PLAN 2nd & 3rd Aircraft Carrier wager & planning

Brumby said:

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.

Click to expand...

The issue I had with your previous statement was "The technical capability to build a carrier is unproven."
If you mean that only within the scope of concurrent development being unlikely or unacceptably risky, then I have no issues with your logic.
If you mean that statement to refer to an inability to build or develop a new carrier (alone), then I disagree.

I suppose what is worth considering, is whether the Chinese shipbuilding industry at present has the capability to design and build a new carrier mostly from the ground up (AKA what we believe 002 will be like) vs if the industry is able to build 001A (assuming it is a modified CV-16), and whether development of 001A alone would constitute a risk at all?

Putting it another way, what would be the differing risks of:
1: building only 001A at its speculated start time
2: building 001A and 002 near concurrently
3: building only 002 at its speculated start time (in other words, at the time that many at present expect 002 to emerge, but with no 001A either preceding it or near concurrently)

.... if the risks of 2 and 3 are similar, then I'd say the issue isn't so much about concurrent development of two carriers but whether the industry can design and build a new design by themselves without having built from the ground up, a derivative of a proven design.
Of course this is assuming that 001A and 002 in all three cases would have the same amount of funding and expertise directed to each.

Bltizo said:

If you mean that statement to refer to an inability to build or develop a new carrier (alone), then I disagree..

Click to expand...

I don't believe I had conveyed that meaning. My opinion is simply such a capability is unproven.

Bltizo said:

I suppose what is worth considering, is whether the Chinese shipbuilding industry at present has the capability to design and build a new carrier mostly from the ground up (AKA what we believe 002 will be like) vs if the industry is able to build 001A (assuming it is a modified CV-16), and whether development of 001A alone would constitute a risk at all?

Putting it another way, what would be the differing risks of:
1: building only 001A at its speculated start time
2: building 001A and 002 near concurrently
3: building only 002 at its speculated start time (in other words, at the time that many at present expect 002 to emerge, but with no 001A either preceding it or near concurrently)

.... if the risks of 2 and 3 are similar, then I'd say the issue isn't so much about concurrent development of two carriers but whether the industry can design and build a new design by themselves without having built from the ground up, a derivative of a proven design.
Of course this is assuming that 001A and 002 in all three cases would have the same amount of funding and expertise directed to each.

Click to expand...

Option 1 is the lowest risk approach. Option 2 in my view comes with it a higher risk and in my opinion unlikely. Option 3 in my view is the least likely to happen.

Brumby said:

I don't believe I had conveyed that meaning. My opinion is simply such a capability is unproven.

Click to expand...

Okay then.

Option 1 is the lowest risk approach. Option 2 in my view comes with it a higher risk and in my opinion unlikely. Option 3 in my view is the least likely to happen.

Click to expand...

If we interrogate these situations a bit deeper, I'd ask if options 1 and 2 are actually that much different?
Obviously option 1 is the least risky approach, but if the development of 002 is equally risky and uses equal amounts of capital and manpower in both options 2 and 3 (that is to say the development of 001A doesn't significantly take away from resources that would have been allocated for the development of 002 if it were developed alone), and that the development of 001A uses the same amounts of capital and manpower in options 1 and 2... then it isn't so much that developing both together will produce in option 2 will result in higher risk for both 001A and 002, but rather that developing 002 itself is higher risk.

I think that's a worthy distinction to be aware of, because whether concurrent development suggests both projects will result in higher risk, or whether both projects will have independent levels of self contained risk.

(of course we cannot necessarily assume that 001A and 002 development in all scenarios use the same capital and manpower and research backing... but at the same time, certain projects only need a sufficient amount of available input to be maximally efficient where additional input may yield less additional outputs in absence of advancements in technology and knowledge which requires time, so I suppose this issue goes back to whether the chinese shipbuilding industry is large enough and capable enough to support two concurrent carrier projects such that their risks will be independent)

Bltizo said:

If we interrogate these situations a bit deeper, I'd ask if options 1 and 2 are actually that much different?
Obviously option 1 is the least risky approach, but if the development of 002 is equally risky and uses equal amounts of capital and manpower in both options 2 and 3 (that is to say the development of 001A doesn't significantly take away from resources that would have been allocated for the development of 002 if it were developed alone), and that the development of 001A uses the same amounts of capital and manpower in options 1 and 2... then it isn't so much that developing both together will produce in option 2 will result in higher risk for both 001A and 002, but rather that developing 002 itself is higher risk.

I think that's a worthy distinction to be aware of, because whether concurrent development suggests both projects will result in higher risk, or whether both projects will have independent levels of self contained risk.

Click to expand...

I think there are two types of risk. The initial risk is the ability to build according to blueprint and design. Invariably a set of unknowns will surface during the build process which might have an impact on future design. Concurrent development raises the risk of redundancies and design changes. A stepped approach helps to pre-empt issues. Regardless, 002 will carry additional risk if it deviates significantly from the initial Liaoning design simply because the depth in knowledge base is not there and can only come with experience.

Bltizo said:

(of course we cannot necessarily assume that 001A and 002 development in all scenarios use the same capital and manpower and research backing... but at the same time, certain projects only need a sufficient amount of available input to be maximally efficient where additional input may yield less additional outputs in absence of advancements in technology and knowledge which requires time, so I suppose this issue goes back to whether the chinese shipbuilding industry is large enough and capable enough to support two concurrent carrier projects such that their risks will be independent)

Click to expand...

Does China has the capacity to handle two significant competing projects? One simply can't make an assumption that it can in the absence of empirical data. However common sense tells me I rather have less competing demand in resources prevailing at the same time. In addition, it should be noted that the type of skill resources required changes during the different phases of the build. An example from a RAND study outlining what to expect in terms of resources in building a carrier.

If you have concurrent development, it will more likely than not in placing a strain on availability of specialist skills even though the 2 carriers are being build in different locations.

Brumby said:

I think there are two types of risk. The initial risk is the ability to build according to blueprint and design. Invariably a set of unknowns will surface during the build process which might have an impact on future design. Concurrent development raises the risk of redundancies and design changes. A stepped approach helps to pre-empt issues. Regardless, 002 will carry additional risk if it deviates significantly from the initial Liaoning design simply because the depth in knowledge base is not there and can only come with experience.

Click to expand...

Concurrent development would mean that any issues that crop up during 001A construction cannot easily be translated into lessons in 002's construction, yes.
I agree that 002, if constructed at the expected time, regardless of if it is concurrent to 001A or if it is built as the first indigenous carrier, would be more risky than if they waited after 001A was built to actually develop 002. Where we disagree is how high these risks are, and how much risk the military is willing to accept... which in turn relates to our disagreement regarding just how much the military needs carriers in the forseeable future.

At least we are clear on where our views are at odd on.

Does China has the capacity to handle two significant competing projects? One simply can't make an assumption that it can in the absence of empirical data. However common sense tells me I rather have less competing demand in resources prevailing at the same time. In addition, it should be noted that the type of skill resources required changes during the different phases of the build. An example from a RAND study outlining what to expect in terms of resources in building a carrier.
View attachment 14822
If you have concurrent development, it will more likely than not in placing a strain on availability of specialist skills even though the 2 carriers are being build in different locations.

Click to expand...

I agree, that is why I posed the (rhetorical) question.

For instance, is China able to produce enough high grade steel for two carriers, are the subcontractors for various unique subsystems such as arresting gear able to produce a sufficiently high quality product for two carriers rather than one within a close amount of time, etc etc. Industrial capability and capacity combined, would be determinants of this.

I would note though, that certain specialist skills may not be "time dependent". For instance, each shipyard should have its own skilled workers to fabricate and weld modules together, or to fit out ships (that is to say, shipyard workers at DL that worked on Liaoning won't be shipped over to JN when JN builds their own carrier -- each shipyard would have its own independent staff). Also, the research and design process of carriers developed concurrently may not necessarily be strained if say, 001A's design and schematics were produced by a separate institute to 002's, or if they were by the same institute, 001A's might have been completed well before 002's.


If industrial capability and capacity are able to produce sufficient materials and subsystems to fit out the necessary number of carriers in acceptable time with no decrease in quality, that may explain why a concurrent development is feasible, if such a development schedule is what eventuates.
I'm not saying at this stage that all the above is definitely true, but if we do end up seeing 002 before 2020 just a few years after 001A, these may be indicative of the state of the industry allowing such development to occur.

Jeff Head said:

Hey Delft...care to take a position on this little wager?

Which of the two camps would you sign up for?

Click to expand...

I think PLAN will not be in a great hurry nor will it be slow.
I expect that the time for building given by a Dalian city official is correct, six years, of which I expect, three fitting out afloat after three years building the hull, the same time Nikolaev North took to build the hull of Liaoning. The next one will then be started in three years time and the last of the three now planned in six years time. So I expect the evidence for building the second indigenous flattop to appear well before 2020.

Jeff Head said:

I expect that the PLAN will have worked the planning out according to their own time table.

I also expect, given the huge outpouring of support and national excitement that China had with its first carrier, that they will have no shortage of people signing up for that duty.

If they know the carrier is coming, it is simply a matter of doing the recruiting drives necessary at the right times to get and keep them manned. I expect the Chinese understand this and will make the appropriate arrangements for their own planning and scheduling.

Click to expand...

China has over 1.4 BILLION people. That's 1400 MILLION. Imagine 1 million people, 1400 times!

The sex ratio imbalance has created and excess of 30 MILLION young men than women before 2020 (which means a lot of them won't ever have a mate).

For america, recruitment seems to be a consistent problem for the past 2 decades as it need to continue lower the recruitment standards in order to meet its quota to keep a force level of 1.3 million active troops. While China with a population 4.3 times more than the US, only has a paltry 2.3 million active troops.

If China is to maintain the same force level as US in percentage term : 4.2 per 1000 capita, they will have a total active force level of 5.7 million. With PLAN only taking up around 10% of the current total active troops (255,000), PLAN has a lot more room to maneuver in terms of manpower. Even USN (326,046) has a lot more personnels than PLAN. If PLAN is to follow USN's force level (22%), they should have 500,000 personnels.

What this mean is China will never have shortage of manpower. I don't think they would ever worry about keeping their aircraft carrier manned - considering they only have one at the moment (not 10), and China is not facing any active military conflict so a military job is relatively stable and safe.

I think as China's focus become more and more external (instead of internally) and going from green water navy to a true blue water navy, their focus (and manpower) will flow even more to PLAN. Half a million personnels for PLAN should be more than enough to manned 4 carrier battle groups.

Actually, come to think of it, if we break it down - the current Liaoning requires around 2000 personnels to manned it. Add in (let's be generous) 2 Type 054A (165 x2), 2 Type 052D (280 x2), 2 Type 095 (100 x2) and 2 Type 903A/Type 905/Type 908 (130 x2). we are looking at 3350 total active personnels requirement for a single CVBG. Throw in the on-off personnels rotation/reserves (2x the active), and that's 6700 personnels to keep a single CVBG at the ready at all time. China wants 4 CVBG - then that's 26800 personnels needed to manned the 4 CVBG. With on-shore engineering / support personnels thrown in, I think PLAN still have plenty of rooms to maneuver without breaking a sweat over recruitment.

I don't think the number of people available is a problem but training the people needed is something to be considered. I don't expect more than one carrier to be produced per three years, so they might all be built at DL. JN will than build the other large warships, the LHD's or possibly LHA's.

delft said:

I don't think the number of people available is a problem but training the people needed is something to be considered. I don't expect more than one carrier to be produced per three years, so they might all be built at DL. JN will than build the other large warships, the LHD's or possibly LHA's.

Click to expand...

Why do you suspect JN will build LHDs or LHAs?

All the rumours have been quite consistent in JN building the second indigenous carrier (the model of JN's current shipyard at Changxing island in previous years actually showed a carrier in drydock!), and the LHA/D is projected to be built from HDZH, who also built the 071s.

I've seen others say that JN and DL will be the destroyer and carrier shipyards, while HD produces amphibious assault ships and frigates (and oilers), and HP builds frigates. GSI will build oilers (as it presently does). coast guard cutters and corvettes will be distributed throughout.

Bltizo said:

Why do you suspect JN will build LHDs or LHAs?

All the rumours have been quite consistent in JN building the second indigenous carrier (the model of JN's current shipyard at Changxing island in previous years actually showed a carrier in drydock!), and the LHA/D is projected to be built from HDZH, who also built the 071s.

I've seen others say that JN and DL will be the destroyer and carrier shipyards, while HD produces amphibious assault ships and frigates (and oilers), and HP builds frigates. GSI will build oilers (as it presently does). coast guard cutters and corvettes will be distributed throughout.

Click to expand...

It makes sense to concentrate the experience at one shipyard, a matter of industrial policy, and it doesn't make sense to produce a carrier once every year and a half, because that demands a huge peak in training effort. On the other hand JN is a new and large shipyard that might well be better suited than the yard that produces 071's. So LHA/D's might be built there. As China doesn't have the inhibitions wrt cats or ski ramps that's handicapping their US counter parts such ships might look like aircraft carriers. Indeed they might be as large as CdG.
So my arguments are practical. I have no alternative source of information.