Those people are likely to be recruited from those already working on the building of merchant ships. It will be difficult to estimate the influence of changes in personnel for the military side besides the changes in those needed on the much larger merchant shipbuilding side.
PLAN 2nd & 3rd Aircraft Carrier wager & planning
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Hey Delft...care to take a position on this little wager?
Which of the two camps would you sign up for?
Brumby
Major
This is not a question that we can specifically address even though we may have an opinion. I think it is a function of :
(i) Level of technical and industrial expertise in executing the plans;
(ii) Design trade offs decision matrix between mission requirements; complexity in systems; and desire speed to commissioning
(iii)Political and military leadership and the dynamics thereof
Ability to build a big size commercial vessel does not necessarily mean one can build a carrier. This is a subject that is way off my pay scale. I would draw on a Rand Corporation study on differences between Military and Commercial shipbuilding and I quote "Most respondents stated that although they recognise that military and commercial projects require different worker skills, they regard the skills as generally portable, except for work on submarines and combat systems.)" Although carrier was not mention I guess it is safe to assume it is in the same category as submarines in terms of specialisation and that the skills are not necessarily portable. In addition. it is also mention and I quote from the same study "All the firms we interviewed agreed that, although military-commercial cost and time comparisons are highly dependent on ship types and equipment lists involved, military-ship design was more time consuming. It can take two years or more to design a military ship compared with six months for a commercial ship. Predesign work on a frigate or submarine can amount to 10 times that needed for a tanker. Developing the requirements set is more challenging for a warship—for which multiple functionalities need to be considered to meet an uncertain threat—than for a tanker, which is intended to profitably transport a fluid product of some type. This disparity in design effort occurs for several reasons. Warships often have relatively large propulsion systems for the space available to accommodate them, and their electrical systems must be capable of greater loads. Weapon and sensor systems must be planned, and the number and placement of such heavy systems must be addressed to ensure that the ship’s centre of gravity is not too high."
Given the complexity and the timelines being advanced, I regard it as rather unrealistic to proceed with concurrency. We will have to disagree in terms of pathway. Time will tell which pathway will prevail.
I agree that any such military procurement is dependent on those factors, however I was under the impression that you doubted the possibility of concurrent development for carriers mostly due to technical grounds.
Putting it another way, if there was a way for us to only focus on the technical and industrial capabilities necessary for concurrent/near concurrent carrier development, and assume that there was appropriately sensible levels of political and military support for the project, what would level would the minimum technical and industrial capabilities need to reach so as to allow for a sufficiently low level of risk?
It is of course a rhetorical question.
I myself have stated what I believe are the PLA's needs and timeline of needs for carrier development, which would drive political and military requirements (and what the acceptable levels of risk are), so the question for me is whether the industry is capable of supporting near concurrent development, with well defined requirements and capabilities that they want to achieve. And I have erred on the side of yes.
I agree that being able to build civilian ships does not mean one can immediately build advanced military ships. It very much depends on the complexity of the civilian ships in question. Advanced oil tankers or large cruise ships require may complex skills and capabilities that can also be applied to military ships. Building a large variety of civilian ships also would yield a variety of skills and construction techniques that would be applicable to military ships.
That is why I chose the shipbuilding industries of south korea and Japan as examples, given the advanced state of their industries and the wide array of ships they were able to build (even if we ignore their LHAs/Ds like Dokdo, Hyuga and Izumo).
Okay then, we'll have to agree to disagree.
But I think we do at least agree that among the major reasons for disagreement, is the differing opinions of the capability and relevant experience of the Chinese shipbuilding industry (which is the end point I was trying to make this entire time)?
Brumby
Major
Technical capability is only one part of the equation. The technical capability to build a carrier is unproven. Combining it with concurrent development is too big of a risk to take in my view. Concurrency by nature is a higher risk approach and so your view of a low risk and concurrency is by definition conflicting objectives.
I'd argue that China very much likely has the industrial capability to build one carrier. The rebuild and fitting out of the varyag hulk is testament to their ability to plan and fit out a carrier with the entire variety of complex subsystems necessary for a carrier. From there it's a question of designing the actual hull, internals, and necessary modelling for a large ship of that type... hardly inconceivable given the sheer variety and size of previous military and civil ships which they have built. When one considers the other recent shipbuilding nations (say, India, or UK even) which are building carriers and the recent largest ships that they developed and the experience conferred form those ships, China's shipbuilding industry experience isn't in too bad of standing.
Whether they have the industrial capability to build two, near concurrently is another matter.
And by "low risk" I said "acceptably low risk". That is to say, whether the industrial capability can near concurrently build two carriers with a sufficient level of risk that is acceptable in a time and financial sense (the time and monetary consequences of risks of delay, risks of a need to redesign and rebuild in case of flaws etc).
I'm obviously not saying that concurrent development of two carriers is "low risk" compared to only building one carrier...
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Here are the structural outline of an aircraft carrier;
- A large cargo hold with little to no support pillars in the center area
- A flat top with structural integrity which can withstand both heat and pounding due to landing of aircrafts
- A very top heavy unbalance in weight distribution prone to capsize
- A sleek water cutting design to obtain maximum speed of 30knts
On top if you want a steam CATOBAR you'll need to do the various heavy plumbing in order to pipe the high pressure steam from the bottom of the ship to the top without losing heat.
Again no civilian ship design requiring to pipe high pressure steam pipes through out the ship.
I should say that the quoted part of my text is in relation to SK and Japanese shipbuilding industries to building military ships generally, not specifically regarding carriers. I do hold a similar view in principle, regarding carriers, but with a degree of nuanced difference.
Regarding the aspects you listed: are those show stoppers or bottle necks for the present shipbuilding industries of Japan or Korea if they were required to develop carriers?
In my opinion, no. Of course they would have to develop certain materials technologies, modelling, and design philosophies but IMO these are within the reach of their industrial capability and experience.
That is to say, there will be certain new technologies that must be mastered for an advanced civil shipbuilding industry to successfully build a carrier, but depending on how competent the industries are, one does not necessarily need to have demonstrated an attempt at building a carrier before successfully building a carrier.
----
So to clarify, my position regarding civilian shipbuilding industry and military shipbuilding in general, is that certain advanced civilian shipbuilding capabilites can greatly benefit military shipbuilding.
My position on the shipbuilding industries of japan and south korea and potential carrier production, is that both have the capability to build carriers if they desire on the basis of their extensive civilian and military shipbuilding capabilities and experience at present (even if we do not include their recent LHD/LHA production), although naturally they will have to develop certain new technologies and capabilities to facilitate carrier production but that growth in my view is within their scope.
Last edited:
broadsword
Brigadier
China has been building the technically more challenging projects like LNG carriers and oil rigs. LNG carrier is considered more challenging because of new designs and materials to hold the liquid at a stable and extremely cold temperature. So I don't think building a carrier is beyond the capability of the Chinese if they know the required design. I believe it is more of a design question than a material one that is required for the Chinese as I don't think there is any required exotic material that is beyond the reach of the Chinese shipbuilders.
Brumby
Major
The meaning of "successfully" can only be assess at least upon completion and not before and why the alternate description used is unproven. I don't understand how you can argue for success before the fact. I am not saying that China cannot get to the end point - eventually, but there are two steps ahead. Firstly, successfully build a carrier based off the Liaoning design (with some modifications). As I understand it, China has the blueprints. The second step is to migrate to CATOBAR which would mean a new design and another significant challenge. Attempting both steps concurrently while step one is still unproven is in my view not likely.