PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

joshuatree said:

The use of IEP would be a huge change and improvement if they went that route. The interior layout could then be really different along with extra space freed up for other uses.

Click to expand...

Well, integrated electric propulsion (IEP) would be very significant...but I do not see them doing that with this vessel. They have not done it before for any naval vessel, and this would be (IMHO) too big a step for their first vessel.

I was thinking more of going from the steam turbine & boilers they currently have on the Liaoning, to either large, modern gas turbines, or perhaps a CODAD arrangement...or possibly some hybrid like a large CODELAG hybrid system.

What if they were daring and went with the British approach with 2 islands. That would throw us all off! The new British carrier is around the same size as CV-17. It would not be unusual if they studied all designs to incorporate there positive elements into their own carrier.

I can't see the video. I'd like to see how they goofed up the cat launch drill.

STOBAR and CATOBAR..jeeze. I don't like these terms. As kwaigonegin can tell you no one within the USN uses these terms. So I won't.

Let big daddy clue you in. Workin' on the flight deck is no joke. you'd better have your head on a swivel. If you are near the cats during launches you'd better stay clear of that cat shuttle. & cat unless you are working near it. That cat shuttle can knock you down and that cat track is greasy. And if you are doing anything stupid anywhere on the roof you'll be visiting the Air Boss.

Action on the waist cats aboard IKE

mr.bean said:

What if they were daring and went with the British approach with 2 islands. That would throw us all off! The new British carrier is around the same size as CV-17. It would not be unusual if they studied all designs to incorporate there positive elements into their own carrier.

Click to expand...

Yes that would certainly throw everyone off! But in reality I seriously doubt it. PLAN's ultimate goal is full length deck carriers! Their requirements are very very different than RN. 001A will still be based on Liaoning and then potentially they go big after that. If not 002 certainly by 003 it will most likely be.

To invest all that time and resources to make a potentially one off new class of dual island carriers like the QE class doesn't make much sense when they want full size CV or even CVN in the forseeable future.

A better argument would be will they go all out and do nuclear propulsion or stick to the 'safer' conventional power when it's time to build the full deck?

My personal opinion is conventional since they are more conservative. An educated guess would be Nimitz size but conventionally powered. After that, the next class will likely be CVN likely modeled after the Ford but that's 25 yrs or more from now before we have a couple of active CVNs. Liaoning would likely be decomm by then as well.

By that time around 2040-2050, PLAN will likely achieve parity with USPACFLT if not surpassed in terms of organic air power and power projection.

Most projections have came to relatively similar conclusions from places like USNI, the pentagon, USN, csis, brookings etc.

bd popeye said:

I can't see the video. I'd like to see how they goofed up the cat launch drill.

STOBAR and CATOBAR..jeeze. I don't like these terms. As kwaigonegin can tell you no one within the USN uses these terms. So I won't.

Let big daddy clue you in. Workin' on the flight deck is no joke. you'd better have your head on a swivel. If you are near the cats during launches you'd better stay clear of that cat shuttle. & cat unless you are working near it. That cat shuttle can knock you down and that cat track is greasy. And if you are doing anything stupid anywhere on the roof you'll be visiting the Air Boss.

Action on the waist cats aboard IKE

Click to expand...

In my navy we just call em carriers. But for brevity sake I refer to CATOBAR as full deck or full length. You are however right. The term catobar and STOBAR etc were probably coined by pencil pushers and analysts.

the key difference in operation between American super Carriers, The French Carriers and the Russian Kuznetsov class ( on which Liaoning is based.) and Modified Kiev class and Vikrant class is the means of building momentum. The catapult system launches a aircraft by augmenting its thrust to gain lift. Where the Russian system works in a manor more akin to drag racing. where the Aircraft is moved up and then locked in place by Hydraulic chocks.
The Jet builds up to Military thrust and then the "shooter" Drops the Chocks letting the jet loose like releasing the handbrake on a car after building up the RPM's of a car. The Engines Built up thrust is then released and the jet rolls up the ramp to gain extra lift.

kwaigonegin said:

In my navy we just call em carriers. But for brevity sake I refer to CATOBAR as full deck or full length. You are however right. The term catobar and STOBAR etc were probably coined by pencil pushers and analysts.

Click to expand...

If your world is USN centric then the differentiation is irrelevant because all the carriers come with CAT. However outside of the USN, the distinction is useful in any conversation because there is a clear divide between the two. As for the PLAN which is the nature of this thread, we expect the migration to CAT will eventually happen but until then a lot of the conversation will revolve around this.

Jeff Head said:

Well, integrated electric propulsion (IEP) would be very significant...but I do not see them doing that with this vessel. They have not done it before for any naval vessel, and this would be (IMHO) too big a step for their first vessel.

I was thinking more of going from the steam turbine & boilers they currently have on the Liaoning, to either large, modern gas turbines, or perhaps a CODAD arrangement...or possibly some hybrid like a large CODELAG hybrid system.

Click to expand...

It has hitherto not been the Chinese style to take significant technical risks with major defense projects. There are already all sorts of risk involved in building the country's first carrier as is. This risk with being the first try is magnified by the fact that the Kuznetsov design, which form China's main detailed reference, is itself basically Soviet Union's own first try, which is in turn based on approximately zero years of Soviet Union's own carrier operating experience. So I doubt the Chinese navy would be interested in taking on any additional risk they didn't have to.

Jeff Head said:

Well, integrated electric propulsion (IEP) would be very significant...but I do not see them doing that with this vessel. They have not done it before for any naval vessel, and this would be (IMHO) too big a step for their first vessel.

I was thinking more of going from the steam turbine & boilers they currently have on the Liaoning, to either large, modern gas turbines, or perhaps a CODAD arrangement...or possibly some hybrid like a large CODELAG hybrid system.

Click to expand...

No IEP with 001A, I'm very certain, but I think it could be possible for 002.

What experience does Chinese ship building industry have with large capacity IEP?

Britain risked it because Royce Rolls had substantial experience builting 20-30MW IEPs for cruise ships. Outside cruise ships large capacity IEP is rare in merchant ships. Also reliability of large capacity IEP on cruise ships have not been good. What is worse is when multi-shaft IEP malfunctions, there is much higher chance of total propulsion failure than with multi-shaft conventional diesel or gas turbine propulsion, where failure is usually limited to one shaft.