PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
Amen Bltizo.

We have discussed this on SD for ten years...and now regarding their second carrier (the first indegenous Chinese carrier), ever since before the Liaoning was commissioned.

Some of our newer members are not aware of all of that discussion and the detail we have gone into, and the understanding we have all benefited from especially with some of the more knowledgable members of the forum.

So...it is not surprising that the newer members end up hashing out the same things we have spent years working on and coming to determination on.

I still believe we will see:

The 1st indigenous Chinese carrier be very similar, but improved Liaoning design.
The 2nd indigenous Chinese carrier be a convetional propulsion CATOBAR carrier
The 3rd indigenous Chinese carrier most likely be like the 2nd, with improvements
The 4th indigenous Chinese carrier potentially be a nuclear powered carrier.

Time will tell, but as I have said many time, the impact of logistics plays a critical role. Learning how to operate these vessels, training the thousands of personnel, spare parts, policies and procedures, etc. are all things that cost a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money.

Having every carrier be a one off would add huge amounts of cost and lost efficiencies to the Chinese Naval Air Arm efforts.

It is very possible, in my opinion, maybe even likely, that China will field two STOBAR carrier (I believe this is a given now), then two CATOBAR conventional carriers...and then begin transitioning to nuclear carriers.


.
Click to expand...
From what I know, the Ulyanovsk was a half CATOBAR, half STOBAR. Would that be necessary (waste of resources)? Also, even Russian next generation nuclear-powered carrier, claimed to be bigger than the Gerald Ford, seemed to be STOBAR. Wondering if China will follow the Russian or U.S. model. Or simply the Ulyanovsk fusion model.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Bltizo said:
Yep, agree with everything Jeff said -- something that many of us have begun wondering over the last year now regarding 002 is whether it will use EMALS or steam catapults, and that in turn makes us question what kind of propulsion arrangement we will see, namely whether the conventional powerplants will be arranged in an IEPS fashion to power the EMALS if there are any.
Click to expand...
I just have a sneaking suspicion we'll see waist cats on Mac'Liaoning. I have no evidence whatsoever, just an inkling.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Josh Luo said:
From what I know, the Ulyanovsk was a half CATOBAR, half STOBAR. Would that be necessary (waste of resources)? Also, even Russian next generation nuclear-powered carrier, claimed to be bigger than the Gerald Ford, seemed to be STOBAR. Wondering if China will follow the Russian or U.S. model. Or simply the Ulyanovsk fusion model.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

I think if one has reliable catapults then there is no reason to only adopt them on the waist while retaining a bow ski jump.

And I also suspect the PLAN are more seeking to follow the USN model rather than the Russian one, for carrier design at least.

The Russians may have their own unique reasons for adopting ski jumps which do not apply to the PLAN or USN
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
@plawolf; I think recent rumours have suggested the initial batch of 055s will be COGAG rather than IEPS and that a notional 055A will feature IEPS instead; I personally suspect the PLANs first IEPS ship may be the next generation frigate.

That said, there were all kinds of reports in the last year or two saying that major progress has been made in IEPS development or even that it is nearing completion, so who knows what ship they will first put it on.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
delft said:
This is a sensitive point for me. Flankers are built in batches. There is no serial production nor will there be any unless there is a huge policy change.
Click to expand...
Okay...we'll use the term production aircraft then.

They are now building production aircraft for the J-15...aircraft which are no longer prototype test aircraft.

That was my meaning. I have no problem going back and forth between the terms production and serial.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
antiterror13 said:
I don't see any problem using "serial" or "production" ... practically the same to me ...... unless you are writing a thesis .... maybe
Click to expand...
Serial production is shown for example in the long lines of aircraft being built by Boeing say 737's. Such a system is well suited to large scale production but needs a huge investment and changing the production rate, whether up or down, is also expensive. Batch production is more flexible with lower costs for changes but it is unable to reach the low costs of serial production if the production rate is high.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top