Depends on how long they have been producing it before the builds start.
They could easily have gotten the order 2-3 years ago and been stockpiling it in anticipation of the two builds.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
They could easily have gotten the order 2-3 years ago and been stockpiling it in anticipation of the two builds.
I'd say you've nailed the argument for the PLAN choosing steam cats as a first step, the USN is NOT going to qual the F-35C off an EMALs deck, but a steam cat, even though they have used the land based EMALS for initial cats at Pautaxant I do believe. In any respect, I believe that we "all" have a much better grasp of the technology of the Steam Cat, and that we all have a long way to go on EMALS. There are no "brownie points" awarded in real life for using the latest tech, and many times folks are far better off to go with the bird in the bush, rather than the "bird on the Bush". Eh, Eh, just being obnoxious!
The biggest disavantage of steam catepults is the need for fresh water. A Nimitz class carrier desalinate about 450000 gallons (1,7 million liters) of water each day. Most of that water is going to the steam cats. China will have to use whatever technology she has available to her for her first carrier. There is nothing wrong with steam cats. It has been used for decades now and will still be used for decades to come.
Is the Liaoning still at sea ? Does anyone know if she has returned ?
Is the Liaoning still at sea ? Does anyone know if she has returned ?
Engineer
Major
Never have I said there won't be gradual changes. Please read my posts carefully. Doing things gradually does not equate to the idea that steam catapult will be used on China's first flat top, especially consider EMALS and steam catapult operate on different technology principles.
Clearly, what you said is not true, as I am mimicking what PLAN thinks. PLAN let the Liaoning sit in dock for years to get everything readied before working on the ship. That's a fact. Following that thinking, I predicted that PLAN will see the benefits of using just one type of catapult and will wait a few more years.
The reason I said your examples don't apply is that they don't carry the same risks and costs as a carrier. PLAN's decisions with regards to 051C and Sovremenny-class were not brilliant even according to us laymen. That should be a very strong reason why PLAN won't be repeating the same mistakes.
POP3 has said nothing new. What he said has been speculated and argued upon by members on this forum for a long time. I disagreed with him, which stirred up a hornet's nest. I think that has to do with our eagerness to see China's CATOBAR carrier.
The next carrier China will build is said to be very similar to Liaoning, which suggests the first carrier to take advantage of catapults would not appear for another ten years. During this time, PLAN's EMALS would have moved along much further. Arguments in support for steam catapults tend to revolve around what China has now, but they are not strong arguments considering a lot can change within just a few years.
Last edited:
No, what Tphuang said is not "Clearly, what you said is not true."
What is clear is that you and Tphuang (and most others discussing this with you on this thread) disagee about what the PLAN thinks and has done.
Please do not tell him that what he is saying is "clearly not true." The same could be said by him of you, and ultimately those kind of accusations lead to problems we do not need here on this thread or on SD.
Time will tell if the Chinese use or do not use a steam catapult on their first CATOBAR carrier. Or if they go for EMALS.
As regards the discussion of the Type 052C VLS vs Type 052D VLS, here's just a bit of clarification.
It is not just a single vessel, and it is not just the VLS system.
Several years after the first two Type 052Cs were built, the PLAN rapidly put out four more Type 052C vessels with that VLS, main gun, APARs, and CIWS configuation. Then, the very next ship on the ways was the Type 052D. There was not a several year wait between those last four and the first D model, and its rapidly following 2nd, 3rd, and 4th D model vessels. There was literally no pause at that point.
The Type 052D came out with significant modifications required to the hull to accomodate a completely new and larger APAR, a completely new and larger main gun, and a completely new VLS system.
But the PLAN did not wait for those significant enhancements at all.
In fact, this occurred so quickly that the first Type 052D is now commissioned and in operation before the last Type 052C was completed outfitting and with trials There are SIGNIFICANT differences that will require completely different logistics and completely different training.
If I have been reading your explanations and theories right, the PLAN would never have done this.
They could have easily cut their "losses" and waited even 1 1/2 to 2 years and come out with all the new designs and not had to deal with a much larger logistics and training issue due to having six of these "older" vessels as opposed to having just two. In fact, since they had already launched, commissioned, and used the two for several years, this scenario fits your thinking perfectly. Here it was several uyears later and all of this new stuff was already designed and about to be built, and yet the PLAN finished four more of the older design before putting out the first new one.
That's what they did. And they did so because they did not want to wait even two years to have the numbers of vessels they could get with the older Type 052C capabilities right then.
Now, whether or not they will apply that same logic to the carrier...I cannot say. But the PLAN, in very meaningful numbers and costs, showed with the Type 052C - Type 052D vessels that they are very willing to forego the new tech to get the capability in the filed as fast as they can.
As it is.
ENOUGH OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMMINENT CARRIER BEING EITHER EMALS OR STEAM AND ALL OF THE BACK AND FORTH REGARDING IT.
That discussion has now been beat to death over several days and many posts. We are not even sure which carrier will be catobar at this point, and when it comes, it will be clear which route the PLAN chooses.
Move on. Do not respond to the moderation included in this post
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
China does not think small scale, short term nor does it's leaders like being over dependent on any one thing.
A single factory capable of making carrier grade steel is both a huge bottleneck as well as a big vulnerability that I just do not see China's leaders being happy to put up with. Making the investment necessary for a second or even third steel mill to make carrier grade steel seems very much in character for China. Maybe currently the right grade of steel is a limiting factor, but I cannot see that not having been noticed and foreseen long before now with how much planning, investment and ground work have been done in preparation for the launch of China's carrier programme, so I would be amazed if plans were not drawn up, or even being implemented to upgrade additional facilities to be able to produce carrier grade steel.
If you look at all recent major Chinese projects, you will notice an overall trend. China takes its sweet time deciding on what it wants to do, but once a decision has been made, they don't mess around and instead get things done pretty damn fast.
The Chinese objective with carriers is not just to have one for the sake of having one, but rather to form a credible, deployable operational capacity as soon as humanly possible. For that, you need ideally a minimum of 3 carriers.
As I mentioned before, China's leaders don't like to be overly dependent on any single thing, thus its perfectly within their nature and interest to develop carrier building capacity in two competing shipyards rather than one.
If you are to build two carriers simultaneously, it makes sense to build two radically different designs. You play it safe with one to make sure that if worst comes to worst and the 3rd carrier is a total loss, at least you will have two carriers, which while not ideal, still should be able to give China one carrier ready for deployment at all times.
But with the other carrier, it makes sense to go with a radical new design to test out new concepts and technologies, which if successful, will pave the way for China to leapfrog the traditional carrier development path and jump a generation or two. So instead of having a Liaoning class, then 5, 10 years later having a Kitty Hawk Class before finally moving onto Nimitz/Ford class 5, 10 years after that. China can squeeze two generations in one class, and potentially be ready to move onto nuclear carriers 5, 10 years and 2-3 carriers earlier.
If you factor in the construction and life cycle costs of carriers, and see nuclear supercarriers as the ultimate goal, with all previous classes as necessary investment in order to reach that goal, taking a little risk and compressing two conventional generations in one could yield enormous savings and capacity boosts if you compare the combat potential of a Kitty Hawk class to a Nimitz/Ford class.
And I thing I don't need to point out that compressing conventional development routes and leapfrogging is another key defining feature of almost all recent Chinese major projects.
A single factory capable of making carrier grade steel is both a huge bottleneck as well as a big vulnerability that I just do not see China's leaders being happy to put up with. Making the investment necessary for a second or even third steel mill to make carrier grade steel seems very much in character for China. Maybe currently the right grade of steel is a limiting factor, but I cannot see that not having been noticed and foreseen long before now with how much planning, investment and ground work have been done in preparation for the launch of China's carrier programme, so I would be amazed if plans were not drawn up, or even being implemented to upgrade additional facilities to be able to produce carrier grade steel.
If you look at all recent major Chinese projects, you will notice an overall trend. China takes its sweet time deciding on what it wants to do, but once a decision has been made, they don't mess around and instead get things done pretty damn fast.
The Chinese objective with carriers is not just to have one for the sake of having one, but rather to form a credible, deployable operational capacity as soon as humanly possible. For that, you need ideally a minimum of 3 carriers.
As I mentioned before, China's leaders don't like to be overly dependent on any single thing, thus its perfectly within their nature and interest to develop carrier building capacity in two competing shipyards rather than one.
If you are to build two carriers simultaneously, it makes sense to build two radically different designs. You play it safe with one to make sure that if worst comes to worst and the 3rd carrier is a total loss, at least you will have two carriers, which while not ideal, still should be able to give China one carrier ready for deployment at all times.
But with the other carrier, it makes sense to go with a radical new design to test out new concepts and technologies, which if successful, will pave the way for China to leapfrog the traditional carrier development path and jump a generation or two. So instead of having a Liaoning class, then 5, 10 years later having a Kitty Hawk Class before finally moving onto Nimitz/Ford class 5, 10 years after that. China can squeeze two generations in one class, and potentially be ready to move onto nuclear carriers 5, 10 years and 2-3 carriers earlier.
If you factor in the construction and life cycle costs of carriers, and see nuclear supercarriers as the ultimate goal, with all previous classes as necessary investment in order to reach that goal, taking a little risk and compressing two conventional generations in one could yield enormous savings and capacity boosts if you compare the combat potential of a Kitty Hawk class to a Nimitz/Ford class.
And I thing I don't need to point out that compressing conventional development routes and leapfrogging is another key defining feature of almost all recent Chinese major projects.
china only has one steel factory capable of making carrier grade steel ? what factory is this?
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I speak as a non expert here but I thought "carrier steel" is pretty much the same type of HS steel used in other capital warships. I may be wrong but I don't think there is a 'special carrier' grade steel.
- Status