PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Bltizo said:

Nah, I'm talking about the academic article in post #1800

And latenlazy and by78 had dug up a previous incarnation of the article you translated, and found that it doesn't explictly mention the prototypes being EMALS, but that's what it highly hints at, especially combining the academic review article by78 posted.

Click to expand...

Okay. I see that one at #1800 does not have a link. It is only an image and I cannot translate that. If I had a link I could get a decent translation of it.

Oh well, we'll wait and see what latenlazy comes up with then.

I have no doubt whatsoever they are working on it. The real issue is how far along they are.

I still believe the two they are starting now will, in essence, be improved Liaoning STOBAR carriers, and CATOBARs will come along after that.

But, like the new motto would say, "Time will tell...and probably relatively soon (like the next 4-6 years perhaps).".

LOL!

Bltizo said:

Having an ancient steam catapult from the HMAS melbourne was probably more beneficial to the PLAN than not having one if they wanted to build a steam catapult, agreed. But whether they had the industry to develop a steam catapult easier than an EM catapult, as I've posted, is another matter.

Click to expand...

The HMAS Melbourne is a good tangent to segue into my earlier point about China probably having more experience with the technologies that go into EMALS than with steam.

Before China acquired the Melbourne they had zero experience with steam catapults, but even afterwards its important to note that the Melbourne's catapult was not meant to handle heavy fighters. Whatever China could have learned from the Melbourne could only serve as a very basic starting point from which they would have had to develop something else from, which could explain why they found the steam catapults they ultimately developed to be insufficient for their requirements.

This is in stark contrast to China's experience with linear induction motors. They've been able to reliably use linear motors to launch objects at much higher masses than what the Melbourne's catapults were able to handle for more than a decade now. That's not to say that China is one step away from implementing an EMAL catapult. They will still need to figure out how to supply instantaneous power and increase acceleration. However, from my basic understanding of the two technologies, scaling up power for a linear induction motor is much more mechanically straightforward than scaling up power for a steam catapult. It's that reduction in complexity which makes it far more likely that China will jump straight to an EMAL catapult rather than a steam catapult.

latenlazy said:

The HMAS Melbourne is a good tangent to segue into my earlier point about China probably having more experience with the technologies that go into EMALS than with steam.

It's important to note that the Melbourne's catapult was not meant to handle heavy fighters. Whatever China could have learned from the Melbourne could only serve as a very basic starting point from which they would have develop from, which could explain why they found the steam catapults they ultimately developed to be insufficient for their requirements.

This is in stark contrast to China's experience with linear induction motors, which they've already figured out and operated for more than a decade now through their acquisition and research into maglevs. Furthermore, it would seem, from my basic understanding of the two technologies, that scaling up power for a linear induction motor is much more mechanically straightforward than scaling up power for a steam catapult.

Click to expand...

Agreed x100

Steam catapults go back for decades, and just because China had the HMAS melbourne's relatively old cat to look at doesn't mean it yields any meaningful tech benefits for developing a modern steam catapult that can launch the planes that the PLAN wants.

Catapults are basically just mechanisms to rapidly accelerate a mass. Just because they had an example of a fit and finished catapult package in the Melbourne doesn't mean it is of particular use for the PLAN's aims, whereas their experience with linear induction motors may actually benefit them more, as you said.

bd popeye said:

Some things to consider

I don't think the catapult will fail if properly built maintained and configured. Catapults will require constant & regular maintenance. And we are not really sure that China will jump head long into EMALs .. now are we really sure? I'm not.

In order to keep those aircraft flying a a good operational tempo they need regular daily maintenance. Otherwise they will become hangar queens. You need maintenance personnel that are trained on a particular aircraft and updated regularly.. to keep 'em flying.

There is no magic formula to keep those aircraft and the operation tempo running smoothly other than constant and deliberate "Real World" training and training and more training..And I mean REAL Training at SEA with the gear that they will be using.

They should be conducting;

Rig the barricade drills,
Firefighting Drills.
Engineering Drills
Real RAS and VERTREPS.
Weapons movement..loading and unloading.
Mass casualty drills.
Manuvering drills.
Man overboard drills.
General Quarters or Action Stations drills.
ENCOM drills
Real Darken Ship evolutions.
Etc..Etc.. Etc....

Click to expand...

I'm sure they are doing a lot of drills. Since they got not much else to do because there is no air wing yet ! And how many people are involved in operating and maintaining the steam cats on a USN aircraft carrier ?

I think the PLA-N are studying closely the Russian methods of carrier ops besides the USN and the British RN. Full advantages for the Chinese to copy from the experienced Navies.

weig2000 said:

Why is that? It is very natural to compare with the US in carrier-related technologies, and all things about carriers. There are numerous reasons, here are only a few:

1. USN is most experienced in carrier operations and technologies. Even if China is not going to copy everything from USN, it's extremely helpful to learn what USN has gone through and what their future direction/plan is.

2. As a benchmark to measure how far China has come in her carrier development and operations, as well as how far behind she still is.

3. Among all the nations that have built carriers or are building carriers, China's goals for building carriers are more similar to the US than to other nations, e.g. India, Russia, French, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Thailand. It's best to measure yourself against US than other nations. And that's exactly what China does.

Click to expand...

advill said:

I think the PLA-N are studying closely the Russian methods of carrier ops besides the USN and the British RN. Full advantages for the Chinese to copy from the experienced Navies.

Click to expand...

It looks like the PLAN studies more of the Western powers and using the Russians as a source of hardware when they can't make something at that time. That's why the Liaoning got scrapped of all its heavy firepower and carrying point defence weaponry like the way the Western navies does, despite STOBAR aircraft will be naturally handicapped at delivering offensive punches.

All in all, Liaoning is just a starter kit, like photography you'd begin at Nikon D3300, and gradually moving up into Full-Frame units...that's the simplest analogy I can come up with.

Jeff Head said:

Why yes, there is. There are decades and decades of use of steam cats by every major navy in the world that has operated CATOBAR carriers and examples of them, which the Chinese even have a copy of, and people who have operated them. Where there are no such copies, documentation, indivduals, etcs of EMALS.

There does not need to be. What there is however is a LOT of experience and documentation out there on how to do it.

How to build them. How to use them. How to operate them. How to maintain them. etc. etc. Where there are no such things for EMALS.

No, actually because of the mass of experience, knowledge, and documentation that exists on steam catapults...including an examnple of one that China has in its possession...they most certainly would not be starting at square zero for steam cats vs. electromagnetic ones.

Well, they may do that...but I am not at all certain of it. And I am also much more prone to listen to and give a LOT of weight to old salts like Popeye who have actually had years of experience at sea working with these things. They know what they are talking about when they suggest that the Chinese should get on with it and that steam catapults are maybe the way to go to cut their teeth.

But time will tell...and probably realtively soon (like the next 4-6 years perhaps).

Click to expand...

Exactly.

China did have the HMAS Melbourne and possibly another carrier's catapults to look at. That would be USS Shangri La(CVA-38) which was scrapped in Taiwan in 1988. That ship was heavily cannibalized to support repairs aboard Lexington (CV 16). She may or may not have retained her catapults prior to scrapping..

bd popeye said:

Exactly.

China did have the HMAS Melbourne and possibly another carrier's catapults to look at. That would be USS Shangri La(CVA-38) which was scrapped in Taiwan in 1988. That ship was heavily cannibalized to support repairs aboard Lexington (CV 16). She may or may not have retained her catapults prior to scrapping..

Click to expand...

I doubt China could have garnered a very close look at a carrier scrapped in Taiwan... at least not during that region of time.


And I think latenlazy and I have already mentioned the doubts about just how useful old catapults from that era may be (rather, may not be), for developing a steam catapult powerful enough for the PLAN's demands.

bd popeye said:

Exactly.

China did have the HMAS Melbourne and possibly another carrier's catapults to look at. That would be USS Shangri La(CVA-38) which was scrapped in Taiwan in 1988. That ship was heavily cannibalized to support repairs aboard Lexington (CV 16). She may or may not have retained her catapults prior to scrapping..

Click to expand...

Well, my own forecast on this remains the same...as it has for a number of years now.

I still believe the Chinese will build a couple of improved STOBAR carriers first...similar to, but improved upon what they have done with the Liaoning.

I then believe they will move on to a couple of conventionally powered CATOBAR carriers.

Will they have steam or EMALS cats? I personally believe it is most likely that they will be steam, though it will depend entirely on what they have ready at the time and what they are the most comfortable with. I do not think they will go EMALS unless it is an all electric system, which means probably a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, which is why I lean towards them first being steam.

Then, after either the first one or two CATOBAR conventionally powered carriers, I expect we will see their first nuclear powered CATOBAR carrier.

That's my best forecast on where the Chinese will be going with their carrier development program.

If I had to put a time frame to it, I'd say, as a rough estimate...the accuracy being the closest the nearer it is to our current time frame...something like this:

2 x STOBAR conventional: Start both in 2014, Launch both in 2017, Commission both in 2019
2 x CATOBAR conventional, steam cats: Start in 2018 and 2020, Launch in 2022 and 2024, Commission in 2024 and 2026
2 x CATOBAR nuclear, EMALS cats: Start 2022 and 2026, Launch in 2026 and 2030, Commission in 2030 and 2034

After that, in 2035, withdraw the Liaoning from front line surface and make her a true training carrier only. Then, operate with six front line carriers until 2049 or so, maybe even 2054, and then build two more nuclear carrier to replace the two STOBAR carriers.

Five years later, build two more nuclear carriers to replace the first two conventional CATOBAR carriers. After that, replace each nuclear carrier after 45-50 years of service and maintain your six nuclear carrier force from then on.

But that is just my own opinion.

Jeff Head said:

Will they have steam or EMALS cats? I personally believe it is most likely that they will be steam, though it will depend entirely on what they have ready at the time and what they are the most comfortable with. I do not think they will go EMALS unless it is an all electric system, which means probably a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, which is why I lean towards them first being steam.

Click to expand...

Hmm, the CVF is an all electric ship, which was designed for but not with EMALS in mind. As we all know one of its configurations was CATOBAR with EMALS.
A conventionally powered ship with a handful of QC-280s and a couple of diesels from 071 in an IEPS should do just fine -- I believe that was one of your suggestions a while back, actually.

If I had to put a time frame to it, I'd say, as a rough estimate...the accuracy being the closest the nearer it is to our current time frame...something like this:

2 x STOBAR conventional: Start both in 2014, Launch both in 2017, Commission both in 2019
2 x CATOBAR conventional, steam cats: Start in 2018 and 2020, Launch in 2022 and 2024, Commission in 2024 and 2026
2 x CATOBAR nuclear, EMALS cats: Start 2022 and 2026, Launch in 2026 and 2030, Commission in 2030 and 2034

But that is just my own opinion.

Click to expand...

Hehe I think it's a bit far to estimate PLAN carrier production beyond 2020....

However I also suspect the PLAN will build two conventionally powered carriers first, with a few differences:
1 x STOBAR conventional: construction at DL, start 2014, launch 2017, commission 2019
1 x CATOBAR conventional IEPS, EMALS: construction at JNCX, same timeline as above, but possibly a little later and with potential delays due to introduction of new systems.

Beyond the first two conventionally powered carriers I have no idea where they'll go, but it's pretty obvious their final end game will be carriers in the class of nimitz/ford.

I find the idea of two carriers, one low risk, one high risk, quite appealing, mostly because it would fit in line with previous PLAN procurement of important/potentially risky ships from previous decade. Namely, the dual track procurement of 052C and 051C.