I think they simply mixed / changed J-31 and J-15 !
PLAN Carrier Construction
- Thread starter escobar
- Start date
I think they simply mixed / changed J-31 and J-15 !
If it was only Want China times claiming the construction of 2 carriers then i would have ignored this completely, but now with more trustworthy backing, I'm not so sure. 2 Carriers at the same time seems to be a bit optimistic given this is China's first experience fabricating a vessel of this scale and complexity. Well time will tell.
I'm still not sure whether this report of building 2 (!) STOBAR carriers at the same time is accurate. There have been so many rumours that I won't get my popcorn ready unless I see some steel cut, or because we're talking about PLAN, a more vague, but more reliable statement.
In the article of WantChinaTimes there were some errors with regards to the J-15 and J-31 introduction date. One way or another, if you can't get these basic facts straight, you'll lose my sense of credibility really fast.
Awaiting further confirmation I'd like to ask: if true, why STOBAR carriers?
STOBAR
Assuming that previous calculations were right and that J-15s can take off from STOBAR with decent AtG loads, I can see that China opts for a relatively low risk option for having a carrier capable of conducting ground attacks. If the catapult technology turns out to be unreliable, you are just as or even more restricted compared to a STOBAR carrier because you don't have the ski-jump to help you (unless you design the bow long enough). Furthermore, the crew(s) is/ are already training with a STOBAR carrier so you could introduce those carriers to your fleets pretty fast.
With these carriers, you'd only sacrifice the capability of operating a E2 type of AEW aircraft (and C2 Greyhound type of aircraft), but given the lack of consistent proof that these aircrafts are under development then this wouldn't influence the decision very much
Also, it is likely that STOBAR carriers are relatively more susceptible to environmental conditions like windspeeds and ship movement so this may influence the take off restrictions of the J-15.
CATOBAR
Assuming that calculations are wrong, or restricted to certain conditions (if I remember correctly, Harriers didn't take off from the Invincible class if the movement of the ship was more than x degrees. I saw that on a documentary on Discovery channel (?), but couldn't find the episode anymore. If anyone know more about this, please post), why doesn't China go for CATOBAR? With catapults, you can launch heavier (loaded) aircraft and/ or depend less on environmental conditions. It's probably a little bit riskier as you need to also develop the knowledge of designing, working with and maintaining of such a catapult and so far there's no evidence that China is doing so (?)
A downside of CATOBAR would be that you'll need to train your crew to work with catapults. This would also mean that it has a negative impact on planning etc. as you can't cross-operate crews and carriers as efficiently. However, if China wants to go to CATOBAR one day, it'll need to incur this "cost" of inefficient planning sooner or later so why not now?
In the article of WantChinaTimes there were some errors with regards to the J-15 and J-31 introduction date. One way or another, if you can't get these basic facts straight, you'll lose my sense of credibility really fast.
Awaiting further confirmation I'd like to ask: if true, why STOBAR carriers?
STOBAR
Assuming that previous calculations were right and that J-15s can take off from STOBAR with decent AtG loads, I can see that China opts for a relatively low risk option for having a carrier capable of conducting ground attacks. If the catapult technology turns out to be unreliable, you are just as or even more restricted compared to a STOBAR carrier because you don't have the ski-jump to help you (unless you design the bow long enough). Furthermore, the crew(s) is/ are already training with a STOBAR carrier so you could introduce those carriers to your fleets pretty fast.
With these carriers, you'd only sacrifice the capability of operating a E2 type of AEW aircraft (and C2 Greyhound type of aircraft), but given the lack of consistent proof that these aircrafts are under development then this wouldn't influence the decision very much
Also, it is likely that STOBAR carriers are relatively more susceptible to environmental conditions like windspeeds and ship movement so this may influence the take off restrictions of the J-15.
CATOBAR
Assuming that calculations are wrong, or restricted to certain conditions (if I remember correctly, Harriers didn't take off from the Invincible class if the movement of the ship was more than x degrees. I saw that on a documentary on Discovery channel (?), but couldn't find the episode anymore. If anyone know more about this, please post), why doesn't China go for CATOBAR? With catapults, you can launch heavier (loaded) aircraft and/ or depend less on environmental conditions. It's probably a little bit riskier as you need to also develop the knowledge of designing, working with and maintaining of such a catapult and so far there's no evidence that China is doing so (?)
A downside of CATOBAR would be that you'll need to train your crew to work with catapults. This would also mean that it has a negative impact on planning etc. as you can't cross-operate crews and carriers as efficiently. However, if China wants to go to CATOBAR one day, it'll need to incur this "cost" of inefficient planning sooner or later so why not now?
kwaigonegin
Colonel
very aggressive! Assuming they start building 2 carrier in 2014 I imagine they may start another two (CATOBARs maybe 2016-2018 for commisioning in 2025 etc so by 2025 PLAN will have 5 carriers! Question is can the shipyards built 4 carriers concurrently? or will they wait till the 2 'improve' Liaoning are completely done before starting with the CATOBARs?
Assuming that China is testing catapults on land, I'm predicting that one of the two carriers will be equipped with a catapult. If they're building two at the same time, knowing that they intend to make a technological leap, it would make sense that one would be a safety while the other would take greater risks. Furthermore, by the time these carriers are completed they should be ready to test catapults at sea. This type of tick tock development model would make sense if the PLAN is trying to speed things up like it looks to be with this news.
I think they will wait until after the first two are launched, and probably in service before taking the next step myself.
I look to the second pair of CATOBAR carriers being more of a 2030-2031 in service time frame.
I personally do not think either one will have a cat when launched. Both will be an improved Liaoning design, but I believe both will be the same.Latenlazy said:
At the best, I see them building the capability to later upgrade to cats, but launching them with a very similar operational routine as the Liaoning...with the types of improvements mentioned earlier.
Trying to do a STOBAR and a CATOBAR at once will enter risk into the equation that they do not have to take, and I think at this stage are unwilling to take.
2030 would make her service life with the PLAN only 18 years...and I just do not see that happening.chuck731 said:
The life of the Varyag and its . She was under construction in 1991 when the USSR fell, and was over 70% complete in total, almost 100% structurally complete. In 1992 the PRC looked at buying her but could not arrive at a price with the Ukraine. After the PRC showed continuing interest, the Ukraine spent some effort doing two things. 1) Removing all of the critical systems and propulsion, and 2) Keeping her hull in reasonable shape for sale.
In 1998 she was purchased. In 2001 they got permission to get her out of the Black Sea through the Istanbul Straits. In 2002 she arrived in China, and in early 2003 the refit started in Dalian.
The Chinese shipyard spent a lot of time removing any and all surface level rust that had built up and went through her with a fine tooth comb.
As it is, I will predict right now, that after the refit and refurbishment the Chinese did over the several years that we watched it here on SD, that the Liaoning (short of any major intervening damage or problems not related to her refit and launch) is going to have a 30+ year service life with the PLAN. I expect to see her replacement building in the 2040 time frame.
The indigenous pair of STOBAR Carriers we have been talking about will apparently be built between 2014 and 2018 and put in service in 2020-2021. They will serve probably 35-40 years. Meaning they will be replaced in the 2055-2060 time frame.
I expect the PLAN will build two more conventional carriers that are purpose built CATOBAR starting in 2024-2025 to put in service in the 2030-2031 time frame. That will leave them with the five I think they will want. When those two are in service, soon thereafter we will see the Liaoning replacement be designed and built (perhaps nuclear...who knows?) to come into service in the early 2040s.
But all of that is way out on the event horizon, and we shall all just have to wait and see how it actually turns out. I feel pretty confident at this point about the Liaoning and the two improved Liaoning...after that, it's all really conjecture and the confidence level steadily drops off with the years.
Last edited:
Jovian
Junior Member
If your prediction proves correct, and the Liaoning (might be) retired after then or before then ... I'll be an old man by then
(I mean really old kind of old, old man!); that is of cause taking a fairly optimistic view that I am still alive by then. Either way, if we are still around, perhaps we'll be discussing about her (the Liaoning's) career up to that point, and looking for photos of the new nuclear powered flattop. Some of us might even see/participate in discussions on subjects such...... "I bet they don't even have a working nuclear reactor to fit in her. I am betting they have build a nuclear powered carrier without a reactor!"
... "What drones are they going to fly off her deck? The PLAN doesn't even have a carrier capable drone!"
... "The new carrier is rumor to have been named S*i L**g (name censored to protect identity). I believe that rumor is true and makes sense since this name will tell the world that the PLAN is deciding to .... ya-da, ya-da, ya-da"
Okay, jokes over: just to start off the fast approaching silly season
Jovian
shen
Senior Member
If there are really two CVs under construction in China now. The model they will follow is likely the 051C and 052C model. One low risk ship (051C) under construction in DL and one higher risk ship (052C) under construction in JN.
In this case, the low risk ship is a Liaoning+ type with more rational internal layout, bigger hangar and smaller bridge. The higher risk ship will also have more efficient propulsion (probably combined gas turbine and diesel with integrated electric propulsion), and at least waist catapult.
In this case, the low risk ship is a Liaoning+ type with more rational internal layout, bigger hangar and smaller bridge. The higher risk ship will also have more efficient propulsion (probably combined gas turbine and diesel with integrated electric propulsion), and at least waist catapult.
Engineer
Major
Here is my outlook.
Catapults
Between steam or electric, PLAN can only choose one type of catapult for all its carriers. The reason is that it takes a lot of resources to develop and maintain such system. It is not feasible use one type then switch to another after one or two units. Keeping this in mind and looking toward the future, it is my belief that PLAN wants EMAL on its first CATAOBAR carrier. However, this would probably mean half a decade of development if not more before any production EMAL system is ready.
Propulsion
If my above belief is correct, PLAN should also want Integrated Electric Propulsion for its first CATOBAR carrier. Otherwise, it would required a large and dedicated electric generation plant on board the ship to service the EMALs, which takes away valuable space. The issue here is that PLAN still has not tested Integrated Electric Propulsion on any of the navy's major combatants. On top of this, it will also take time to develop a system large enough to power an aircraft carrier. The time required would probably be a decade of development at least.
Neither technology here would be readied soon enough for a carrier which China has started construction on. So, I don't believe we will see catapult or new propulsion system on one of the two carriers that China is building. At the same time, there needs to be significant difference between these two carriers to justify their construction and subsequent maintenance. I believe such difference will be something more fundamental, and less risky, which brings us to:
Hull
I believe this will be the difference between China's first and second domestic carriers. In fact, a carrier with such hull will truly be China's first domestic carrier, with the exterior and internal arrangement 100% designed in China as well as 100% suiting China's needs. This hull should have a STOBAR arrangement, but with provisions for catapults built-in so that CATOBAR carriers can still use the same design. Also, while the early units of this hull will be conventionally powered, the internal arrangement should also allow nuclear reactors will be fitted without major redesign. For example, the spaces allocated for nuclear reactors can serve as weapon magazines on a conventionally powered carrier. This hull and the hull of all future carriers from China will look alike.
Catapults
Between steam or electric, PLAN can only choose one type of catapult for all its carriers. The reason is that it takes a lot of resources to develop and maintain such system. It is not feasible use one type then switch to another after one or two units. Keeping this in mind and looking toward the future, it is my belief that PLAN wants EMAL on its first CATAOBAR carrier. However, this would probably mean half a decade of development if not more before any production EMAL system is ready.
Propulsion
If my above belief is correct, PLAN should also want Integrated Electric Propulsion for its first CATOBAR carrier. Otherwise, it would required a large and dedicated electric generation plant on board the ship to service the EMALs, which takes away valuable space. The issue here is that PLAN still has not tested Integrated Electric Propulsion on any of the navy's major combatants. On top of this, it will also take time to develop a system large enough to power an aircraft carrier. The time required would probably be a decade of development at least.
Neither technology here would be readied soon enough for a carrier which China has started construction on. So, I don't believe we will see catapult or new propulsion system on one of the two carriers that China is building. At the same time, there needs to be significant difference between these two carriers to justify their construction and subsequent maintenance. I believe such difference will be something more fundamental, and less risky, which brings us to:
Hull
I believe this will be the difference between China's first and second domestic carriers. In fact, a carrier with such hull will truly be China's first domestic carrier, with the exterior and internal arrangement 100% designed in China as well as 100% suiting China's needs. This hull should have a STOBAR arrangement, but with provisions for catapults built-in so that CATOBAR carriers can still use the same design. Also, while the early units of this hull will be conventionally powered, the internal arrangement should also allow nuclear reactors will be fitted without major redesign. For example, the spaces allocated for nuclear reactors can serve as weapon magazines on a conventionally powered carrier. This hull and the hull of all future carriers from China will look alike.
Don't know that much about ship construction, but how long would it take for them finish the hull and begin fitting things into the ship? Whatever gets put into the ship could theoretically be still in development until the hull is completed, as opposed to now.