worthy. And that is no small feat, especially for a nation that is still experimenting with carrier concepts

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.

They are still closing off smaller less profitable docks that are not linked to the main state building companies, the closure of these smaller docks would push orders onto the existing state owned ones which will add to their workload. And not all LNG and oil tankers has to be in the 300,000 ton class. A LGN tanker of 130,000 tons can supply the need of Sweden for a month. And only LR crude tankers between 100 to 130 k tons can safely transit the Suez canals which is a very cost effective route.

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.

And how you expect one of those shipyards to float a mega sized ship safely down the river ? Even modular parts might weigh up to 10,000 tons. Add the floating platform needed to carry it and you got a giant floating hazard on one of the busiest stretches of rivers in the world.

Refitting can take as long as building a ship.

Which is one of the main points I am trying to get across here

And besides there is no other place to store the ship, which needs to be dry and whole, since its not in sections.

And I suppose the sections can all be welded within a single day to avoid rain, or that China is going to purpose build a warehouse large enough to store all those sections until they are needed.

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.

Bringing up a lack of civilian ship order on the US's isn't going to change the fact that carrier construction is not something that can be rushed or completed in a haphazard manner. Even JNCX or Dalian cannot be expected to push out a carrier that is in the middle of it's construction to admit a new ship into the dock. The dangers of attempting to weld large ship sections on a floating dock is beyond imaging.

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.

Again, referring to my original posts. Not all LNGs and Oil tankers have to be supersize and above. Plus large docks can be use to maintain multiple smaller ships at a time, and these maintenance schedules are going to come it once the PLAN hits the halfway mark of it's fleet's lifespan. The CV-16 and CV-17 were already refurbished or built in a dock that can support ships of 100,000 tons and above. So there is no issue of building a specific dock for 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.

And yet history can help us little in this matter, because this is the first time the PLAN had acquired ships of such a size and maintenance demand. Overhauling for these ships or refitting them will not be the same as the Sovremenny refits whereby the ship can be just docked on the side of a pier in water.
The USN had done such refits in the pass because there was an immediate need for increased naval aviation (Korean war, Vietnam war). China is not facing such a prospect now and no, the current tensions with the US over certain matters of territorial/geopolitical issues does not count as "immediate" because they are just as likely to happen in the next month or in the next decade.Basing one's military procurement on such whimsical issues is tantamount to buying a lottery based on flipping a coin.
And I have gone over the advantages of equipping catapults to the CV-16 and CV-17 in previous posts vs their costs. So I am not going to go into too much detail here. To make it brief, there is less pressure from CV-16 and CV-17 to have catapults as they can expect land based support in their area of operations (1st island chain), whereas any conflict further abroad would require a carrier of even greater capability then a refitted Liaoning if China is not facing a impotent enemy. And finally, to refurbish ships of a such a size and capability would eat into the limited capacity for China to field their next generation of carriers as quickly as possible. So it is not going to be a choice that China will readily make unless the situation demands for it which unlikely to happen anytime soon.

 

[Tam]

I do understand, what I am refuting is the notion that civilian shipbuilding can be so easily transferred over to naval , especially modern, shipbuilding. Even a military ship below 10,000 tons would have to have more watertight spacing, armored protection and crew amenities then even a civilian ship 10 times its size. Building a 300,000 ton standard keel is a feat, but try building it so it can withstand a torpedo strike as well.

None of those represent that a shipbuilder could overcome. Every military shipbuilder were also once a commercial shipbuilder.

And while fitting a catapult is not on the level of building a new ship, we are still talking about a process of which a ship would need to be partially deconstructed and rebuild and still remain sea worthy. And that is no small feat, especially for a nation that is still experimenting with carrier concepts

Sorry but you didn't get any sense of a timeline of such an implementation. I would think refitting Liaoning and #2 would happen all major carrier needs are done, which means six Type 002 or 003 may already have been built. Then the cycle comes to refit the once new ships, that are now at least one to two decades old.

They are still closing off smaller less profitable docks that are not linked to the main state building companies, the closure of these smaller docks would push orders onto the existing state owned ones which will add to their workload. And not all LNG and oil tankers has to be in the 300,000 ton class. A LGN tanker of 130,000 tons can supply the need of Sweden for a month. And only LR crude tankers between 100 to 130 k tons can safely transit the Suez canals which is a very cost effective route.

Super tankers won't use the dock Liaoning or CV17 used. They will have to use a bigger dock. The dock the Liaoning used, can only be used for the Liaoning, the second carrier, build commercial ships from the Liaoning's displacement or under, or build smaller warships. You're already seen that dock, which is currently occupied by two 055s and two 052Ds.

And how you expect one of those shipyards to float a mega sized ship safely down the river ? Even modular parts might weigh up to 10,000 tons. Add the floating platform needed to carry it and you got a giant floating hazard on one of the busiest stretches of rivers in the world.

Where did you get this? I was only pointing that there are a lot of smaller yards up the rivers that are capable of building smaller warships.

Which is one of the main points I am trying to get across here

And I suppose the sections can all be welded within a single day to avoid rain, or that China is going to purpose build a warehouse large enough to store all those sections until they are needed.

They put the sections right next to the dock that will be used for their final assembly. The sections are covered by a temporary shed. See the 6th 055 sections right next to the dock where two 055s and two 052Ds are occupying.

Bringing up a lack of civilian ship order on the US's isn't going to change the fact that carrier construction is not something that can be rushed or completed in a haphazard manner. Even JNCX or Dalian cannot be expected to push out a carrier that is in the middle of it's construction to admit a new ship into the dock. The dangers of attempting to weld large ship sections on a floating dock is beyond imaging.

You don't seem to get it do you? China can't build carriers forever. Lets say after six, all that labor force and dock space become unused, and has to be used to retain skills and employment. That's where refitting older carriers comes in.

Again, referring to my original posts. Not all LNGs and Oil tankers have to be supersize and above. Plus large docks can be use to maintain multiple smaller ships at a time, and these maintenance schedules are going to come it once the PLAN hits the halfway mark of it's fleet's lifespan. The CV-16 and CV-17 were already refurbished or built in a dock that can support ships of 100,000 tons and above. So there is no issue of building a specific dock for them.

That's assuming you have many orders of such ships. Like you said, one ship can supply Sweden. There isn't that many orders of such ships around and when you do, you also have to compete with Hyundai and Mitsubishi. Don't assume that such orders are given.

And yet history can help us little in this matter, because this is the first time the PLAN had acquired ships of such a size and maintenance demand. Overhauling for these ships or refitting them will not be the same as the Sovremenny refits whereby the ship can be just docked on the side of a pier in water.

History still shows us, not just with the PLAN but with everyone else, large warship investments are kept for decades. Simply because refitting still costs less than building new ships.

The USN had done such refits in the pass because there was an immediate need for increased naval aviation (Korean war, Vietnam war). China is not facing such a prospect now and no, the current tensions with the US over certain matters of territorial/geopolitical issues does not count as "immediate" because they are just as likely to happen in the next month or in the next decade.Basing one's military procurement on such whimsical issues is tantamount to buying a lottery based on flipping a coin.

Who are you to decide?

In any case, such refits are possible in a climate post 2030 to 2040. Who knows what the situation is then. These ships are made for the long term and made to anticipate long term geopolitical trends. There is no guarantee, and its quite possible, the world is much more unstable by then for many reasons.

And I have gone over the advantages of equipping catapults to the CV-16 and CV-17 in previous posts vs their costs. So I am not going to go into too much detail here. To make it brief, there is less pressure from CV-16 and CV-17 to have catapults as they can expect land based support in their area of operations (1st island chain), whereas any conflict further abroad would require a carrier of even greater capability then a refitted Liaoning if China is not facing a impotent enemy. And finally, to refurbish ships of a such a size and capability would eat into the limited capacity for China to field their next generation of carriers as quickly as possible. So it is not going to be a choice that China will readily make unless the situation demands for it which unlikely to happen anytime soon.

I will go through this to you once again, why you would want to refit the ships.

E-Flying Shark J-15D.

AEW is going to decide who and how aerial battles are going to win.

You're going to need anything that can launch this. If they are already testing this, you can bet they would have an interest getting them off the Liaoning and Carrier 2 eventually, if not sooner.

 

[asif iqbal]

Tam and Victor

Both of you cut this back and forth bickering

You are bringing down the standard of SDF!

This is not a dick measuring contest

 

[Deino]

Tam and Victor

Both of you cut this back and forth bickering

You are bringing down the standard of SDF!

This is not a dick measuring contest

Thanks for that post. All is said and done and now stop this and return to the topic.

Deino

 

[Deino]

@Viktor Jav

I'm not sure why You think you should be allowed to have the final word after a strict moderator's call??

Take this as a warning, any further reply will result in two weeks vacation.

Deino

 

[Tam]

Tam and Victor

Both of you cut this back and forth bickering

You are bringing down the standard of SDF!

This is not a dick measuring contest

Really? We are having a valid and deep discussion that I am enjoying.

 

[Chin evan]

Doesn't sound like they are bickering, interesting discussion

 

[Hendrik_2000]

According to the Raj47 the dry dock is flooded as today Anyone has confirmation?

 

[by78]

Some high-resolution photos of Shandong in dry dock, from about 10 days ago...

 

[Jeff Head]

Latest high def photos via LKj86

These are excellent shots. CZV-17 needs its penant and will not get it probbly until it is at least handed over to the PLAN. More builders trials before then.

it will be really nice to see them at sea together, which I am sure we will see at some point, perhaps within the year.