PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Not at all. My reaction when I saw Jeff's pics was "Oh, wow, ho lei heck". And he was not patronizing. ;)

Well, us Senior Citizens, dog I am a geezer, (that, in and of itself is disgusting), hate to be wrong, or even in-accurate, I suppose being a "preacher" makes me a little paranoid about in-accuracies. But the world of the Air Force Brat is black and white, not that I would consider myself legalistic, as I depend on grace every-day, but that's what I love about the Sino Defense forum, I can be "instructed by you younger brighter gentlemen on things that don't interest me, or that I have no real "source" on. I have even discovered that strangely I really don't care about weapons, or load-outs, or even A2G.. I'm not concerned or interested in radar or avionics, although I almost "never" read or post on F-16.com, I am "airframe" over there.. So I am primarily interested and fascinated by aerodynamics and airframes, airflows, maybe the aesthetics of aircraft, and fluid dynamics, even though the math completely "escapes" me. I have made the statement, that I can "see" lift, I can also "see" drag. Maybe the old self=taught designers synapsis of, "if it looks good, it will fly good". Anyway, great take-away and response, and we all learn a lot here if we are so inclined.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Exactly, and what about having or not having an industry experienced in providing steam cats.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but honestly, I really can't see the Chinese being so enamored of the latest technology, that they overlook a very fine and likely far more reliable and attainable technology. I'm not real sure what I think about the USN "banking" this kind of jack into this tech, in our current state of affairs. I also have NO doubt that the Chinese have an outstanding comprehension and grasp on steam cats, and I have 0 doubt about their ability to build the same in relatively short order if they so desire. While I understand our lads desire for this "super whazoo" slingshot,. they want the latest phone, M-4 Colt, Sig 5.56, bd and Jeff exude a well deserved confidence in steam cats, which will remain the primary means of launching USN and Marine aircraft off a vessel for a number of years to come. "EMALs on the other hand is kind of "pie in the sky" in my very Humble Opinion???
 

Engineer

Major
Well, Eng, no offense meant at all, but it is apparent to me that you have not been involved in this type of real world, large budget, military program.

I have been, and have done the ROIs on these types of systems.

The over-riding factor here, as I have stated numerous times, is to get the aircraft safely, and reliably off the deck and into the air in high tempo operations. And to do it for years. It is not whether you use EMALS or steam.

The term is fifty years. The cycle is all of those tens of thousands of launches. A part of the return (but not all of it) is the potential wars and losses the carrier and its air operations may prevent. That return is immense.

If the system works and launches those aircraft through that time frame at the maintenance and reliability factors your calculate in, then the system is not obsolete at all...it is working fine to the levels you have calculated.

As I have said, in such an ROI calculation, the money is not wasted at all, and every dime is more than recouped.

The only issue is which of those system gets you to that pointfirst...and what the difference in the time frame is.

If you are working on both, and the steam option (call it option "A"), gets you there five to seven years before EMALS (call it option "B"), then you implement Option A, because your choice is to either have no option for those seven years, or to have a much inferior option and a much higher vulnerability.

If the difference is, say, only one year, or eighteen months, you may crunch your numbers and elect to forego that time frame in order to get to the second option and accept the vulnerability for that short time frame...which would then be a command level decision.

Those are the kind of "trade offs" involved, and the way these decisions are made, because the over-riding goal is not the particular option between the two. This is because, quite frankly, despite the advance in technology, the difference between the two is small relative to each other and no change at all. That's the simple reality of the situation.

Therefore, short of the time lag being very small, you go with the first option you reach, and then, if that option happens to be the older of the two, you roll that option out fifty years later.

Now, this all presupposes that the CATOBAR capability is a relative high priority for the PLAN...if it is not, then they would simply not build a CATOBAR carrier at all until the EMALS capability was ready.

But, like I said, we'll see what happens soon enough.
Well, if we were to disregard every other factor and merely focus on getting steam as the first option, you would be right. Unfortunately for your argument, that is not the case here. There are a whole lot more considerations than the reliability of single system on a carrier. Like I have said before, if China hasn't got its catapult ready, then China shouldn't be building a CATOBAR carrier.

We can also forget about whatever calculation experience you have, as that has no relevance with analyzing the tradeoffs between steam catapult vis-a-vis EMALS. Even if you did do such calculation and was able to show that it is more cost effective to go with steam, it still wouldn't be matter here since China has an entirely different situation. It is apparent that you have yet been able to get your head wrap around this concept by your insistence that China must follow the exact footsteps of US.

Let's face it, even the US with tremendous knowledge and experience with steam catapult decided to switch to EMALS. That's the fact here. Everybody can see this and I have no need to point to some vague ROI calculations that nobody can see.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Well, if we were to disregard every other factor and merely focus on getting steam as the first option, you would be right.
1st, Eng. I have never said or implied that the PLAN has placed all of its priority on getting a steam cat. I have simply said that they are probably looking at both options and could choose either. That is nothing like saying that their highest priority is steam.

Engineer said:
Like I have said before, if China hasn't got its catapult ready, then China shouldn't be building a CATOBAR carrier.
And like I said before, that is exactly right.

Engineer said:
We can also forget about whatever calculation experience you have, as that has no relevance with analyzing the tradeoffs between steam catapult vis-a-vis EMALS.
Actually, it does.

Engineer said:
Even if you did do such calculation and was able to show that it is more cost effective to go with steam, it still wouldn't be matter here since China has an entirely different situation. It is apparent that you have yet been able to get your head wrap around this concept by your insistence that China must follow the exact footsteps of US.
That is simply not true, Eng. I have never implied or said that the PLAN must follow the footsteps of the US Navy.

I have simply said that if their priority is to get aircraft off of their deck by catapult safely and reliably in high tempo operations, then I believe that they should pick the first technology they perfect and are comfortable with that can make that happen for them. If that is EMALS, so be it, then do it and they are there. If that is steam, then do it...and then develop EMALS at their leisure and fold it in.

This is taking for granted that their highest priority is too use catapults to reliably and safely launch combat aircraft off of their carrier.

If that is the highest priority for the PLAN, the PLAN will go with whichever technology will get them to that goal the quickest.

If getting that done the quickest is not the highest priority for the PLAN, then they will go with the more advanced technology and be willing to wait for it and settle for the STOBAR carriers for a little longer. And that is fine too.

We'll know soon enough what they do, and I am fine with whatever their decision happens to be. I figure the PLAN is very careful and very methodical about its decisions has they have very well shown.

Finally, as to the US going to EMALS. Yes it is. But it is doing so with a new class carrier. And, they are doing so after many decades of steam catapult use, and I might add, the US Navy is looking at many more decades of steam catapult use still in front of them. On the existing Nimitz class carriers, they will be in use until those ten carriers are retired.
 
Last edited:

xiabonan

Junior Member
Actually I believe that in terms of carriers, number and tonnage are more important figures to look out for.

Say even the Liaoning (or a slightly improved version of it), when she's fully equipped and properly escorted by a relatively modern battle group, will be a formidable force. And three or five of these CBGs should without a doubt become a profound presence in Asia Pacific.

Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that, I think the more important and urgent question will be how many carriers will China build and what they are going to be for.

In terms of catapults however, I do believe both are under development, but I also believe that China has a longer history of studying and developing steam catapults. The PLAN once acquired the Australian Melbourne which still had a catapult when sold to China, and the PLAN has also boarded the Brazilian carrier to study how a CATOBAR carrier operates, as well.

As far as my limited knowledge goes, I believe that EMALs would require more advanced integrated electric propulsion system, be it powered by gas turbine or nuclear reactors. Meanwhile steam catapults are completely compatible with even steam turbine engines. Considering China's struggle in everything related to engine technology, I think a conventional steam catapult carrier (yes Kitty Hawk I'm eyeing you) will be more technologically feasible, at this stage.

In fact something like the Kitty Hawk class would be far more efficient and powerful than the Liaoning, although the last Kitty Hawk retired even before the Liaoning commissioned. After all the Kitty Hawk, if still in service, will be second only to the Nimitz class (Enterprise decommissioned, Ford is being built, QE is being built). Three or five of CBGs centred around a 80,000 ton conventional steam catapult carrier will be really really powerful, and I'll be really really happy.

"Steam cat or electric cat, as long as it launches flies it's a good cat"
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Ok gents.. Everyone has made excellent points in the catapult discussion.

..let's move on and discuss other aspects of the PLAN Aircraft Carrier program..Thanks you!


bd popeye super moderator
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Well, we have discussed this for years here on SD, but now the "expert analysts" are starting to pontificate. Interesting how they are throwing their views around now, when the information has been available and thoroughly analyzed for years.

Anyhow, here's one report stemming from the recent comment by the CCP party official from Liaoning about the plans for building up to four carriers,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Liaoning-16-Chinas-first-aircraft-carrier-660x458.jpg


Army Times said:
Experts on China’s Navy are sounding cautionary tones after news surfaced last week that China is reportedly constructing a second aircraft carrier.

The Chinese-language report from Hong Kong-based Ta Kung Pao, known as a veteran pro-Beijing newspaper, stated that Wang Min, a Communist Party secretary of China’s northeastern province of Liaoning, has confirmed the construction of the ship, which unlike its first carrier, is homegrown.

China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, began life as the unfinished Ukrainian ship Varyag and was abandoned after the Soviet Union collapsed. Varyag was sold in 1998 for $20 million to a Hong Kong developer, ostensibly for refurbishment as a casino in Macao.

Instead of being towed there, it was towed to Dalian shipyard in northeastern China and refurbished. Commissioned in September 2012, the ship conducted flight tests with its first carrier-borne fighter jet, the J-15 Flying Shark.

According to Ta Kung Pao, Wang told delegates at the 12th Provincial People’s Congress last week that the first indigenously built aircraft carrier was under construction at the Dalian shipyard and would take six years to complete. Wang said the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) needs a total of four carriers by 2020.

“They’ll have to hurry if they are going to have four carriers by 2020, though,” said Roger Cliff, senior fellow with the Asia Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

“If, as Wang says, it takes six years to build one, then they would have to start three of them this year,” he said. “That’s not how the PLA Navy usually does things. Unless it is a copy of the Liaoning, I would expect them to build only one first, try it out, and see if they are satisfied with the design before building additional examples.”

Whether the PLAN is building four or 40, US analysts are saying that China needs to be taken seriously.

“It means that the PLA and the party are serious about operating carrier battle groups in the near and far seas by about 2020,” said Larry Wortzel, a senior member of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “This was one of the goals for the PLAN, and it means that China can project power more effectively in the South China Sea.”

Wortzel is the author of a new book, “The Dragon Extends Its Reach.”

In November, China asserted the right to conduct more surveillance and control over the East China Sea with an air defense identification zone, and expectations among US analysts are high that a zone for the South China Sea will be declared this year.

The Hong Kong newspaper further claimed, quoting PLAN senior Capt. Li Jie, that the second carrier would be a medium-sized vessel in the 53,000-ton range, the same tonnage as the Liaoning. Li was further quoted as stating that rumors that other carriers would be built in other shipyards are untrue. He said Dalian had the most experience in building advanced warships, including submarines and the refitting of the Liaoning.

This could be evidence of regional competition at a high political level for military business in China, said Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. “The top Communist Party leader for Liaoning province, or the Dalian-area aircraft carrier complex, is touting his carrier program over Shanghai’s developing carrier construction complex.”

In 2013, the Dalian Shipyard and Shanghai’s Jiangnan-Changxin shipyard produced segments of aircraft carrier hulls.

“This was done to prove capability, but in Jiangnan’s case, the segment will soon grace a new corporate park for employees. I fully expect that Jiangnan will also start a carrier project very soon, meaning China will soon have two carriers under construction,” said Fisher, author of the book, “China’s Military Modernization.”

China conducted its first exercise in December in the South China Sea as a complete Chinese “aircraft carrier battle group,” said Bernard “Bud” Cole, a China naval specialist at the US National War College.

The exercise also resulted in an incident at sea between a US Navy cruiser and a PLAN amphibious warfare vessel.

“The Liaoning is more a political statement than a formidable warship — primarily because of the severe weight restrictions on the embarked J-15 aircraft because of the ‘ski jump’ configuration of the ship,” said Cole, author of the book, “The Great Wall at Sea.”

Future carriers, he said, may have to be outfitted with catapults or employ a lighter aircraft, “possibly a derivation of the J-31” stealth fighter.

Four carriers would give China a real, albeit limited, blue water capability, Cliff said, adding, “Let’s not get too excited, though.”

The Liaoning carries about 22 fixed-wing combat aircraft, compared to 72 for a US Nimitz-class carrier. “So each Chinese carrier will have only a third of the combat power, at best, of a US carrier,” Cliff said. Chinese anti-submarine warfare capabilities are weak, so protecting its carriers from US attack submarines would be problematic.

Four Chinese carriers in the medium-tonnage range would not represent a significant threat to US naval supremacy, he said. “They would, however, give China the capability to project air power against lesser countries outside of the range of China’s land-based aircraft,” said Cliff, co-author of the book, “The Chinese Air Force: Evolving Concepts, Roles, and Capabilities.”

“And for missions like counterpiracy patrols off of Somalia, having a carrier around would be nice, because it can cover a lot more area and more targets than a surface combatant,” Cliff said
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm gonna take a look at this article, because why not

Experts on China’s Navy are sounding cautionary tones after news surfaced last week that China is reportedly constructing a second aircraft carrier.

The Chinese-language report from Hong Kong-based Ta Kung Pao, known as a veteran pro-Beijing newspaper, stated that Wang Min, a Communist Party secretary of China’s northeastern province of Liaoning, has confirmed the construction of the ship, which unlike its first carrier, is homegrown.

China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, began life as the unfinished Ukrainian ship Varyag and was abandoned after the Soviet Union collapsed. Varyag was sold in 1998 for $20 million to a Hong Kong developer, ostensibly for refurbishment as a casino in Macao.

Instead of being towed there, it was towed to Dalian shipyard in northeastern China and refurbished. Commissioned in September 2012, the ship conducted flight tests with its first carrier-borne fighter jet, the J-15 Flying Shark.

According to Ta Kung Pao, Wang told delegates at the 12th Provincial People’s Congress last week that the first indigenously built aircraft carrier was under construction at the Dalian shipyard and would take six years to complete. Wang said the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) needs a total of four carriers by 2020.

“They’ll have to hurry if they are going to have four carriers by 2020, though,” said Roger Cliff, senior fellow with the Asia Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

“If, as Wang says, it takes six years to build one, then they would have to start three of them this year,” he said. “That’s not how the PLA Navy usually does things. Unless it is a copy of the Liaoning, I would expect them to build only one first, try it out, and see if they are satisfied with the design before building additional examples.”

What Mr Wang said and what the PLAN is actually planning is very different, furthermore I don't think he actually said anything about four carriers by 2020, only that the country's indigenous carrier was being built in his province.


Whether the PLAN is building four or 40, US analysts are saying that China needs to be taken seriously.

“It means that the PLA and the party are serious about operating carrier battle groups in the near and far seas by about 2020,” said Larry Wortzel, a senior member of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “This was one of the goals for the PLAN, and it means that China can project power more effectively in the South China Sea.”

Wortzel is the author of a new book, “The Dragon Extends Its Reach.”

In November, China asserted the right to conduct more surveillance and control over the East China Sea with an air defense identification zone, and expectations among US analysts are high that a zone for the South China Sea will be declared this year.

The Hong Kong newspaper further claimed, quoting PLAN senior Capt. Li Jie, that the second carrier would be a medium-sized vessel in the 53,000-ton range, the same tonnage as the Liaoning. Li was further quoted as stating that rumors that other carriers would be built in other shipyards are untrue. He said Dalian had the most experience in building advanced warships, including submarines and the refitting of the Liaoning.

There are many different rumours always thrown around by seemingly credible newspapers. The mark of an unseasoned PLA watcher is focusing on them without much critical thinking about just how credible they are.


This could be evidence of regional competition at a high political level for military business in China, said Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. “The top Communist Party leader for Liaoning province, or the Dalian-area aircraft carrier complex, is touting his carrier program over Shanghai’s developing carrier construction complex.”

In 2013, the Dalian Shipyard and Shanghai’s Jiangnan-Changxin shipyard produced segments of aircraft carrier hulls.

“This was done to prove capability, but in Jiangnan’s case, the segment will soon grace a new corporate park for employees. I fully expect that Jiangnan will also start a carrier project very soon, meaning China will soon have two carriers under construction,” said Fisher, author of the book, “China’s Military Modernization.”

Anyone can see the JNCX module isn't meant to "grace" a corporate park -- they had drawings of a carrier module shaped building on a corporate park. They weren't intending to literally haul that massive chunk of metal inland and make a building out of it.


China conducted its first exercise in December in the South China Sea as a complete Chinese “aircraft carrier battle group,” said Bernard “Bud” Cole, a China naval specialist at the US National War College.

The exercise also resulted in an incident at sea between a US Navy cruiser and a PLAN amphibious warfare vessel.

“The Liaoning is more a political statement than a formidable warship — primarily because of the severe weight restrictions on the embarked J-15 aircraft because of the ‘ski jump’ configuration of the ship,” said Cole, author of the book, “The Great Wall at Sea.”

I often hear PLA observers saying the Liaoning/future PLAN aircraft carriers are "political statements" -- which I think is meant to reflect an insinuation that the PLAN isn't interested in military capability but worries more about image or nationalism or something like that. However, that is obviously contrary to reality, because even if Liaoning can't launch fully loaded J-15s (I've already discussed this topic to exhaustion), it can still launch fighters from a ship, which they simply couldn't do before.


Future carriers, he said, may have to be outfitted with catapults or employ a lighter aircraft, “possibly a derivation of the J-31” stealth fighter.

Four carriers would give China a real, albeit limited, blue water capability, Cliff said, adding, “Let’s not get too excited, though.”

This is the most WTF statement in the whole article.

How many nations have four or more aircraft carriers the size of Liaoning or greater? Oh that's right, only USN.

So does that mean the Royal Navy, Marine Nationale, russian navy, etc, only have "limited" blue water capability??
sigh.

I mean, I suppose it is flattering that the PLAN's potential blue water capability is being compared with the USN's today, but they should take a step back and just see how large the two would be compared with the rest of the world in the first place, my goodness.



The Liaoning carries about 22 fixed-wing combat aircraft, compared to 72 for a US Nimitz-class carrier. “So each Chinese carrier will have only a third of the combat power, at best, of a US carrier,” Cliff said. Chinese anti-submarine warfare capabilities are weak, so protecting its carriers from US attack submarines would be problematic.

22 sounds a bit low, even for routine operations. And 72 sounds a bit high for a USN CVN (for routine operations), as I think that is usually the number thrown around for the entire airwing, including AEW, helicopters, COD.



Four Chinese carriers in the medium-tonnage range would not represent a significant threat to US naval supremacy, he said. “They would, however, give China the capability to project air power against lesser countries outside of the range of China’s land-based aircraft,” said Cliff, co-author of the book, “The Chinese Air Force: Evolving Concepts, Roles, and Capabilities.”

Nothing particularly false in this sentence, but the author assumes PLAN carriers would have main missions to face the USN in the first place, which obviously isn't their goal.



“And for missions like counterpiracy patrols off of Somalia, having a carrier around would be nice, because it can cover a lot more area and more targets than a surface combatant,” Cliff said

This is probably the sentence which is most worthwhile in this entire article. The PLAN's carriers are meant to project power to distant waters, that is the PRC's main motivation. If the idea was to challenge or nullify USN seapower, carriers woudl be the stupidest way to go about it.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I'm gonna take a look at this article, because why not

What Mr Wang said and what the PLAN is actually planning is very different, furthermore I don't think he actually said anything about four carriers by 2020, only that the country's indigenous carrier was being built in his province.

There are many different rumours always thrown around by seemingly credible newspapers. The mark of an unseasoned PLA watcher is focusing on them without much critical thinking about just how credible they are.

Anyone can see the JNCX module isn't meant to "grace" a corporate park -- they had drawings of a carrier module shaped building on a corporate park. They weren't intending to literally haul that massive chunk of metal inland and make a building out of it.

I often hear PLA observers saying the Liaoning/future PLAN aircraft carriers are "political statements" -- which I think is meant to reflect an insinuation that the PLAN isn't interested in military capability but worries more about image or nationalism or something like that. However, that is obviously contrary to reality, because even if Liaoning can't launch fully loaded J-15s (I've already discussed this topic to exhaustion), it can still launch fighters from a ship, which they simply couldn't do before.

This is the most WTF statement in the whole article.

How many nations have four or more aircraft carriers the size of Liaoning or greater? Oh that's right, only USN.

So does that mean the Royal Navy, Marine Nationale, russian navy, etc, only have "limited" blue water capability??
sigh.

I mean, I suppose it is flattering that the PLAN's potential blue water capability is being compared with the USN's today, but they should take a step back and just see how large the two would be compared with the rest of the world in the first place, my goodness.

22 sounds a bit low, even for routine operations. And 72 sounds a bit high for a USN CVN (for routine operations), as I think that is usually the number thrown around for the entire airwing, including AEW, helicopters, COD.
The Liaoning could embark a max of 48 aircraft if she ever had to, the US could embark a max of 92 aircraft. Now, as to strike fighters, the max would be closer to 40 for the PLAN and 82 for the US. Routine in wartime would be closer to 30 strike aircraft for the PLAN and 60 strike aircraft for the US these days. Routine for peace time is going to probably be 24 for the PLAN and 48 for the US. In any case, his numbers are wrong.

Nothing particularly false in this sentence, but the author assumes PLAN carriers would have main missions to face the USN in the first place, which obviously isn't their goal.

This is probably the sentence which is most worthwhile in this entire article. The PLAN's carriers are meant to project power to distant waters, that is the PRC's main motivation. If the idea was to challenge or nullify USN seapower, carriers woudl be the stupidest way to go about it.
Yep...like I said, this is a supposed "expert," who is getting book deals, and yet his knowledge on this subject and extrapolation of data is, IMHO, sorely lacking.

BTW, there towards the end, the idea that the PLAN would send a carrier to do anti-piracy is also pretty ridiculous. Let's see, is anyone else doing that? Err...that would be no.

A good helo or two serve just fine for the frigates and destroyers to extend their reach without committing a carrier. Most we have seen are LPDs and an occasional LHD as a centerpiece or Command Ship for the entire mission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top