PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Jeff Head · Aug 10, 2013

latenlazy said:
If I were the PLAN I would be looking at that timeline with every effort to figure out the safest way to cut some steps.

Hehehe...there is no way to cut those steps I listed. Those are six individual carriers I am showing. To build six individual carriers, you need six individual steps, or builds, as that schedule shows.

Within those six carrier builds, there are three "steps." The first is conventional STOBAR, the 2nd is conventional CATOBAR, and then the last three are nuclear CATOBAR.

dingyibvs · Aug 10, 2013

Jeff Head said:
Hehehe...there is no way to cut those steps I listed. Those are six individual carriers I am showing. To build six individual carriers, you need six individual steps, or builds, as that schedule shows.

Within those six carrier builds, there are three "steps." The first is conventional STOBAR, the 2nd is conventional CATOBAR, and then the last three are nuclear CATOBAR.

I can see the necessity of a conventional STOBAR in order to get experience constructing a CV from ground up, but why do CATOBAR and nuclear reactor have to be separate steps? Is there something about building/using a catapult that makes it immensely more difficult to use/built a nuclear reactor or vice versa?

Jeff Head · Aug 10, 2013

dingyibvs said:
I can see the necessity of a conventional STOBAR in order to get experience constructing a CV from ground up, but why do CATOBAR and nuclear reactor have to be separate steps? Is there something about building/using a catapult that makes it immensely more difficult to use/built a nuclear reactor or vice versa?

The Chinese do not have a vessel borne nuclear reactor adequate for a carrier yet. The are perfectly capable however of building a conventional one to establish their CATOBAR capabilities and procedures and naval operations which will be the same as with the nuclear carrier when they get there.

So, if they want to get into to those operations sooner, then doing the conventional CATOBAR first gets them started and a leg up on that.

Building a second Liaoning-like STOBAR carrier, and then a second conventional CATOBAR carrier, helps tremendously with logistics, training, availability. and overall long term cost of ownership for both classes.

Then, when they have a nuclear propulsion design that is not only efficient and strong enough for a carrier, and one they have exhaustively tested, they can then proceed with a nuclear carrier and will have really not lost very much in the exchange.

ANyhow, those are my reasons. we will just have to see what they actually do.

Just depends on timing.

delft · Aug 10, 2013

dingyibvs said:
I can see the necessity of a conventional STOBAR in order to get experience constructing a CV from ground up, but why do CATOBAR and nuclear reactor have to be separate steps? Is there something about building/using a catapult that makes it immensely more difficult to use/built a nuclear reactor or vice versa?

There are plenty of other details in the design and operation that might need time in the yard for small or less small modification. It's much better to have a gas turbine powered flattop, that will probably have taken a year less building, undergoing those modification than a more expensive nuclear powered one. When you know you have solved those problem and won't meet them again is the time to consider building a nuclear powered carrier. Think of the time CdG is spending at the ship yard.

dingyibvs · Aug 10, 2013

See, my opinion is that they won't have a "vessel borne nuclear reactor adequate for a carrier" until they have a vessel borne nuclear reactor adequate for a carrier. I think trying to operate so many different types of carriers will be a real training/logistics/operational hassle in the long run, and it's better to just bite the bullet early and build a CVN with enough modularity to accommodate upgrades later on.

It seems to me that our major difference is in our perception of where China is at in terms of being capable of building nuclear reactors for carriers. I believe that they are fairly close already, and here's why:

First, China should have the technical know-how by now. I mean, after all, USS Nimitz was constructed in the early 70's, and China has operated nuclear powered vessels before, even if the reactors used on SSBN's are very different. So the problems remaining are political will, money, and time. The first two probably aren't of much concern, so it's really just a matter of time. Now, a CVN is tough to build and it takes a lot of time and experience to perfect, but it's something that even you and I understand so I'm sure the PLAN understands as well. Since it's safe to assume that the PLAN have always planned to eventually operate CVN's, I think it's also safe to assume that they've long begun to work on building nuclear reactors for them, especially since they know that they're in catch up mode and any step skipped is a step closer to their goal of catching up.

Now, have they put in enough time yet? None of us knows for sure. But if planning is adequate, then it makes perfect sense that they do not need to test out CATOBAR operations before building a CVN.

latenlazy · Aug 10, 2013

dingyibvs said:
See, my opinion is that they won't have a "vessel borne nuclear reactor adequate for a carrier" until they have a vessel borne nuclear reactor adequate for a carrier. I think trying to operate so many different types of carriers will be a real training/logistics/operational hassle in the long run, and it's better to just bite the bullet early and build a CVN with enough modularity to accommodate upgrades later on.

It seems to me that our major difference is in our perception of where China is at in terms of being capable of building nuclear reactors for carriers. I believe that they are fairly close already, and here's why:

First, China should have the technical know-how by now. I mean, after all, USS Nimitz was constructed in the early 70's, and China has operated nuclear powered vessels before, even if the reactors used on SSBN's are very different. So the problems remaining are political will, money, and time. The first two probably aren't of much concern, so it's really just a matter of time. Now, a CVN is tough to build and it takes a lot of time and experience to perfect, but it's something that even you and I understand so I'm sure the PLAN understands as well. Since it's safe to assume that the PLAN have always planned to eventually operate CVN's, I think it's also safe to assume that they've long begun to work on building nuclear reactors for them, especially since they know that they're in catch up mode and any step skipped is a step closer to their goal of catching up.

Now, have they put in enough time yet? None of us knows for sure. But if planning is adequate, then it makes perfect sense that they do not need to test out CATOBAR operations before building a CVN.

I can see another reason why they might want to divide the steps in the way Jeff Head suggested. If your nuclear reactor undergoes serious malfunctions or bugs you don't want to cripple yourself from also learning and adjusting to the logistics of a CATOBAR at the same time. Dividing up the hulls is essentially a risk management strategy.

That said, I wonder if they might just skip the second STOBAR and go directly to a CATOBAR, or else build enough modularity into a STOBAR carrier to convert it to a CATOBAR in a refit (not an easy or even feasible task, I'm sure). That's probably a less risky way to cut steps than to stick two new technologies onto one hull.

In the end whatever we see in their build schedule will be a reflection of the type and amount of risk the planners were willing to expose the program to.

paintgun · Aug 10, 2013

latenlazy said:
If I were the PLAN I would be looking at that timeline with every effort to figure out the safest way to cut some steps.

I agree with Jeff's step by step approach, 3 CV and then CVN
but the timeline is no way that stretched until 2047

2020ish is the time we see PLAN doing carrier operations routinely, and their next gen CVN starts appearing (ie Gerald Ford all electric nuclear propulsion)
a little optimistic but highly probable

rolking · Aug 10, 2013

latenlazy said:
Pfftt, not creepy. Who's keeping score? Besides, the J-20 was NOT about to debut when I made referenced comment. Comment was made in March. The J-20 was revealed at the end of Dec.

Please don't take it the wrong way. Everyone is either a pessimist, optimist or skeptic. I tend to be too optimistic. You are pretty accurate in my book. Just a friendly reminder so we can all made better predictions.

latenlazy said:
Anyways, I'm skeptical because it would seem to me that the J-20 might be a big design for carrier ops, especially since we're still expecting the nearest term CVs to stay below the 80,000 ton class range. We'll see though.

So you are skeptical about CAC navalised J-20 being selected, i was under the wrong impression that you thought CAC cannot meet the deadline of first flight in 2015.

Anyway, huitong's post did mentioned that J-21? will be smaller.

I am more interested in how the timeline, first flight in 2015 indicate when PLAN CATOBAR carrier will arrived, of course assuming that J-21 is catapult-launched.

dingyibvs · Aug 10, 2013

latenlazy said:
I can see another reason why they might want to divide the steps in the way Jeff Head suggested. If your nuclear reactor undergoes serious malfunctions or bugs you don't want to cripple yourself from also learning and adjusting to the logistics of a CATOBAR at the same time. Dividing up the hulls is essentially a risk management strategy.

That said, I wonder if they might just skip the second STOBAR and go directly to a CATOBAR, or else build enough modularity into a STOBAR carrier to convert it to a CATOBAR in a refit (not an easy or even feasible task, I'm sure). That's probably a less risky way to cut steps than to stick two new technologies onto one hull.

In the end whatever we see in their build schedule will be a reflection of the type and amount of risk the planners were willing to expose the program to.

That's a very good point, it certainly sounds like a safer strategy, and you're right that it'll depend on how much risk are they willing to take. Is the risk reduction worth its downside?

Jeff Head · Aug 10, 2013

latenlazy said:
I can see another reason why they might want to divide the steps in the way Jeff Head suggested. If your nuclear reactor undergoes serious malfunctions or bugs you don't want to cripple yourself from also learning and adjusting to the logistics of a CATOBAR at the same time. Dividing up the hulls is essentially a risk management strategy.

BINGO! Precisely.

latenlazy said:
That said, I wonder if they might just skip the second STOBAR and go directly to a CATOBAR, or else build enough modularity into a STOBAR carrier to convert it to a CATOBAR in a refit (not an easy or even feasible task, I'm sure).

I think it very likely that we will see the second carrier have both. A Ski-Jump at the bow, and two cats amidships coming off the angled deck. The Russians were building that very thing when the Soviet Union fell as their next step.

PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Jeff Head

General

dingyibvs

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

delft

Brigadier

dingyibvs

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

paintgun

Senior Member

rolking

New Member

dingyibvs

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General