asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
I would like to see a large top panel on 003
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
When PLAN starts to operate EMALS, they will also meet a lot of issues, from both technical and operational sides, that is just the nature of adopting a new technology. I am expecting for CV-18, the time between launch and commission will be very long, think about it, even operating catapults at sea is new to PLAN.
Well, since this is about the time frame of launch of CV-18, I will continue.
Can somone show me a picture of CV-18 as she exists now...supposedly two years before commissioning.
At two years before commission, which will occur in late 2020 or early 2021, the John F. Kennedy looks like this:
I do not believe anyone can show a pic of CV-18 anywhere close to this stage of construction.
JFK was 65% complete structurally two years before launch, and as you see two years before commissioning.
Launch: Late 2019-early 2020
Commission: Late 2020 to early 2021
Anyhow, my expectation from what I have heard (because we have not seen much to date, whereas for CV-16 and CV-17 we saw quite a bit at this stage of construction), is that she is likely 3-4 years away from launch and 4-5 years away fro commission...perhaps longer because they will have to integrate the entire catapult launch at sea into her trials.
Time will tell.
Last edited:
The latest I have seen was from April 19, 2019.
Just starting the initial phases of bow construction. With this new, much larger carrier, and the new technologies they are going to try and leapfrog into her, I expect a minimum of three years to launch and 4.5 years to commission.
...but time will tell.
Just starting the initial phases of bow construction. With this new, much larger carrier, and the new technologies they are going to try and leapfrog into her, I expect a minimum of three years to launch and 4.5 years to commission.
...but time will tell.
Launching, not commissioning. The post of yours I replied to
specifically said "launch". I'll assume bringing commissioning up here was an error on your part, not a deliberate attempt to shift the goalpost. As for why I projected 2 years until launching, the article I linked reads
The "operational by 2022" is quoted from page 38 of the "Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2019"
I think "operational" entails commissioned, but I can entertain the argument that it can be "operational" short of that. However, it certainly does entail launched and all outfitting completed.
I don't mean what I'm about to say to sound boastful or disrespectful, but Chinese and American shipbuilding capabilities are just incomparable. American civilian shipbuilding is about where Chinese civil aviation is: zero. This tells on America's capacity to build warships in many ways, from boondoggles like the Zumwalt and LCS to the chronic cost and time overruns plaguing American yards. It simply isn't valid to compare the stages of construction of American and Chinese warships to extrapolate a time to completion.
Commissioning in 2023 sounds about right to me, I don't think it can be any better than that. That would be a proud moment for PLA Navy, only 6 years after world's first EMALS powered carrier which is Ford. If its EMALS turns out to be more advanced and mature, even better. Apparently Ford has design flaws that are not necessarily easy to fix even with time and money.
Then of course China needs to work on nuclear propulsion and stealth carrier borne jet, maybe have such one ready after Enterprise but before CVN-81?
Then of course China needs to work on nuclear propulsion and stealth carrier borne jet, maybe have such one ready after Enterprise but before CVN-81?
Well, your speculation about US miliitary shipbuilding is absolutely not in touch with reality.
The US built three and four Ticonderoga cruisers per year, starting similar to China, but in late 1990s through 1994 when the last, CG-73, Port Royal was commissioned.
If they say CV-18 will be operational by 2022, they are probably talking about IOC, Initial Operational Capability, which mean launch will occur probably in 2020 by those standards.
I do not believe they will makeit that quickly...but time will tell.
FOC is full operational capability...meaning full air wing, full and all types of attack capability from Strike at Sea to close air support, to SEAD, to attack on enemy infrastructure, ets., et.
I expect that will be 2024 or so.
Anyhow,time will reveaal all.
The Zumwalt and the LCS were boondoggles, but not bevcause os shipbuilding capability. The Obama admin made a number of senselessand ruiness decisions that led to most of it...and hopefully we will see that corrected.
Look at the Virginia class subs, and several other programs I an name for much better perspective on US military capabiliies.
China is doing very well, and I am the first to admit that there shipbuilding has caught up 20 years on the US in a ten year period...but they are not ahead of the US in military building cpabilities yet....at least not IMHO.
003 will likely be launched in 2020-2021, it will likely be commissioned by 2023 at the earliest. 2022 commissioning is unlikely.
Jeff, I think the bolded part is important, because in your previous comment on the last page you wrote:
It most certainly will not take 4-6 years to launch CV-18.
If you agree that CV-18 will likely be launched in 2020 or 2021 then I have no disagreement.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
I am sure PLAN will not let you down and will take note of your comment and build a second
Lethe
Captain
The argument for nuclear-powered surface ships being cost-effective rests upon total life-cycle costs over the course of >25 years.
Personally I think China should worry less about minimising life-cycle costs to 2050 and more about maximising capability in 2025, 2030, 2035. The significantly greater up-front costs of a nuclear-powered carrier may not be a wise investment in a deteriorating strategic environment.
Personally I think China should worry less about minimising life-cycle costs to 2050 and more about maximising capability in 2025, 2030, 2035. The significantly greater up-front costs of a nuclear-powered carrier may not be a wise investment in a deteriorating strategic environment.
Last edited: