PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rolking

New Member
Jeff Head said:
HMS Invincible is far too small at 20,000 tons for the next PLAN Carrier to by modeled after her.

I believe the next PLAN Carrier, their first indigenous carrier will look a lot like the Liaoning. They know the design by now inside and out. It will give them the experience building a carrier, and it will improve their logistics, operational capability, and training having two carriers that are so similar. They will improve the design in several ways, but outwardly it will look very similar.

Then, I believe they will move on and build a couple of conventional CATOBAR carriers of their own design Sort of like the US Forrestal class.

After that, I expect they will improve on that design and then settle on a longer term, improved CATOBAR design very much like this second batch, but potentially nuclear powered. That class would then persist for 30+ years and be used to replace the Liaoning and their first carrier as they reach the end of their service life.

We shall see.
Click to expand...

I do not agree that china will build 1 indigenous Liaoning and a COUPLE MORE (2?) conventional powered CATOBAR carriers before attempting to field their 1st nuclear-powered carrier.

If you read the chinese magazines and interviews on PLAN designers, they will always stress the difficulties of supporting these huge conventional-powered carrier. I recall in the latest one i read on this forum or cdf, the designer claimed that with the experience gained in restoring ex-Varvag into Liaoning and their long (decades) preparation research into carrier tech, they may be able to accomplish their goal (CVN) in one step instead of three. (in chinese, YI BU DAO WEI).

With the report of PLAN general claiming that the next carrier will be bigger and research on nuclear-propulsion safety officially underway, i believe we will see the chinese CVN (CCVN) much sooner than most expect.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
rolking said:
I do not agree that china will build 1 indigenous Liaoning and a COUPLE MORE (2?) conventional powered CATOBAR carriers before attempting to field their 1st nuclear-powered carrier.

If you read the chinese magazines and interviews on PLAN designers, they will always stress the difficulties of supporting these huge conventional-powered carrier. I recall in the latest one i read on this forum or cdf, the designer claimed that with the experience gained in restoring ex-Varvag into Liaoning and their long (decades) preparation research into carrier tech, they may be able to accomplish their goal (CVN) in one step instead of three. (in chinese, YI BU DAO WEI).

With the report of PLAN general claiming that the next carrier will be bigger and research on nuclear-propulsion safety officially underway, i believe we will see the chinese CVN (CCVN) much sooner than most expect.
Click to expand...

Your logic is hmm illogical. PLAN has never operated a carrier before nevermind a full size CV so how would they know the difficulties of it first hand? A CVN is much more complicated than a CV. If a magazine says that the opposite is true than I wouldn't take much stock into what they are saying. If they think operating a CV is difficult than the more reason they should start with a CV first instead of jumping to a CVN right away. It's one thing if PLAN has operated nuclear powered ships before but they haven't. I think it would be very unwise for them to build a CVN right after Liaoning or even Liaoning #2.

I think they need to truly hone their skills on a true full CATOBAR carrier first for 5 o 10 years and once they're comfortable with it then go for nuclear powered ones. By that time they would've not only experience operating it but have learned whatever design or engineering (aside from powerplant) mistakes they made in the CV and incorporate them into their CVN.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
rolking said:
I do not agree that china will build 1 indigenous Liaoning and a COUPLE MORE (2?) conventional powered CATOBAR carriers before attempting to field their 1st nuclear-powered carrier.

...they will always stress the difficulties of supporting these huge conventional-powered carrier. I recall in the latest one i read on this forum or cdf, the designer claimed that with the experience gained in restoring ex-Varvag into Liaoning and their long (decades) preparation research into carrier tech, they may be able to accomplish their goal (CVN) in one step instead of three.
Click to expand...
Sorry, building and operating a nuclear carrier is far more complicated than operating a conventionally powered carrier. The win is the savings in fuel...not the complicated nature.

The nuclear power plants necessary to successfully operate such a vessel will need to be far more advanced and efficient than what they operate currently on their subs.

As a result, it will be a good while before they try it.

So, here's what the PLAN has now:

1st carrier, CV, STOBAR, Liaoning, ex-Varyag, Launch 2011, in service 2012, End of life 2047

And here's my prediction:

1st indigenous carrier: CV, STOBAR, like Liaoning, start build 2013-2014, launch 2017-2018, commissioned 2019-2020
2nd indigenous carrier: CV, CATOBAR, 80,000 tons, start build 2015-2016, launch 2019-2020, commissioned 2021-2022
3rd indigenous carrier: CV, CATOBAR, 80,000 tons, start build 2017-2019, launch 2021-2023, commissioned 2023-2025
4th indigenous carrier, CVN, CATOBAR, 95,000 tons, start build, 2021-2022, launch 2027-2028, commissioned 2030-2031
5th indigenous carrier, CVN, CATOBAR, 95,000 tons, start build 2024-2025, launch 2031-2032, commissioned 2034-2035
6th indigenous carrier, CVN, CATOBA, 100,000 tons, replace Liaoning, start build 2040, launch 2045, commissioned 2047

Thereafter, they would replace all of the older ones as they retire with nuclear carriers.

Anyhow, time will tell who is closest...and in terms of raw capability, it will not make much difference if they really produce a Forrestal type conventional carrier with CATs...for all intent and purposes, outside of bunkerage for the fuel, their capabilities will be very close to the same.
 
A

A.Man

Major
PLAN Also Tried J-11B

gbvn.jpg
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Jeff Head said:
Sorry, building and operating a nuclear carrier is far more complicated than operating a conventionally powered carrier. The win is the savings in fuel...not the complicated nature.

The nuclear power plants necessary to successfully operate such a vessel will need to be far more advanced and efficient than what they operate currently on their subs.

As a result, it will be a good while before they try it.

So, here's what the PLAN has now:

1st carrier, CV, STOBAR, Liaoning, ex-Varyag, Launch 2011, in service 2012, End of life 2047

And here's my prediction:

1st indigenous carrier: CV, STOBAR, like Liaoning, start build 2013-2014, launch 2017-2018, commissioned 2019-2020
2nd indigenous carrier: CV, CATOBAR, 80,000 tons, start build 2015-2016, launch 2019-2020, commissioned 2021-2022
3rd indigenous carrier: CV, CATOBAR, 80,000 tons, start build 2017-2019, launch 2021-2023, commissioned 2023-2025
4th indigenous carrier, CVN, CATOBAR, 95,000 tons, start build, 2021-2022, launch 2027-2028, commissioned 2030-2031
5th indigenous carrier, CVN, CATOBAR, 95,000 tons, start build 2024-2025, launch 2031-2032, commissioned 2034-2035
6th indigenous carrier, CVN, CATOBA, 100,000 tons, replace Liaoning, start build 2040, launch 2045, commissioned 2047

Thereafter, they would replace all of the older ones as they retire with nuclear carriers.

Anyhow, time will tell who is closest...and in terms of raw capability, it will not make much difference if they really produce a Forrestal type conventional carrier with CATs...for all intent and purposes, outside of bunkerage for the fuel, their capabilities will be very close to the same.
Click to expand...
Jeff, you suppose that the technology will remain substantially the same over the next half century but half a century ago the flattop fleet of the US looked very different from now. Why should development stop now?
I can imagine that say the nuclear propulsion system will be replaced by a smaller and more efficient system ( Thorium? ) that will save weight on the installation and on the weight of lead shielding, that will be produced in a single size, one reactor for a cruiser, two for a carrier ( or two and three or four ). When then around 2030 one carrier per two years are produced, each of which with three quarter of the strength of a Ford class vessel China will be able outproduce the US without spending more.
I can't know what part of the system will change but I would be surprised if something as important as in my example does not occur.
 
duskylim

duskylim

Junior Member
VIP Professional
vincent said:
压水 = pressured water, not heavy water
Click to expand...

Actually no one familiar with the characteristics of heavy water reactors would propose their use in a naval vessel.

The problem is that the volume of heavy water required to bring the neutron energy down to thermal levels is 5 to 6 times that of light water.

The resulting reactor would be very bulky (as are all current heavy water reactors) and would take up too much space on board a ship.

Any potential gains from improved neutron economy (saving neutrons due to the much lower cross-section of capture of heavy water) is more than offset by the disadvantage of the bigger size/bulk.

The power-to-weight or power-to-volume ratios are too unfavorable for heavy water vs light water reactors.

The only reasonable alternative to pressurized light water reactors are liquid metal cooled reactors - like the lead-bismuth reactor of the Soviet Alfa and Mike class of submarines.

These combine very, very high power-to-weight and volume-to-weight ratios with fast neutron spectrums - making them very challenging to operate, automate and control.

Only the Soviets were able to successfully create and operate such reactors, however, their operational history shows that they were very difficult to handle.
 
R

rolking

New Member
kwaigonegin said:
Your logic is hmm illogical. PLAN has never operated a carrier before nevermind a full size CV so how would they know the difficulties of it first hand? A CVN is much more complicated than a CV. If a magazine says that the opposite is true than I wouldn't take much stock into what they are saying. If they think operating a CV is difficult than the more reason they should start with a CV first instead of jumping to a CVN right away. It's one thing if PLAN has operated nuclear powered ships before but they haven't. I think it would be very unwise for them to build a CVN right after Liaoning or even Liaoning #2.
Click to expand...

This is not my logic, nor what i wish PLAN should do. But my understanding of how PLAN might/will proceed with their carrier development while reading chinese magazine articles and recent reports on PLAN officials activities. kwaigonegin, do you read chinese?

PLAN designers stress the difficulties in SUPPORTING the logistics of conventional-powered carrier (CV) on missions,
they never claimed that CVN are easier to build or less complex than CV.

The old carrier thread in this forum was deleted so i cant locate the article for you.
In the article, the PLAN designers are seriously considering compressing the 3 steps into 2.
The original 3 steps are samilar to Jeff's predictions:
1.Build a STOBAR Liaoning-plus
2.Build 1st truely indigenous CATOBAR carrier
3.Build 1st nuclear-powered carrier.

New 2 steps:
1. Build skid + catapult coventional-powered Liaoning-plus.
2. build nuclear-powered CATOBAR Nimitz-sized carriers.

So one less step to their goal of CVN.


kwaigonegin said:
I think they need to truly hone their skills on a true full CATOBAR carrier first for 5 o 10 years and once they're comfortable with it then go for nuclear powered ones. By that time they would've not only experience operating it but have learned whatever design or engineering (aside from powerplant) mistakes they made in the CV and incorporate them into their CVN.
Click to expand...

comfortable before proceed to the next step??
Obviously you never consider the urgency and need to field certain military hardware.
 
R

rolking

New Member
Jeff Head said:
Sorry, building and operating a nuclear carrier is far more complicated than operating a conventionally powered carrier. The win is the savings in fuel...not the complicated nature.

The nuclear power plants necessary to successfully operate such a vessel will need to be far more advanced and efficient than what they operate currently on their subs.

As a result, it will be a good while before they try it.

So, here's what the PLAN has now:

1st carrier, CV, STOBAR, Liaoning, ex-Varyag, Launch 2011, in service 2012, End of life 2047

And here's my prediction:

1st indigenous carrier: CV, STOBAR, like Liaoning, start build 2013-2014, launch 2017-2018, commissioned 2019-2020
2nd indigenous carrier: CV, CATOBAR, 80,000 tons, start build 2015-2016, launch 2019-2020, commissioned 2021-2022
3rd indigenous carrier: CV, CATOBAR, 80,000 tons, start build 2017-2019, launch 2021-2023, commissioned 2023-2025
4th indigenous carrier, CVN, CATOBAR, 95,000 tons, start build, 2021-2022, launch 2027-2028, commissioned 2030-2031
5th indigenous carrier, CVN, CATOBAR, 95,000 tons, start build 2024-2025, launch 2031-2032, commissioned 2034-2035
6th indigenous carrier, CVN, CATOBA, 100,000 tons, replace Liaoning, start build 2040, launch 2045, commissioned 2047

Thereafter, they would replace all of the older ones as they retire with nuclear carriers.

Anyhow, time will tell who is closest...and in terms of raw capability, it will not make much difference if they really produce a Forrestal type conventional carrier with CATs...for all intent and purposes, outside of bunkerage for the fuel, their capabilities will be very close to the same.
Click to expand...

Why do some always assume that PLA's designers is grossly under-estimating the difficulties of their task whenever they attempt their 1st TRY earlier than foreigners would expect??

how many foreign experts agree that chinese aviation industry is "comfortable" with 3rd-gen fighters when J-20 come out in 2011??
how many foreign experts think chinese AESA is ready when 052C and KJ-2000 come out around mid-2000??

In contrast, how smooth-sailing or how much difficulties and delay the ARJ-21 face when AVIC thought they are ready??

If you watch most of the CCTV documentaries on their military projects, the chinese were seldom afraid to made their 1st try due to lack of technology know-how. Their project never took off due to lack of fund.

So why not made their 1st try at CVN sooner than later when they can afford to do so now??
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
rolking said:
Why do some always assume that PLA's designers is grossly under-estimating the difficulties of their task whenever they attempt their 1st TRY earlier than foreigners would expect??

how many foreign experts agree that chinese aviation industry is "comfortable" with 3rd-gen fighters when J-20 come out in 2011??
how many foreign experts think chinese AESA is ready when 052C and KJ-2000 come out around mid-2000?
Click to expand...
IMHO, you are being far too sensitive about this and taking things as some kind of national affront when none was intended.

I assume nothing...I just gave you my own view of the matter. Take it how you will.

A nuclear propuslion plant on an aircraft carrier is more complicated than a steam, or gas turbine plant. That fact does not matter if you are Chinese, Japanese, American, English, Russian, Indian...or Martian.

Based on that knowledge and my own prior work in the US defense industry and the nuclear power industry, and based on the historical record, I simply gave you my opinion on what the Chinese design path may be.

Time will tell how close either of these projections are.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
rolking said:
This is not my logic, nor what i wish PLAN should do. But my understanding of how PLAN might/will proceed with their carrier development while reading chinese magazine articles and recent reports on PLAN officials activities. kwaigonegin, do you read chinese?

PLAN designers stress the difficulties in SUPPORTING the logistics of conventional-powered carrier (CV) on missions,
they never claimed that CVN are easier to build or less complex than CV.

The old carrier thread in this forum was deleted so i cant locate the article for you.
In the article, the PLAN designers are seriously considering compressing the 3 steps into 2.
The original 3 steps are samilar to Jeff's predictions:
1.Build a STOBAR Liaoning-plus
2.Build 1st truely indigenous CATOBAR carrier
3.Build 1st nuclear-powered carrier.

New 2 steps:
1. Build skid + catapult coventional-powered Liaoning-plus.
2. build nuclear-powered CATOBAR Nimitz-sized carriers.

So one less step to their goal of CVN.




comfortable before proceed to the next step??
Obviously you never consider the urgency and need to field certain military hardware.
Click to expand...

As methodical as PLAN is, building and operating supercarriers is not about 'saving' steps. It has to be a natural progression. If all they care about is 'saving' steps, they might as well start cutting steel for a 100,000 ton CVN TODAY!!

Will they be able to do through sheer determination, 'brute force' and ridiculous amount of $$$$$? sure! but it would be very unwise and would be a BIG mistake for the future of PLAN aviation and carrier operations. not to mention extremely wasteful and inherently dangerous due to lack of experience and proper management of building a CVN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top