PLAN Carrier Construction

Thanks for your post Jeff. I lerned something new again

What I expect is that having 5 carriers with 2~3 STOBAR or CATOBAR would mean that you'd have a carrier force that's different to others which would lead to less operational efficiency. You'd have a crew that's geard for STOBARs, another for CATOBARs, but will they easily/ safely work across platforms? For example, a CATOBAR deckcrew would need to work with catapults, where a STOBAR crew would not. I expect the checks that these crews need to perform before flight are therefore somewhat different. Pilots on the other hand need to be trained to operate from both CATOBARs and STOBARs. They'll need to understand what loads are possibe under what weather conditions on which type of carrier. Wouldn't this increase logistical and operational challenges?

I currently do expect the PLAN to build STOBARs as they have invested a lot on simulators on land and mock-ups representing STOBARs. However, aircraft carriers are expensive ships and constantly upgrading them would be less costly and less time consuming than when you build them from scratch (I understand, it's not a Walmart bargain). Therefore, I suggested the route like with the Midway class, which by adding an angled flight deck also received a major structural change.

Scyth said:

Thanks for your post Jeff. I lerned something new again

What I expect is that having 5 carriers with 2~3 STOBAR or CATOBAR would mean that you'd have a carrier force that's different to others which would lead to less operational efficiency. You'd have a crew that's geard for STOBARs, another for CATOBARs, but will they easily/ safely work across platforms? For example, a CATOBAR deckcrew would need to work with catapults, where a STOBAR crew would not. I expect the checks that these crews need to perform before flight are therefore somewhat different. Pilots on the other hand need to be trained to operate from both CATOBARs and STOBARs. They'll need to understand what loads are possibe under what weather conditions on which type of carrier. Wouldn't this increase logistical and operational challenges?

I currently do expect the PLAN to build STOBARs as they have invested a lot on simulators on land and mock-ups representing STOBARs. However, aircraft carriers are expensive ships and constantly upgrading them would be less costly and less time consuming than when you build them from scratch (I understand, it's not a Walmart bargain). Therefore, I suggested the route like with the Midway class, which by adding an angled flight deck also received a major structural change.

Click to expand...

True however you have to look at it holistically and historically how things came about. China didn't have the option of purchasing a CATOBAR and purchasing the Varyag was the next best thing. They are very very new to carrier operations and since their first one is a STOBAR they will build up from that.

I'm sure if PLAN had the option to purchase a straight out CATOBAR cheaply from USN and had all the training, SOP etc that comes with it they would've gone down that road... instead of settling for the STOBAR, we'll now be discuassing PLAN's building of another CATOBAR however it is what it is and they got a STOBAR, got it up to speed and is now making her to be even better than what the Russians intended her to be when they built her.

As meticulous as PLAN is I don't think it will be a giant leap in terms of learning curve from operating STOBAR to CATOBAR.
Are there differences?
Of course there are.. however I'm not going to pretend that it's going to be anywhere close to going from NOTHING to operating a 65K STOBAR with new built modified flankers which is basically what PLAN has achieved in the last couple years.

I'll soon, when I have the time, open a thread on these matters. The advantages and disadvantages of changing &c.

Ok.. Midway & Essex classes did start off with catapults..hydraulic catapults. Of course they ships were converted in the 50's during major re-fits.

One of the reasons the USN did away with hydraulic cats was a major explosion fire catapult aboard

Originally Posted by Scyth

Thanks for your post Jeff. I lerned something new again

What I expect is that having 5 carriers with 2~3 STOBAR or CATOBAR would mean that you'd have a carrier force that's different to others which would lead to less operational efficiency. You'd have a crew that's geard for STOBARs, another for CATOBARs, but will they easily/ safely work across platforms? For example, a CATOBAR deckcrew would need to work with catapults, where a STOBAR crew would not. I expect the checks that these crews need to perform before flight are therefore somewhat different. Pilots on the other hand need to be trained to operate from both CATOBARs and STOBARs. They'll need to understand what loads are possibe under what weather conditions on which type of carrier. Wouldn't this increase logistical and operational challenges?

Click to expand...

The PLAN is following the USN model for flight deck operations. So they should have no trouble with the training involved for both CATOBAR and STOBAR. The training is very similar. The basic flight deck procedure's are similar for both types of ships. Many of the senior personal working the flight deck on LHD/LHAs have served aboard CVN. As long as the personnel are trained properly it should be no problem once the PLAN CV force comes to full strength in the years to come.

Honestly, I feel The PLAN is going about their CV training at a snails pace. So slow in fact I have to wonder will they within 5 years get a CV up and fully operational? As Jeff has stated many times only time will tell.

Three CVs will serve the PLAN well. Two should always be deployable. But as slow as the PLAN is going about this it will be years before we see a CV force with three ships.

Honestly, I feel The PLAN is going about their CV training at a snails pace. So slow in fact I have to wonder will they within 5 years get a CV up and fully operational? As Jeff has stated many times only time will tell.

Click to expand...

Yes it is curious isn't it.
Certainly if you are looking at it in terms of a ships company and its airwing, it does seem excruciatingly slow. They seem to be repeating many of the same type of basic exercise, time and time again, which is surprising.
That of course does assume a single crew and airwing etc. If however we are looking at multiple crew and airwing, then it takes a different perspective and I start to lean towards this view as it actually makes more sense of the facts than does the other.

So rather than a very slow induction/training programme to have a fully operational Carrier Group, we have a crash course for multiple crews, which no doubt supports the notion of building multiple Carriers simultaneously and planning to have them become fully operational, from pretty much the moment they first hit the water.

bd popeye said:

One of the reasons the USN did away with hydraulic cats was a major explosion fire catapult aboard

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

An other reason was performance. The H-8 (hydraulic) of the modernized Essex-Class carriers could accelerat 15000 pounds at 120 mph or 62500 pounds at 70 mph. The C-7 (steam) of the same time could accelerate 40000 pounds at 171 mph or 70000 pounds at 133 mph.

SampanViking said:

Yes it is curious isn't it.

Certainly if you are looking at it in terms of a ships company and its airwing, it does seem excruciatingly slow. They seem to be repeating many of the same type of basic exercise, time and time again, which is surprising.
That of course does assume a single crew and airwing etc. If however we are looking at multiple crew and airwing, then it takes a different perspective and I start to lean towards this view as it actually makes more sense of the facts than does the other.

Click to expand...

An interesting view...but they would have to rotate those crews (three of them) constantly through the Liaoning for the next 4-5 years while those carriers are building and outfitting in order to keep the crews well trained.

Such a training and rotation, IMHO, would possibly start a couple of years before the carriers are launched...but not five or more before.

SampanViking said:

So rather than a very slow induction/training programme to have a fully operational Carrier Group, we have a crash course for multiple crews, which no doubt supports the notion of building multiple Carriers simultaneously and planning to have them become fully operational, from pretty much the moment they first hit the water.

Click to expand...

Well, not exaclty.

That would mean that the crews are perhaps ready to hit the ground running. But the vessels themselves will still have to go through all of their paces. Every system will have to be checked. Every problem will have to be addressed.

Having a well trained and prepared crew is a great advantage...but no matter how you dice it, once the vessel hits the water it is going to go through all of the following:

Day 1, Hit the water

- Launch the Vessel
- Outfitting the vessel with Weapons, Sensors, and equipment - Probably close to a year of this.
- Builder's Trials - The Builder testing and working on the vessel, addressing issues they discover - Another 3-6 months

Launch + 12-18 Monnths

- Handover ceremony
- Naval Acceptance Trials - The PLAN crew trialing and addressing issues. Another 6 months.
- Commissioning of the Vessel
- Workup Period - Training to a high degress of profiecieny, exercises, live fire - Another 6-12 months

Launch + 24-36 Monnths

Full Operational Capability

With a well trained crew, you probably will hit the lower end of that time frame...but it will take that much time to ensure the vessel is fit, that all the logisitics are in place and working, that a full airwing is worked up, etc.

bd popeye said:

Honestly, I feel The PLAN is going about their CV training at a snails pace. So slow in fact I have to wonder will they within 5 years get a CV up and fully operational? As Jeff has stated many times only time will tell.

Click to expand...

To be fair we should keep in mind that the pictures and the videos we get of the training they do are naturally only a very small fraction, and I'd hesitate to say whether their training pace really is that slow simply because we don't know what they are doing out there.

Bltizo said:

To be fair we should keep in mind that the pictures and the videos we get of the training they do are naturally only a very small fraction, and I'd hesitate to say whether their training pace really is that slow simply because we don't know what they are doing out there.

Click to expand...

I think once PLAN really get their sealegs together for carrier operations, the pace will increase dramatically. I think we're just impatient seeing the same old 2 or 3 yellow primer birds on her deck.
Maybe they can shock us by releasing pictures of a full squadron or two of J-15s on her next time. One can only hope LOL

I wonder how many of the officers and crew of the other ships intended for possible use with the carrier will be shown the working of Liaoning at this stage.
Might several crews for a given task be trained for different methods to execute that task to compare these methods?
Can we estimate the building time of the new carriers. We assume four years, but perhaps it is only three. I expect assembling an engine room for a steam plant to cost more time than one for diesel and that to take more time than one for gas turbines. The infrastructure for building aircraft carriers is the newest in the world so they might expect to be faster than we think. Of course there is here too the learning curve ....