PLAN Carrier Construction

latenlazy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Some systems can be developed while the hull is being completed, while others cannot. The ones that cannot include propulsion system, since the hull is actually constructed around the completed propulsion system. As you kind of need IEP for EMAL, you can't go with the latter without the former.

Anyway, to follow up on my previous post, here is how I think Chinese carriers will relate to one another.

Liaoning and China's first domestic carrier
The similarities would be the hull, internal arrangement, method of take-off, power source[SUP]1[/SUP] and propulsion system[SUP]2[/SUP]. The differences would be minor modifications of deck, hangar and island.

China's first and second domestic carriers
The similarities would be in method of take-off, power source and propulsion system. The differences would be in deck, hull, internal arrangement, and island.

China's second and third domestic carriers
The similarities would be in deck, hull, internal arrangement and island. The differences would be take-off method and propulsion system[SUP]3[/SUP]. Power source could be different but remain conventional, such as replacement of boilers with diesel and gas-turbine engines.

China's third and forth domestic carriers
Everything could be the same. Alternately, we may see change in power source with the addition of nuclear reactors.


So, in such way, major developments can be shared by at least two carriers to cut down costs. At the same time, every domestic carrier can be significantly different to the previous unit.

1. Boilers.
2. Steamturbines mechanically linked to propellers.
3. Integrated electric propulsion.

Engineer said:

Some systems can be developed while the hull is being completed, while others cannot. The ones that cannot include propulsion system, since the hull is actually constructed around the completed propulsion system. As you kind of need IEP for EMAL, you can't go with the latter without the former.

Anyway, to follow up on my previous post, here is how I think Chinese carriers will relate to one another.

Liaoning and China's first domestic carrier
The similarities would be the hull, internal arrangement, method of take-off, power source[SUP]1[/SUP] and propulsion system[SUP]2[/SUP]. The differences would be minor modifications of deck, hangar and island.

China's first and second domestic carriers
The similarities would be in method of take-off, power source and propulsion system. The differences would be in deck, hull, internal arrangement, and island.

China's second and third domestic carriers
The similarities would be in deck, hull, internal arrangement and island. The differences would be take-off method and propulsion system[SUP]3[/SUP]. Power source could be different but remain conventional, such as replacement of boilers with diesel and gas-turbine engines.

China's third and forth domestic carriers
Everything could be the same. Alternately, we may see change in power source with the addition of nuclear reactors.
[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

Well, we shall have to see.

I agree with a lot of your progression...except for one point.

The original article stated that two new carriers would be built together. That the Liaoning and these two would be for each of the fleets (3 altogether), and that these two would be STOBAR, with Ski-jumps like the Liaoning.

I therefore believe both of these two will be very similar. They will want all three fleets to be trained and supplied (logistics) in the same fashion. I believe both will be the same basic hull shape as the Liaoning, the same propulsion with improvements if possible, the same types of sensors with improvements if possible, a smaller island, a more efficient deck layout and spotting with more tie downs, a larger hanger, etc. If possible (not highly likely) they will include provisions for a catapult at the waist position.

After those two, I believe the next two will proceed as you have indicated with new propulsion, CATOBAR, etc.

Anyhow, there is no doubt we are going to get a lot of food for thought and discussion over the next few years while these are building.

That's okay, as logistic wouldn't be a big issue. It is possible to have different hulls but use the same sensor and weapon systems. As long as the displacement on both hulls is similar, the propulsion system can also be nearly identical. This has been reflected in my progression, specifically under "China's first and second domestic carriers" heading.

The logic behind my progression is as follow. It takes a lot of resources to design, build and maintain carriers. The needs for China to catch up to the US and having a finite budget means it isn't feasible for China to build two identical carriers.

Wow! You guys have certainly given us a lot to think about.

Seems to me that if 2 indigenous Chinese carriers are being constructed, they will definitely be based on CV-16.

Improvements to the hull, island, internal arrangements and layout are almost a given, as well as the optimization of the propulsion system.

They will definitely operate various forms of the J-15 as their primary aircraft.

I can't help think that rationally, the PLAN would have experiment with catapults in order to improve their capabilities.

Therefore I feel provisions for a catapult (until a satisfactory catapult system is developed) will be made not just a the waist but also for the bow launch areas.

Just my 2 cents.

duskylim said:

Therefore I feel provisions for a catapult (until a satisfactory catapult system is developed) will be made not just a the waist but also for the bow launch areas.

Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

That's why I think the ramp will be a fitting similar to those on the HMS Hermes, and not a natural part of the structural sheer of the hull.

Jeff Head said:

Translation? Or any indication of what that link is about?

This is the picture I finally got to come up for me:

​

So I suppose it is talking about the fabricated section we saw a while back that looked like a part of the new carrier.

Click to expand...

This is just a scaled mock up done by the shipyard to show that they are capable of building it. Period.

I'm just thinking out loud here and hope for some input from the seniors here, don't shoot me down too hard .

Still assuming that China is building two carrriers, I've been wondering why wouldn't they go for a CATOBAR?

Popeye for example, already pointed out the advantages of having 3x STOBAR carriers, because of training, logistics and efficiency. However, given the impression that China wants to operate CATOBARS, you'll need to make the leap and go CATOBAR one day. If they build two extra STOBARs they'll invest a lot of time and money in building and working with STOBARs and gather knowledge that can't be entirely transferred to CATOBAR carriers. Although an advantage of this approach would be that they can gather as much "general" carrier knowledge as possible and make a smaller leap to CATOBAR. The Chinese would then go a similar route of what happened with the Midway class. The Midway class started as a WOII type of carrier and got catapults and an angled deck later and served almost 60 years.

This led me to this conclusion: I think by going STOBAR first, the PLAN found a balance of learning to operate a carrier with less risk and "wait" until the time is there to go CATOBAR with minimum cost: you can learn to operate a carrier and still have a somewhat "cheap" option of going CATOBAR without building new carriers. This would however only be true for the new-built carriers if they design the ship in such a way that the ski-jump can be removed. The PLAN would then save money by not keeping STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers in co-existence and their respectively trained crews for longer then necessary to make the transition. Aircraft carriers can serve a long time and it would be a waste of capital to retire them in order to go to CATOBAR.

Maybe Popeye or other experienced members can highlight how the transition to CATOBAR on the Midway class went for the USN?

Scyth said:

I'm just thinking out loud here and hope for some input from the seniors here, don't shoot me down too hard .

Still assuming that China is building two carrriers, I've been wondering why wouldn't they go for a CATOBAR?

Popeye for example, already pointed out the advantages of having 3x STOBAR carriers, because of training, logistics and efficiency. However, given the impression that China wants to operate CATOBARS, you'll need to make the leap and go CATOBAR one day. If they build two extra STOBARs they'll invest a lot of time and money in building and working with STOBARs and gather knowledge that can't be entirely transferred to CATOBAR carriers. Although an advantage of this approach would be that they can gather as much "general" carrier knowledge as possible and make a smaller leap to CATOBAR. The Chinese would then go a similar route of what happened with the Midway class. The Midway class started as a WOII type of carrier and got catapults and an angled deck later and served almost 60 years.

This led me to this conclusion: I think by going STOBAR first, the PLAN found a balance of learning to operate a carrier with less risk and "wait" until the time is there to go CATOBAR with minimum cost: you can learn to operate a carrier and still have a somewhat "cheap" option of going CATOBAR without building new carriers. This would however only be true for the new-built carriers if they design the ship in such a way that the ski-jump can be removed. The PLAN would then save money by not keeping STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers in co-existence and their respectively trained crews for longer then necessary to make the transition. Aircraft carriers can serve a long time and it would be a waste of capital to retire them in order to go to CATOBAR.

Maybe Popeye or other experienced members can highlight how the transition to CATOBAR on the Midway class went for the USN?

Click to expand...

I think the Chinese will go for 3 STOBAR carriers first, and when J-15 reaches end of its service life, convert at least 2 of them to CATOBAR.

Scyth said:

The Midway class started as a WOII type of carrier and got catapults and an angled deck later and served almost 60 years.

Click to expand...

No, as I will explain later, the Midway was launched with catapults, as were all the Essex carriers that preceded them in World War II.

Scyth said:

I think by going STOBAR first, the PLAN found a balance of learning to operate a carrier with less risk and "wait" until the time is there to go CATOBAR with minimum cost: you can learn to operate a carrier and still have a somewhat "cheap" option of going CATOBAR without building new carriers.

Click to expand...

Well, I am not sure "cheap," is the word I would use. If the Chinese build in the capability to add a catapult at the waist, then they will go through most of the costs during construction...but thpose costs would still be a part of adding the cat. I think they may well do this for both of the new carriers and then add that cat at a later date. Will they also add a provision for two cats off the bow, and make the Ski-jump a removable structural option? I am not so sure about that, it is possible for sure, but we will just have to wait and see. That would be an expensive "option," as well.

The Liaoning would be a much more complicated and costly refit and change, since it was never designed at all for the capability.

I personally expect the next two Chinese carriers will look very similar to the Liaoning and be ski-jump STOBAR carriers. They may have an option for adding a waist cat later. I think it less likely, but also possible that they would have the option of removing the ski-jump entirely at a later date. We will just have to see. But I feel very strongly that these fitrst two will be improved Liaoning caarriers, built indegenously by the Chinese and including other improvements (deck arragements, tie downs, ilsand size smaller, hanger size bigger, etc., etc.) and will start life, and spend most of their life in a STOBAR configuration.

I believe after that, the PLAN will start building CATOBAR carriers. Probably in the late 2020s. Two of those will proably be built to begin with and that will establish their indegenous CATOBAR design. The third one of those would be the replacement for the Liaoning and allow them to maintain a force of five carriers.

Scyth said:

Maybe Popeye or other experienced members can highlight how the transition to CATOBAR on the Midway class went for the USN?

Click to expand...

The Essex and Midway classes had catapults when they were built and launched during World War II. The Midway class, and several Essex class carrier went through very major overhauls and refits in the 1950s and 1960s where angled decks, deck side elevators, and steam catapults were added. But this was a change in training on a new system, not a transition to a completely new capability that they did not have before, like what a STOBAR carrier would have to goes through to get cats.

Jeff Head said:

I personally expect the next two Chinese carriers will look very similar to the Liaoning and be ski-jump STOBAR carriers. They may have an option for adding a waist cat later. I think it less likely, but also possible that they would have the option of removing the ski-jump entirely at a later date. We will just have to see. But I feel very strongly that these fitrst two will be improved Liaoning caarriers, built indegenously by the Chinese and including other improvements (deck arragements, tie downs, ilsand size smaller, hanger size bigger, etc., etc.) and will start life, and spend most of their life in a STOBAR configuration.

I believe after that, the PLAN will start building CATOBAR carriers. Probably in the late 2020s. Two of those will proably be built to begin with and that will establish their indegenous CATOBAR design. The third one of those would be the replacement for the Liaoning and allow them to maintain a force of five carriers.

.

Click to expand...

I believe this to be the case as well.