PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xiabonan

Junior Member
delft said:
There are good technical and financial reasons not to believe him. China has a good system to get aircraft into the air, the ski ramp. The EM cat is the preferred technology and a combination of EM cat and ski ramp would be very good on possible smaller carriers ( compare USN carriers and its America class ). Steam cats are to bridge the gap until the EM cat is developed, at a costs equivalent to hundreds of millions of dollars for say five years? How many years would it take to develop the steam cats from where China is now? Perhaps more than will be necessary to complete the EM cat development.
Click to expand...

According to POP3, China begun developing prototypes for steam cats since the 1980s, same period when the development of the recovery system started. It was also around the same period of time China started training "pilot captains" for carriers.

Also, one J8 was modified to take off using steam cat during the 1980s as well, and it succeeded.

The research and development never start just when we need to install them. They started long long ago. The same goes for many other Chinese military advancements, what people see is that China suddenly came up with a whole range of modern ships, planes, and all the sub-systems, but the hard truth is that the development started way back and many of the pioneer researchers and scientists didn't live to see the fruition.
 
by78

by78

General
Interesting, as of late, a flurry of info. has shown up about the steam catapult program.

Here is a certain Mr. Zhang Xueqing, an expert in hydraulic systems. He was responsible for Project '858', which is the carrier catapult program. He was the man sent to examine the steam catapult onboard the decommissioned Australian carrier.

13195642005_6856d78462_o.jpg


13195642625_beb1f123d2_o.jpg
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
:eek: Not sure if already posted !! :eek: ... anyway nice shots (even without J-15s)
 

Attachments

  • Liaoning CBG training 1.jpg
    Liaoning CBG training 1.jpg
    117.5 KB · Views: 64
  • Liaoning CBG training 2.jpg
    Liaoning CBG training 2.jpg
    145.7 KB · Views: 52
  • Liaoning CBG training 3.jpg
    Liaoning CBG training 3.jpg
    128.4 KB · Views: 53
  • Liaoning CBG training 4.jpg
    Liaoning CBG training 4.jpg
    104.4 KB · Views: 43
  • Liaoning CBG training 5.jpg
    Liaoning CBG training 5.jpg
    86.5 KB · Views: 60
Engineer

Engineer

Major
The issue isn't about whether China has a steam catapult research program. We have been pretty sure on the existence such program for a long time, since we know of the country's interest in the catapult on board the HMAS Melbourne. So, POP3 isn't actually telling us anything new.

The real issue is whether China will put a production version of a steam catapult into service. This is an issue that is still being debated, and what POP3 has said does not answer this question.

Here is my take on it. If China go with a steam catapult now, then they would not be able to swap the catapults out for EMALS on a later date. It would be incredibly expensive, as China would be forced into keeping separated logistic systems for single digit number of steam catapults and EMALS. Also, the next carrier China will build is expected to be a modification of the Liaoning, whereas a domestic flattop featuring catapults isn't expected for at least another ten years. As more research goes into EMALS during this period, the value of maturity in steam catapult research will diminish. So as time pass, there will be less and less reasons for China to go with steam catapult. In summary, the arguments presented by POP3 for steam catapults just aren't convincing.
 
Last edited:
X

xiabonan

Junior Member
Engineer said:
The issue isn't about whether China has a steam catapult research program. We have been pretty sure on the existence such program for a long time, since we know of the country's interest in the catapult on board the HMAS Melbourne. So, POP3 isn't actually telling us anything new.

The real issue is whether China will put a production version of a steam catapult into service. This is an issue that is still being debated, and what POP3 has said does not answer this question.

Here is my take on it. If China go with a steam catapult now, then they would not be able to swap the catapults out for EMALS on a later date. It would be incredibly expensive, as China would be forced into keeping separated logistic systems for single digit number of steam catapults and EMALS. Also, the next carrier China will build is expected to be a modification of the Liaoning, whereas a domestic flattop featuring catapults isn't expected for at least another ten years. As more research goes into EMALS during this period, the value of maturity in steam catapult research will diminish. So as time pass, there will be less and less reasons for China to go with steam catapult. In summary, the arguments presented by POP3 for steam catapults just aren't convincing.
Click to expand...

Your argument is based on the assumption that they will build the catapult carrier AFTER the modification of Liaoning.

Well now the case could very well be that the two are built CONCURRENTLY.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Engineer said:
The issue isn't about whether China has a steam catapult research program. We have been pretty sure on the existence such program for a long time, since we know of the country's interest in the catapult on board the HMAS Melbourne. So, POP3 isn't actually telling us anything new.

The real issue is whether China will put a production version of a steam catapult into service. This is an issue that is still being debated, and what POP3 has said does not answer this question.

Here is my take on it. If China go with a steam catapult now, then they would not be able to swap the catapults out for EMALS on a later date. It would be incredibly expensive, as China would be forced into keeping separated logistic systems for single digit number of steam catapults and EMALS. Also, the next carrier China will build is expected to be a modification of the Liaoning, whereas a domestic flattop featuring catapults isn't expected for at least another ten years. As more research goes into EMALS during this period, the value of maturity in steam catapult research will diminish. So as time pass, there will be less and less reasons for China to go with steam catapult. In summary, the arguments presented by POP3 for steam catapults just aren't convincing.
Click to expand...

It's really a question of whether Pop3 is giving us a leak or presenting an argument. I do see some value in going to STEAM cats if EMALS just isn't ready for the two latest carriers, primarily from the vantage of training and readiness. The impact on maintenance and logistics may not be as important a consideration if they're aiming to build much bigger carriers than the next two, since much more than catapults would be different.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
From Type 052, PLAN went through interim classes of 051B and 052B before getting to 052C design. If PLAN is that concerned about not having separated logistic systems, it would have just went straight from 052 to 052C. It would also not have gotten 051C class. They are maintaining 4 different types of VLS. By the time they built the first carrier, if STEAM catapult is ready and EMAL is not, they will go with STEAM. They aren't going to worry that the STEAM catapult might only appear on one carrier.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Engineer said:
The issue isn't about whether China has a steam catapult research program. We have been pretty sure on the existence such program for a long time, since we know of the country's interest in the catapult on board the HMAS Melbourne. So, POP3 isn't actually telling us anything new.

The real issue is whether China will put a production version of a steam catapult into service. This is an issue that is still being debated, and what POP3 has said does not answer this question.

Here is my take on it. If China go with a steam catapult now, then they would not be able to swap the catapults out for EMALS on a later date. It would be incredibly expensive, as China would be forced into keeping separated logistic systems for single digit number of steam catapults and EMALS. Also, the next carrier China will build is expected to be a modification of the Liaoning, whereas a domestic flattop featuring catapults isn't expected for at least another ten years. As more research goes into EMALS during this period, the value of maturity in steam catapult research will diminish. So as time pass, there will be less and less reasons for China to go with steam catapult. In summary, the arguments presented by POP3 for steam catapults just aren't convincing.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing NOTHING wrong with using steam cats. So what if it's a tech that decades old? it has worked very well for the last 50 and will work just fine for the next 50....it's not an 'active' system per se where it needs be be upgraded to support or combat future threats etc like say a weapon system, radar, sensors or some electronic gizmo.


Even in the USN the last Nimitiz class carrier will continue sailing the high seas for another 30 years before it's replaced by a Ford so USN herself will continue using steam cats for a very long time. If PLAN puts steam cat on a newly built carrier with a lifespan of 30-50 years there is still no reason to swapped it out for EMALS at a later date.

Like you said it's potentially another 10 years before China builds their own indigenous carrier. At that time they may likely put EMALS on her because the tech would have been fully understood and tested for mainline system but for now it is totally acceptable IMHO putting regular steam cats on Liaoning #2 or even #3.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
There is absolutely nothing NOTHING wrong with using steam cats. So what if it's a tech that decades old? it has worked very well for the last 50 and will work just fine for the next 50....Even in the USN the last Nimitiz class carrier will continue sailing the high seas for another 30 years before it's replaced by a Ford so USN herself will continue using steam cats for a very long time.
Click to expand...
Amen to every bit of that.

The USS George H.W. Bush, CVN-77, was commissioned in January 2009, the last of the Nimitz Class nuclear aircraft carriers. It is likely she will serve out to around 2060, another 46 years. And during the entire time she will be using steam catapults.

kwaigonegin said:
Like you said it's potentially another 10 years before China builds their own indigenous carrier. At that time they may likely put EMALS on her because the tech would have been fully understood and tested for mainline system but for now it is totally acceptable IMHO putting regular steam cats on Liaoning #2 or even #3.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the first indegenous Chinese nuclear carrier is temn years away. And perhaps they will intrioduce their own EMALS on her.

But I fully expect that the 1st conventionally powered carrier for the PLAN is already under construction, at the very least its modules, if not already the start in the main yards.

I also expect that tat first carrier, and perhaps the one after it, will simply be improved Liaoning carriers, where they apply the lessons learned from the refit of the Varyag into the Liaoning. Better deck handling, larger flight deck, smaller island, larger hanger, etc. And I also believe that most certainly the first...if not the second also, will be STOBAR just like the Liaoning is.

But time will tell (and hopefully soon) what they actually do.
 
Last edited:
by78

by78

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


This thread has more info. on Chinese carrier plans from 'POP3', who is apparently an insider with an excellent track record in providing accurate information; he could be an 'official leaker'.

Chinese speakers here, please help me summarize, as my Chinese is rudimentary and am hopeless in comprehending internet slangs.

Many thanks in advance!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top