PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sorry Golly, but it's pretty clear that you're just hand-waving now.

The best you've been able to come up with is that aircraft carriers are "complicated". I'm sure they are, but obviously not so complicated that other countries weren't able to develop them decades ago.

Space travel is complicated too, but other countries figured it out. Same with microprocessors or nuclear reactors. Any large project, even a skyscraper, requires coordinating lots of people. Thousands of design drawings and wiring diagrams. Hundreds of engineers pouring over minute details. That just makes it a big project, not some kind of magical feat.

Actually you're being even sillier than I thought, since I thought you were concerned about the size of the ship. If that's not the case, then you must actually believe that the Nimitz is so much more complicated than the Varyag (which is the actual starting point) that the Chinese can't bridge that gap in 13 years, even with the aid of today's technology.

13 years is a pretty long time. The first nuclear sub was launched only 10 years after the end of WWII. The Americans put a man on the moon only 12 years after the Soviets launched the first satellite. 13 years ago most people hadn't heard of the Internet. But you actually think that advancing from a 1985 Soviet carrier to a 1975 American carrier takes more than 13 years? Even if you're doing it using 2007 (actually 2007-2020) technology?

I have detailed model of USS Forrestral but thrust me, I haven't build even rowing boat yet

Click to expand...

Exactly. You look at it from the perspective of somebody who hasn't even built a rowboat, while these guys are looking at it from the perspective of having built other vessels - both military and civilian - and having poured over their own carrier designs for years.

I'm sorry that you don't see the connection between civilian and military industries, but I'm afraid that's a limitation of your own understanding about how industry works. Civilian and military designs have to follow the same laws of physics, involve the same project management skills, and use the same manufacturing technology. It's not a coincidence that industrial power goes hand-in-hand with military power.

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Sorry Golly, but it's pretty clear that you're just hand-waving now.

The best you've been able to come up with is that aircraft carriers are "complicated". I'm sure they are, but obviously not so complicated that other countries weren't able to develop them decades ago.

Space travel is complicated too, but other countries figured it out. Same with microprocessors or nuclear reactors. Any large project, even a skyscraper, requires coordinating lots of people. Thousands of design drawings and wiring diagrams. Hundreds of engineers pouring over minute details. That just makes it a big project, not some kind of magical feat.

Actually you're being even sillier than I thought, since I thought you were concerned about the size of the ship. If that's not the case, then you must actually believe that the Nimitz is so much more complicated than the Varyag (which is the actual starting point) that the Chinese can't bridge that gap in 13 years, even with the aid of today's technology.

13 years is a pretty long time. The first nuclear sub was launched only 10 years after the end of WWII. The Americans put a man on the moon only 12 years after the Soviets launched the first satellite. 13 years ago most people hadn't heard of the Internet. But you actually think that advancing from a 1985 Soviet carrier to a 1975 American carrier takes more than 13 years? Even if you're doing it using 2007 (actually 2007-2020) technology?

I have detailed model of USS Forrestral but thrust me, I haven't build even rowing boat yet

Click to expand...

Exactly. You look at it from the perspective of somebody who hasn't even built a rowboat, while these guys are looking at it from the perspective of having built other vessels - both military and civilian - and having poured over their own carrier designs for years.

I'm sorry that you don't see the connection between civilian and military industries, but I'm afraid that's a limitation of your own understanding about how industry works. Civilian and military designs have to follow the same laws of physics, involve the same project management skills, and use the same manufacturing technology. It's not a coincidence that industrial power goes hand-in-hand with military power.

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

They are complicated, And Im not shipbuilding engineer (did I ever claimed to be one?)

But as you brougth Moonlandings and space travel into focus, you can clearly recall how difficoult path that has been. Did Germans, who first fielded Ballistic rocket land on the moon? No. It all takes time to devolp and only taking that path will end up in succes.
Aircraft carrier building and devolping compines two difficoult engineering issue, to build airfield onboard a warship. By seperate they include lot of proplematics and possiple alterntativities, but compined you are at the starting point of one of the most difficoult aspect of warship desing.

How to build a hull that support ernoumous landing deck area atop huge empty space that cannot be intervered by typical support structure. All this demand triple the beam that you can have on the hull length that would still justify meaningfull size compared to the output that your engines can devolp....
And all this in military ship building standadrs...Not to need to refress you, but only 17 years ago Chinese warship builders build warship that engine department could be only reached from outside mainhull hatches?

If you would have studied the histories and aspects of carriers in general, you would find out that even changing simple elevator position can bring headacing strom to the engineers involved and how single one of so called "novel" vessels or first such vessels operated by any service has ever been succesfull....Nor has ever mented to be one.

Varyag and other Soviet project 1143 class ships can only give chinese a detailed view of how such ships are to be produced, but the orginal issue in this thread is that By looking them doesent bring China (nor does anything else) a capacity to build 93,000 tonner in 12 years. If you would have bothered to study carriers other than their political penis-extension purpose, you would know how poorly desinged oddieties they are compared to even small Unicorn class basic level jet carriers.

If you would even bother to take insigth look of any navy that has had domestic carrier program, you wouldnt wave your red flag and expect without any logic that all that chinese do has to be marvelous, defy all the laws of reason and succee in 110% precission.
Civil field and military field have their common aspects and devolpment in one field certainly helps the other...in longer term and in general level, but is foolish, stubid, childish and more importantly, cheast-beatingly nationalist wishfull thinking to see it overcoming the fact that each ship type requires individual planning as they poses individual proplems and aspects and carriers are almost the most sophisticated end of the ship building require sophistication that doesent come from store shelf but needs to be aquired by the hard way, by building those ships and China has not yet reached the capacity that it can begun to build its first attempt in the long path.

So before you choose to answer back, answer to this question first: If you think it is possible, why are chinese ship building still in the level, that it cannot produce even a proplem free destroyer class for mass production that would be essential to any navy that is going to commision 93,000 ton nuclear carrier only in 12 years???

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

They are complicated, And Im not shipbuilding engineer (did I ever claimed to be one?)

But as you brougth Moonlandings and space travel into focus, you can clearly recall how difficoult path that has been. Did Germans, who first fielded Ballistic rocket land on the moon? No. It all takes time to devolp and only taking that path will end up in succes.
Aircraft carrier building and devolping compines two difficoult engineering issue, to build airfield onboard a warship. By seperate they include lot of proplematics and possiple alterntativities, but compined you are at the starting point of one of the most difficoult aspect of warship desing.

How to build a hull that support ernoumous landing deck area atop huge empty space that cannot be intervered by typical support structure. All this demand triple the beam that you can have on the hull length that would still justify meaningfull size compared to the output that your engines can devolp....
And all this in military ship building standadrs...Not to need to refress you, but only 17 years ago Chinese warship builders build warship that engine department could be only reached from outside mainhull hatches?

If you would have studied the histories and aspects of carriers in general, you would find out that even changing simple elevator position can bring headacing strom to the engineers involved and how single one of so called "novel" vessels or first such vessels operated by any service has ever been succesfull....Nor has ever mented to be one.

Varyag and other Soviet project 1143 class ships can only give chinese a detailed view of how such ships are to be produced, but the orginal issue in this thread is that By looking them doesent bring China (nor does anything else) a capacity to build 93,000 tonner in 12 years. If you would have bothered to study carriers other than their political penis-extension purpose, you would know how poorly desinged oddieties they are compared to even small Unicorn class basic level jet carriers.

If you would even bother to take insigth look of any navy that has had domestic carrier program, you wouldnt wave your red flag and expect without any logic that all that chinese do has to be marvelous, defy all the laws of reason and succee in 110% precission.
Civil field and military field have their common aspects and devolpment in one field certainly helps the other...in longer term and in general level, but is foolish, stubid, childish and more importantly, cheast-beatingly nationalist wishfull thinking to see it overcoming the fact that each ship type requires individual planning as they poses individual proplems and aspects and carriers are almost the most sophisticated end of the ship building require sophistication that doesent come from store shelf but needs to be aquired by the hard way, by building those ships and China has not yet reached the capacity that it can begun to build its first attempt in the long path.

So before you choose to answer back, answer to this question first: If you think it is possible, why are chinese ship building still in the level, that it cannot produce even a proplem free destroyer class for mass production that would be essential to any navy that is going to commision 93,000 ton nuclear carrier only in 12 years???

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

They are complicated, And Im not shipbuilding engineer (did I ever claimed to be one?)

But as you brougth Moonlandings and space travel into focus, you can clearly recall how difficoult path that has been. Did Germans, who first fielded Ballistic rocket land on the moon? No. It all takes time to devolp and only taking that path will end up in succes.
Aircraft carrier building and devolping compines two difficoult engineering issue, to build airfield onboard a warship. By seperate they include lot of proplematics and possiple alterntativities, but compined you are at the starting point of one of the most difficoult aspect of warship desing.

How to build a hull that support ernoumous landing deck area atop huge empty space that cannot be intervered by typical support structure. All this demand triple the beam that you can have on the hull length that would still justify meaningfull size compared to the output that your engines can devolp....
And all this in military ship building standadrs...Not to need to refress you, but only 17 years ago Chinese warship builders build warship that engine department could be only reached from outside mainhull hatches?

If you would have studied the histories and aspects of carriers in general, you would find out that even changing simple elevator position can bring headacing strom to the engineers involved and how single one of so called "novel" vessels or first such vessels operated by any service has ever been succesfull....Nor has ever mented to be one.

Varyag and other Soviet project 1143 class ships can only give chinese a detailed view of how such ships are to be produced, but the orginal issue in this thread is that By looking them doesent bring China (nor does anything else) a capacity to build 93,000 tonner in 12 years. If you would have bothered to study carriers other than their political penis-extension purpose, you would know how poorly desinged oddieties they are compared to even small Unicorn class basic level jet carriers.

If you would even bother to take insigth look of any navy that has had domestic carrier program, you wouldnt wave your red flag and expect without any logic that all that chinese do has to be marvelous, defy all the laws of reason and succee in 110% precission.
Civil field and military field have their common aspects and devolpment in one field certainly helps the other...in longer term and in general level, but is foolish, stubid, childish and more importantly, cheast-beatingly nationalist wishfull thinking to see it overcoming the fact that each ship type requires individual planning as they poses individual proplems and aspects and carriers are almost the most sophisticated end of the ship building require sophistication that doesent come from store shelf but needs to be aquired by the hard way, by building those ships and China has not yet reached the capacity that it can begun to build its first attempt in the long path.

So before you choose to answer back, answer to this question first: If you think it is possible, why are chinese ship building still in the level, that it cannot produce even a proplem free destroyer class for mass production that would be essential to any navy that is going to commision 93,000 ton nuclear carrier only in 12 years???

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Ok, now you've at least said something concrete rather than just claiming it's too "complicated". Let's start from the challenge at the end of your post...

So before you choose to answer back, answer to this question first: If you think it is possible, why are chinese ship building still in the level, that it cannot produce even a proplem free destroyer class for mass production that would be essential to any navy that is going to commision 93,000 ton nuclear carrier only in 12 years???

Click to expand...

I actually think they've been doing really well with their new ships. The pattern of building a couple of ships, testing them, and then building a couple of more seems pretty sensible. If they're not mass-producing the 52x yet then maybe they want to take another iteration or two, but that's not an indication of failure. They're just working their way up the chain.

While they're working their way up the chain, they don't necessarily need to wait for one type to be "done" before moving on to the next. The 54A and 52C have had overlapping development.

Probably a cruiser will be coming in the next little while.

The 071 also fits in to the "moving up the ladder" pattern.

With the carrier they're naturally being cautious. First, it's not that useful without its fleet, second, it's much more expensive. So they'll get the Varyag launched and try it out a little before building anything on their own.

Gollevainen said:

They are complicated, And Im not shipbuilding engineer (did I ever claimed to be one?)

Click to expand...

No, but you implied that studying an existing design doesn't help with creating your own. I disagree. If you're trying to build a new ship then it's much easier to have a model to follow - even if you don't have all the technical details - than if you have to imagine the whole thing from scratch. You can compare your own design (where you put the elevators and so on) to the existing ship and ask yourself if they thought of something you didn't.

But as you brougth Moonlandings and space travel into focus, you can clearly recall how difficoult path that has been. Did Germans, who first fielded Ballistic rocket land on the moon? No. It all takes time to devolp and only taking that path will end up in succes.

Click to expand...

But this contradicts your argument. The Germans had the lead, but the Americans were able to leapfrog them. Here the Chinese don't even need to surpass the U.S., just reach a level of sophistication the U.S. had over 30 years ago.

(I've corrected some typos in your post below to make it more legible.)

Aircraft carrier building and developing combines two difficult engineering issues, to build airfield on board a warship. By separate they include lot of problems and possible alternatives, but combined you are at the starting point of one of the most difficult aspect of warship design.

Click to expand...

So you start with the Varyag and improve from there. It may not be the most modern design, but it obviously worked.

How to build a hull that support enormous landing deck area atop huge empty space that cannot be interfered by typical support structure. All this demand triple the beam that you can have on the hull length that would still justify meaningful size compared to the output that your engines can develop....

Click to expand...

This is civil engineering. I'm not saying it's easy, but the same guys who build huge bridges, tunnels, and skyscrapers will deal with this for you. China has no lack of these guys. In any case, it's not a specifically military technology.

And I almost hate to bring it up again, but container ships have similar issues.

And all this in military ship building standards...Not to need to refress you, but only 17 years ago Chinese warship builders build warship that engine department could be only reached from outside mainhull hatches?

Click to expand...

That's not an issue of building standards, but poor design. Presumably they know better now. Anyway, that's why they've got the Varyag to help them avoid making basic mistakes.

If you would have studied the histories and aspects of carriers in general, you would find out that even changing simple elevator position can bring headacing strom to the engineers involved and how single one of so called "novel" vessels or first such vessels operated by any service has ever been succesfull....Nor has ever mented to be one.

Click to expand...

I'm having trouble reading this part - I think you must have typed it very quickly.

Anyway, it's not necessary that the first vessel is "successful" (although obviously a complete flop would be bad). We're talking whether or not they can get it done before 2020. Enough time to launch the Varyag and an intermediate domestic design.

Varyag and other Soviet project 1144 class ships can only give chinese a detailed view of how such ships are to be produced, but the orginal issue in this thread is that By looking them doesent bring China (nor does anything else) a capacity to build 93,000 tonner in 12 years. If you would have bothered to study carriers other than their political penis-extension purpose, you would know how poorly desinged oddieties they are compared to even small Unicorn class basic level jet carriers.

Click to expand...

This paragraph doesn't add anything to your argument that I could figure out. The issue isn't whether or not the Varyag grants magical shipbuilding superpowers. The issue is whether or not the design is so horribly primitive that even 13 years of development can't bring it up to 1975 U.S. standards.

You also seem to be focusing on size, whereas I thought you'd given that up in your last post. So is the argument that aircraft carriers in general are too difficult to design, or that there's something about a 94k aircraft carrier that makes it impossible to move from a 55k carrier to a 94k carrier within 13 years?

If you would even bother to take insigth look of any navy that has had domestic carrier program, you wouldnt wave your red flag and expect without any logic that all that chinese do has to be marvelous, defy all the laws of reason and succee in 110% precission.

Click to expand...

I don't own a red flag.

Civil field and military field have their common aspects and devolpment in one field certainly helps the other...in longer term and in general level, but is foolish, stubid, childish and more importantly, cheast-beatingly nationalist wishfull thinking to see it overcoming the fact that each ship type requires individual planning as they poses individual proplems and aspects and carriers are almost the most sophisticated end of the ship building require sophistication that doesent come from store shelf but needs to be aquired by the hard way, by building those ships and China has not yet reached the capacity that it can begun to build its first attempt in the long path.

Click to expand...

Ok, so you admit that civilian technology does play a role. I think you've also acknowledged that the basic technology - meaning shipbuilding, structural engineering, and metalwork and the like - aren't really anything new. So this project isn't held up by basic materials research or engine design (unlike the fighter project, for example).

So I guess you're saying that the actual blueprints are hard to develop. Where to put the various components, how many speakers to have in the PA system, how to lay out the fuel system, how much Koskenkorva you need for the crew, getting steam to the catapult, and the like. Yes, this is a massive undertaking, and there will be certain things that the designers won't realize ahead of time and will fix in the next version. But again, we're talking 13 years, and nobody said the ship had to be perfect.

Maybe this is where the disagreement is: I still say that, if they really wanted to, the Chinese could strap an airstrip onto a 93k cargo ship and call it an aircraft carrier. Or maybe an aircraft carrier testbed. It wouldn't be a great ship, but it would get planes from point A to point B and allow them to take off and land. And they could do this within a year, and even if they'd never seen the Varyag. (The first American aircraft carrier was something similar, just they didn't have such large cargo ships at the time.)

If you accept that this sort of primitive carrier is possible, then this whole debate isn't about whether or not it's possible to build a 93k aircraft carrier within 13 years, but rather, what limitations that carrier will have. I can certainly accept that the Americans have discovered some subtle design ideas that will take the Chinese some time to figure out. If that's what you're really saying then there's not much disagreement.

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Ok, now you've at least said something concrete rather than just claiming it's too "complicated". Let's start from the challenge at the end of your post...

So before you choose to answer back, answer to this question first: If you think it is possible, why are chinese ship building still in the level, that it cannot produce even a proplem free destroyer class for mass production that would be essential to any navy that is going to commision 93,000 ton nuclear carrier only in 12 years???

Click to expand...

I actually think they've been doing really well with their new ships. The pattern of building a couple of ships, testing them, and then building a couple of more seems pretty sensible. If they're not mass-producing the 52x yet then maybe they want to take another iteration or two, but that's not an indication of failure. They're just working their way up the chain.

While they're working their way up the chain, they don't necessarily need to wait for one type to be "done" before moving on to the next. The 54A and 52C have had overlapping development.

Probably a cruiser will be coming in the next little while.

The 071 also fits in to the "moving up the ladder" pattern.

With the carrier they're naturally being cautious. First, it's not that useful without its fleet, second, it's much more expensive. So they'll get the Varyag launched and try it out a little before building anything on their own.

Gollevainen said:

They are complicated, And Im not shipbuilding engineer (did I ever claimed to be one?)

Click to expand...

No, but you implied that studying an existing design doesn't help with creating your own. I disagree. If you're trying to build a new ship then it's much easier to have a model to follow - even if you don't have all the technical details - than if you have to imagine the whole thing from scratch. You can compare your own design (where you put the elevators and so on) to the existing ship and ask yourself if they thought of something you didn't.

But as you brougth Moonlandings and space travel into focus, you can clearly recall how difficoult path that has been. Did Germans, who first fielded Ballistic rocket land on the moon? No. It all takes time to devolp and only taking that path will end up in succes.

Click to expand...

But this contradicts your argument. The Germans had the lead, but the Americans were able to leapfrog them. Here the Chinese don't even need to surpass the U.S., just reach a level of sophistication the U.S. had over 30 years ago.

(I've corrected some typos in your post below to make it more legible.)

Aircraft carrier building and developing combines two difficult engineering issues, to build airfield on board a warship. By separate they include lot of problems and possible alternatives, but combined you are at the starting point of one of the most difficult aspect of warship design.

Click to expand...

So you start with the Varyag and improve from there. It may not be the most modern design, but it obviously worked.

How to build a hull that support enormous landing deck area atop huge empty space that cannot be interfered by typical support structure. All this demand triple the beam that you can have on the hull length that would still justify meaningful size compared to the output that your engines can develop....

Click to expand...

This is civil engineering. I'm not saying it's easy, but the same guys who build huge bridges, tunnels, and skyscrapers will deal with this for you. China has no lack of these guys. In any case, it's not a specifically military technology.

And I almost hate to bring it up again, but container ships have similar issues.

And all this in military ship building standards...Not to need to refress you, but only 17 years ago Chinese warship builders build warship that engine department could be only reached from outside mainhull hatches?

Click to expand...

That's not an issue of building standards, but poor design. Presumably they know better now. Anyway, that's why they've got the Varyag to help them avoid making basic mistakes.

If you would have studied the histories and aspects of carriers in general, you would find out that even changing simple elevator position can bring headacing strom to the engineers involved and how single one of so called "novel" vessels or first such vessels operated by any service has ever been succesfull....Nor has ever mented to be one.

Click to expand...

I'm having trouble reading this part - I think you must have typed it very quickly.

Anyway, it's not necessary that the first vessel is "successful" (although obviously a complete flop would be bad). We're talking whether or not they can get it done before 2020. Enough time to launch the Varyag and an intermediate domestic design.

Varyag and other Soviet project 1144 class ships can only give chinese a detailed view of how such ships are to be produced, but the orginal issue in this thread is that By looking them doesent bring China (nor does anything else) a capacity to build 93,000 tonner in 12 years. If you would have bothered to study carriers other than their political penis-extension purpose, you would know how poorly desinged oddieties they are compared to even small Unicorn class basic level jet carriers.

Click to expand...

This paragraph doesn't add anything to your argument that I could figure out. The issue isn't whether or not the Varyag grants magical shipbuilding superpowers. The issue is whether or not the design is so horribly primitive that even 13 years of development can't bring it up to 1975 U.S. standards.

You also seem to be focusing on size, whereas I thought you'd given that up in your last post. So is the argument that aircraft carriers in general are too difficult to design, or that there's something about a 94k aircraft carrier that makes it impossible to move from a 55k carrier to a 94k carrier within 13 years?

If you would even bother to take insigth look of any navy that has had domestic carrier program, you wouldnt wave your red flag and expect without any logic that all that chinese do has to be marvelous, defy all the laws of reason and succee in 110% precission.

Click to expand...

I don't own a red flag.

Civil field and military field have their common aspects and devolpment in one field certainly helps the other...in longer term and in general level, but is foolish, stubid, childish and more importantly, cheast-beatingly nationalist wishfull thinking to see it overcoming the fact that each ship type requires individual planning as they poses individual proplems and aspects and carriers are almost the most sophisticated end of the ship building require sophistication that doesent come from store shelf but needs to be aquired by the hard way, by building those ships and China has not yet reached the capacity that it can begun to build its first attempt in the long path.

Click to expand...

Ok, so you admit that civilian technology does play a role. I think you've also acknowledged that the basic technology - meaning shipbuilding, structural engineering, and metalwork and the like - aren't really anything new. So this project isn't held up by basic materials research or engine design (unlike the fighter project, for example).

So I guess you're saying that the actual blueprints are hard to develop. Where to put the various components, how many speakers to have in the PA system, how to lay out the fuel system, how much Koskenkorva you need for the crew, getting steam to the catapult, and the like. Yes, this is a massive undertaking, and there will be certain things that the designers won't realize ahead of time and will fix in the next version. But again, we're talking 13 years, and nobody said the ship had to be perfect.

Maybe this is where the disagreement is: I still say that, if they really wanted to, the Chinese could strap an airstrip onto a 93k cargo ship and call it an aircraft carrier. Or maybe an aircraft carrier testbed. It wouldn't be a great ship, but it would get planes from point A to point B and allow them to take off and land. And they could do this within a year, and even if they'd never seen the Varyag. (The first American aircraft carrier was something similar, just they didn't have such large cargo ships at the time.)

If you accept that this sort of primitive carrier is possible, then this whole debate isn't about whether or not it's possible to build a 93k aircraft carrier within 13 years, but rather, what limitations that carrier will have. I can certainly accept that the Americans have discovered some subtle design ideas that will take the Chinese some time to figure out. If that's what you're really saying then there's not much disagreement.

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Ok, now you've at least said something concrete rather than just claiming it's too "complicated". Let's start from the challenge at the end of your post...

So before you choose to answer back, answer to this question first: If you think it is possible, why are chinese ship building still in the level, that it cannot produce even a proplem free destroyer class for mass production that would be essential to any navy that is going to commision 93,000 ton nuclear carrier only in 12 years???

Click to expand...

I actually think they've been doing really well with their new ships. The pattern of building a couple of ships, testing them, and then building a couple of more seems pretty sensible. If they're not mass-producing the 52x yet then maybe they want to take another iteration or two, but that's not an indication of failure. They're just working their way up the chain.

While they're working their way up the chain, they don't necessarily need to wait for one type to be "done" before moving on to the next. The 54A and 52C have had overlapping development.

Probably a cruiser will be coming in the next little while.

The 071 also fits in to the "moving up the ladder" pattern.

With the carrier they're naturally being cautious. First, it's not that useful without its fleet, second, it's much more expensive. So they'll get the Varyag launched and try it out a little before building anything on their own.

Gollevainen said:

They are complicated, And Im not shipbuilding engineer (did I ever claimed to be one?)

Click to expand...

No, but you implied that studying an existing design doesn't help with creating your own. I disagree. If you're trying to build a new ship then it's much easier to have a model to follow - even if you don't have all the technical details - than if you have to imagine the whole thing from scratch. You can compare your own design (where you put the elevators and so on) to the existing ship and ask yourself if they thought of something you didn't.

But as you brougth Moonlandings and space travel into focus, you can clearly recall how difficoult path that has been. Did Germans, who first fielded Ballistic rocket land on the moon? No. It all takes time to devolp and only taking that path will end up in succes.

Click to expand...

But this contradicts your argument. The Germans had the lead, but the Americans were able to leapfrog them. Here the Chinese don't even need to surpass the U.S., just reach a level of sophistication the U.S. had over 30 years ago.

(I've corrected some typos in your post below to make it more legible.)

Aircraft carrier building and developing combines two difficult engineering issues, to build airfield on board a warship. By separate they include lot of problems and possible alternatives, but combined you are at the starting point of one of the most difficult aspect of warship design.

Click to expand...

So you start with the Varyag and improve from there. It may not be the most modern design, but it obviously worked.

How to build a hull that support enormous landing deck area atop huge empty space that cannot be interfered by typical support structure. All this demand triple the beam that you can have on the hull length that would still justify meaningful size compared to the output that your engines can develop....

Click to expand...

This is civil engineering. I'm not saying it's easy, but the same guys who build huge bridges, tunnels, and skyscrapers will deal with this for you. China has no lack of these guys. In any case, it's not a specifically military technology.

And I almost hate to bring it up again, but container ships have similar issues.

And all this in military ship building standards...Not to need to refress you, but only 17 years ago Chinese warship builders build warship that engine department could be only reached from outside mainhull hatches?

Click to expand...

That's not an issue of building standards, but poor design. Presumably they know better now. Anyway, that's why they've got the Varyag to help them avoid making basic mistakes.

If you would have studied the histories and aspects of carriers in general, you would find out that even changing simple elevator position can bring headacing strom to the engineers involved and how single one of so called "novel" vessels or first such vessels operated by any service has ever been succesfull....Nor has ever mented to be one.

Click to expand...

I'm having trouble reading this part - I think you must have typed it very quickly.

Anyway, it's not necessary that the first vessel is "successful" (although obviously a complete flop would be bad). We're talking whether or not they can get it done before 2020. Enough time to launch the Varyag and an intermediate domestic design.

Varyag and other Soviet project 1144 class ships can only give chinese a detailed view of how such ships are to be produced, but the orginal issue in this thread is that By looking them doesent bring China (nor does anything else) a capacity to build 93,000 tonner in 12 years. If you would have bothered to study carriers other than their political penis-extension purpose, you would know how poorly desinged oddieties they are compared to even small Unicorn class basic level jet carriers.

Click to expand...

This paragraph doesn't add anything to your argument that I could figure out. The issue isn't whether or not the Varyag grants magical shipbuilding superpowers. The issue is whether or not the design is so horribly primitive that even 13 years of development can't bring it up to 1975 U.S. standards.

You also seem to be focusing on size, whereas I thought you'd given that up in your last post. So is the argument that aircraft carriers in general are too difficult to design, or that there's something about a 94k aircraft carrier that makes it impossible to move from a 55k carrier to a 94k carrier within 13 years?

If you would even bother to take insigth look of any navy that has had domestic carrier program, you wouldnt wave your red flag and expect without any logic that all that chinese do has to be marvelous, defy all the laws of reason and succee in 110% precission.

Click to expand...

I don't own a red flag.

Civil field and military field have their common aspects and devolpment in one field certainly helps the other...in longer term and in general level, but is foolish, stubid, childish and more importantly, cheast-beatingly nationalist wishfull thinking to see it overcoming the fact that each ship type requires individual planning as they poses individual proplems and aspects and carriers are almost the most sophisticated end of the ship building require sophistication that doesent come from store shelf but needs to be aquired by the hard way, by building those ships and China has not yet reached the capacity that it can begun to build its first attempt in the long path.

Click to expand...

Ok, so you admit that civilian technology does play a role. I think you've also acknowledged that the basic technology - meaning shipbuilding, structural engineering, and metalwork and the like - aren't really anything new. So this project isn't held up by basic materials research or engine design (unlike the fighter project, for example).

So I guess you're saying that the actual blueprints are hard to develop. Where to put the various components, how many speakers to have in the PA system, how to lay out the fuel system, how much Koskenkorva you need for the crew, getting steam to the catapult, and the like. Yes, this is a massive undertaking, and there will be certain things that the designers won't realize ahead of time and will fix in the next version. But again, we're talking 13 years, and nobody said the ship had to be perfect.

Maybe this is where the disagreement is: I still say that, if they really wanted to, the Chinese could strap an airstrip onto a 93k cargo ship and call it an aircraft carrier. Or maybe an aircraft carrier testbed. It wouldn't be a great ship, but it would get planes from point A to point B and allow them to take off and land. And they could do this within a year, and even if they'd never seen the Varyag. (The first American aircraft carrier was something similar, just they didn't have such large cargo ships at the time.)

If you accept that this sort of primitive carrier is possible, then this whole debate isn't about whether or not it's possible to build a 93k aircraft carrier within 13 years, but rather, what limitations that carrier will have. I can certainly accept that the Americans have discovered some subtle design ideas that will take the Chinese some time to figure out. If that's what you're really saying then there's not much disagreement.

... Ami.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Okay...

First little about the chinese shipdevelopment.

Prior 1990 china had two types of major warship hulls, the Jianghu/Jiangdong hull and the Luda hull. The first was basicly the strengtend hull of pr. 50 (Soviet Riga clas) and the later was the pr. 41 (Tallinn class) hull. These both hulls represented late 40's soviet shipdesigning which was somewhat behind of the western shipdesign in those days. Copying and reproducing the Riga hull and envolving it to the Jianghu class took almoust twenty years. China needed huge ammount of time to simple strenghtening and enlarging of quite simple and small warship hull. With Luda class they started from the blueprints of the orginal soviet ship and adopted it as it was (what comes to the hull and below the main deck, superstructure arragment was altered slightly). First unit was launched 1966, 16 years after the soviet prototype ship, but the first chinese unit was not completed untill 1972. It took 8 years to build single Destroyer. (Note that the soviet ship, Neustrashimy took 5 years to build and this considered way too long period even for the soviet shipbuilding capabilities. corresponding destroyers of that day, like Kotlins took only 3 years to build,) The building time of this already aging destroyers shortened to 4 years when chinese learned how to make them.

But never the less no improvements in the shipdesign sector emerged for next following decades. Jianghu class was modified and some progress went on with it (which eventually led to Jiangwei class) but not in the destroyer sector. This is ofcourse quite understandable given the historical facts and the state in which china was in those days. A backward developing country, tough fast developing and still building up its infrastructure.

But untill 1990, China had its major surface combatants all based to soviet imidiate post-WWII era (which was somewhat equal to western wwII era) shipdesigns with great lack in the very basis of modern naval warfare sectors.
The year 1990 was the turning point with the laying down of the first chinese own major warship hull, the Luhu (052) class. It was from its design standpoint huge improvement to the Ludas as it represented, at least form outwards look a modern surface combatant. This was all thanks to the western nations with their pre-1989 warming up relations with the PRC. China won the frigate deal to Thailand and received much help form the germans to design the similary modern Naresuan class frigates (pr. 025T) using the modular shipbuilding methods that were introducted with the MEKO designs. (Same methods were used with the Luhu class as well)
But both of these new chinese ships, The two 052 class DDGs and the two 025T FFGs had huge proplems when you looked bit deeper. Naresuan clas had some of its comparments unaccesble without first coming to the main deck. First of the Luhus had its engine comparament few inches too small to fit the LM2500 gas turbines there and had to be returned to the shipyard before engine instalation. Naresuan class had poor damage control and was not with other parst as well even near the standarts of western warships.

After 1989 the relations with the west ended and so did the sudden boost in chinese ship designs. Luhu class for example was pretty much designed around its propulsion arragment and as the western Gas turbines weren't availble, chinese weren't able to duplicated the class. The follower, Luhai (pr. 051B) was despite its modern look, a step back in the chinese shipdevelopment. Like the pr. number suggest, its basicly enlargened Luda class with its old (and trouplesom) pressured fired steam plants. It was like a proplel fighter in the jet age.
When comming to the 21st century, shift from nedgelence in naval matters to the realization that growing super power needs modern fleet is clearly seen in the efforst that china had made in the area. The Luhu (052) class finally had its decendands with the 052B/C classes. The same hull design was strenghted with the slightly inferior ukrainian gas turbines which powered the seccond orginal 052 as well. With larger hulls the new destroyers were bit too underpowered and this can be seen for example in the top speed of the new ships. But the illfamous 051B had its followeres too in the forms of the two 051C class ships. In fact the very existence of these ships tells alot of the current capabilityes of chinese shipdesigns. They are clearly not able to design completely new ships, but are forced to use older hulls to compensate the ever growing need of the rising power of china.

Only the 054A class is finally showing healthy singhs of chinese shipdesigns as it seems to be the first of the new era chinese warships that has entered serial production. With destoryers which the china needs, we need to wait for the 055 (or what ever it will be named) to see such a progress, the laters were test and trial classes, like tricicles in which you first learn how to bike...

You are right, china is moving up a ladder, step by step. But unlike you said, one ladder isent one type of ship. One step equals the state of the shipdesigning. Sofar china has over the step of making a ship and designing a ship. They are still crumbling with the step of making succesfull and viable type of ships (and partially succeded in that). But the ladder is long and building an aircraft carrier is in the near end....and china is far from it.

This is civil engineering. I'm not saying it's easy, but the same guys who build huge bridges, tunnels, and skyscrapers will deal with this for you. China has no lack of these guys. In any case, it's not a specifically military technology.

And I almost hate to bring it up again, but container ships have similar issues.

Click to expand...

I'm a civil engineer soon myself (one year less to go) so you don't need to point out those things to me. In fact the little engineer in me is the one that cries out loudest for against this 93,000 tonner. The same little engineer in me wants to point out that while you may knwo how to do that, it doesen't mean you can do this...for example I can design a simple road or street with little traffic from scrats, but I damn well know that I'm not knowlidgable enough (nor experienced) to design a motorway...

Its silly to argue over internet based article which can be early aprils fools joke for all we know. I'm not saying that china cannot design aircraft carriers, but that they are not in the point of doing such thing now or in the near future. They need to launch the Varyag first to get even familiar with the idea of jetplanes over the sea (and without that it's inpossiple to know how to design a carrier) and only after then strat design one of their own. And that takes time, and its not ready in 2020....

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Okay...

First little about the chinese shipdevelopment.

Prior 1990 china had two types of major warship hulls, the Jianghu/Jiangdong hull and the Luda hull. The first was basicly the strengtend hull of pr. 50 (Soviet Riga clas) and the later was the pr. 41 (Tallinn class) hull. These both hulls represented late 40's soviet shipdesigning which was somewhat behind of the western shipdesign in those days. Copying and reproducing the Riga hull and envolving it to the Jianghu class took almoust twenty years. China needed huge ammount of time to simple strenghtening and enlarging of quite simple and small warship hull. With Luda class they started from the blueprints of the orginal soviet ship and adopted it as it was (what comes to the hull and below the main deck, superstructure arragment was altered slightly). First unit was launched 1966, 16 years after the soviet prototype ship, but the first chinese unit was not completed untill 1972. It took 8 years to build single Destroyer. (Note that the soviet ship, Neustrashimy took 5 years to build and this considered way too long period even for the soviet shipbuilding capabilities. corresponding destroyers of that day, like Kotlins took only 3 years to build,) The building time of this already aging destroyers shortened to 4 years when chinese learned how to make them.

But never the less no improvements in the shipdesign sector emerged for next following decades. Jianghu class was modified and some progress went on with it (which eventually led to Jiangwei class) but not in the destroyer sector. This is ofcourse quite understandable given the historical facts and the state in which china was in those days. A backward developing country, tough fast developing and still building up its infrastructure.

But untill 1990, China had its major surface combatants all based to soviet imidiate post-WWII era (which was somewhat equal to western wwII era) shipdesigns with great lack in the very basis of modern naval warfare sectors.
The year 1990 was the turning point with the laying down of the first chinese own major warship hull, the Luhu (052) class. It was from its design standpoint huge improvement to the Ludas as it represented, at least form outwards look a modern surface combatant. This was all thanks to the western nations with their pre-1989 warming up relations with the PRC. China won the frigate deal to Thailand and received much help form the germans to design the similary modern Naresuan class frigates (pr. 025T) using the modular shipbuilding methods that were introducted with the MEKO designs. (Same methods were used with the Luhu class as well)
But both of these new chinese ships, The two 052 class DDGs and the two 025T FFGs had huge proplems when you looked bit deeper. Naresuan clas had some of its comparments unaccesble without first coming to the main deck. First of the Luhus had its engine comparament few inches too small to fit the LM2500 gas turbines there and had to be returned to the shipyard before engine instalation. Naresuan class had poor damage control and was not with other parst as well even near the standarts of western warships.

After 1989 the relations with the west ended and so did the sudden boost in chinese ship designs. Luhu class for example was pretty much designed around its propulsion arragment and as the western Gas turbines weren't availble, chinese weren't able to duplicated the class. The follower, Luhai (pr. 051B) was despite its modern look, a step back in the chinese shipdevelopment. Like the pr. number suggest, its basicly enlargened Luda class with its old (and trouplesom) pressured fired steam plants. It was like a proplel fighter in the jet age.
When comming to the 21st century, shift from nedgelence in naval matters to the realization that growing super power needs modern fleet is clearly seen in the efforst that china had made in the area. The Luhu (052) class finally had its decendands with the 052B/C classes. The same hull design was strenghted with the slightly inferior ukrainian gas turbines which powered the seccond orginal 052 as well. With larger hulls the new destroyers were bit too underpowered and this can be seen for example in the top speed of the new ships. But the illfamous 051B had its followeres too in the forms of the two 051C class ships. In fact the very existence of these ships tells alot of the current capabilityes of chinese shipdesigns. They are clearly not able to design completely new ships, but are forced to use older hulls to compensate the ever growing need of the rising power of china.

Only the 054A class is finally showing healthy singhs of chinese shipdesigns as it seems to be the first of the new era chinese warships that has entered serial production. With destoryers which the china needs, we need to wait for the 055 (or what ever it will be named) to see such a progress, the laters were test and trial classes, like tricicles in which you first learn how to bike...

You are right, china is moving up a ladder, step by step. But unlike you said, one ladder isent one type of ship. One step equals the state of the shipdesigning. Sofar china has over the step of making a ship and designing a ship. They are still crumbling with the step of making succesfull and viable type of ships (and partially succeded in that). But the ladder is long and building an aircraft carrier is in the near end....and china is far from it.

This is civil engineering. I'm not saying it's easy, but the same guys who build huge bridges, tunnels, and skyscrapers will deal with this for you. China has no lack of these guys. In any case, it's not a specifically military technology.

And I almost hate to bring it up again, but container ships have similar issues.

Click to expand...

I'm a civil engineer soon myself (one year less to go) so you don't need to point out those things to me. In fact the little engineer in me is the one that cries out loudest for against this 93,000 tonner. The same little engineer in me wants to point out that while you may knwo how to do that, it doesen't mean you can do this...for example I can design a simple road or street with little traffic from scrats, but I damn well know that I'm not knowlidgable enough (nor experienced) to design a motorway...

Its silly to argue over internet based article which can be early aprils fools joke for all we know. I'm not saying that china cannot design aircraft carriers, but that they are not in the point of doing such thing now or in the near future. They need to launch the Varyag first to get even familiar with the idea of jetplanes over the sea (and without that it's inpossiple to know how to design a carrier) and only after then strat design one of their own. And that takes time, and its not ready in 2020....