PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Engineer

Engineer

Major
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

The issue isn't about whether China has a steam catapult research program. We have been pretty sure on the existence such program for a long time, since we know of the country's interest in the catapult on board the HMAS Melbourne. So, POP3 isn't actually telling us anything new.

The real issue is whether China will put a production version of a steam catapult into service. This is an issue that is still being debated, and what POP3 has said does not answer this question.

Here is my take on it. If China go with a steam catapult now, then they would not be able to swap the catapults out for EMALS on a later date. It would be incredibly expensive, as China would be forced into keeping separated logistic systems for single digit number of steam catapults and EMALS. Also, the next carrier China will build is expected to be a modification of the Liaoning, whereas a domestic flattop featuring catapults isn't expected for at least another ten years. As more research goes into EMALS during this period, the value of maturity in steam catapult research will diminish. So as time pass, there will be less and less reasons for China to go with steam catapult. In summary, the arguments presented by POP3 for steam catapults just aren't convincing.
 
X

xiabonan

Junior Member
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Engineer said:
The issue isn't about whether China has a steam catapult research program. We have been pretty sure on the existence such program for a long time, since we know of the country's interest in the catapult on board the HMAS Melbourne. So, POP3 isn't actually telling us anything new.

The real issue is whether China will put a production version of a steam catapult into service. This is an issue that is still being debated, and what POP3 has said does not answer this question.

Here is my take on it. If China go with a steam catapult now, then they would not be able to swap the catapults out for EMALS on a later date. It would be incredibly expensive, as China would be forced into keeping separated logistic systems for single digit number of steam catapults and EMALS. Also, the next carrier China will build is expected to be a modification of the Liaoning, whereas a domestic flattop featuring catapults isn't expected for at least another ten years. As more research goes into EMALS during this period, the value of maturity in steam catapult research will diminish. So as time pass, there will be less and less reasons for China to go with steam catapult. In summary, the arguments presented by POP3 for steam catapults just aren't convincing.
Click to expand...

Your argument is based on the assumption that they will build the catapult carrier AFTER the modification of Liaoning.

Well now the case could very well be that the two are built CONCURRENTLY.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Engineer said:
The issue isn't about whether China has a steam catapult research program. We have been pretty sure on the existence such program for a long time, since we know of the country's interest in the catapult on board the HMAS Melbourne. So, POP3 isn't actually telling us anything new.

The real issue is whether China will put a production version of a steam catapult into service. This is an issue that is still being debated, and what POP3 has said does not answer this question.

Here is my take on it. If China go with a steam catapult now, then they would not be able to swap the catapults out for EMALS on a later date. It would be incredibly expensive, as China would be forced into keeping separated logistic systems for single digit number of steam catapults and EMALS. Also, the next carrier China will build is expected to be a modification of the Liaoning, whereas a domestic flattop featuring catapults isn't expected for at least another ten years. As more research goes into EMALS during this period, the value of maturity in steam catapult research will diminish. So as time pass, there will be less and less reasons for China to go with steam catapult. In summary, the arguments presented by POP3 for steam catapults just aren't convincing.
Click to expand...

It's really a question of whether Pop3 is giving us a leak or presenting an argument. I do see some value in going to STEAM cats if EMALS just isn't ready for the two latest carriers, primarily from the vantage of training and readiness. The impact on maintenance and logistics may not be as important a consideration if they're aiming to build much bigger carriers than the next two, since much more than catapults would be different.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

From Type 052, PLAN went through interim classes of 051B and 052B before getting to 052C design. If PLAN is that concerned about not having separated logistic systems, it would have just went straight from 052 to 052C. It would also not have gotten 051C class. They are maintaining 4 different types of VLS. By the time they built the first carrier, if STEAM catapult is ready and EMAL is not, they will go with STEAM. They aren't going to worry that the STEAM catapult might only appear on one carrier.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Engineer said:
The issue isn't about whether China has a steam catapult research program. We have been pretty sure on the existence such program for a long time, since we know of the country's interest in the catapult on board the HMAS Melbourne. So, POP3 isn't actually telling us anything new.

The real issue is whether China will put a production version of a steam catapult into service. This is an issue that is still being debated, and what POP3 has said does not answer this question.

Here is my take on it. If China go with a steam catapult now, then they would not be able to swap the catapults out for EMALS on a later date. It would be incredibly expensive, as China would be forced into keeping separated logistic systems for single digit number of steam catapults and EMALS. Also, the next carrier China will build is expected to be a modification of the Liaoning, whereas a domestic flattop featuring catapults isn't expected for at least another ten years. As more research goes into EMALS during this period, the value of maturity in steam catapult research will diminish. So as time pass, there will be less and less reasons for China to go with steam catapult. In summary, the arguments presented by POP3 for steam catapults just aren't convincing.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing NOTHING wrong with using steam cats. So what if it's a tech that decades old? it has worked very well for the last 50 and will work just fine for the next 50....it's not an 'active' system per se where it needs be be upgraded to support or combat future threats etc like say a weapon system, radar, sensors or some electronic gizmo.


Even in the USN the last Nimitiz class carrier will continue sailing the high seas for another 30 years before it's replaced by a Ford so USN herself will continue using steam cats for a very long time. If PLAN puts steam cat on a newly built carrier with a lifespan of 30-50 years there is still no reason to swapped it out for EMALS at a later date.

Like you said it's potentially another 10 years before China builds their own indigenous carrier. At that time they may likely put EMALS on her because the tech would have been fully understood and tested for mainline system but for now it is totally acceptable IMHO putting regular steam cats on Liaoning #2 or even #3.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

kwaigonegin said:
There is absolutely nothing NOTHING wrong with using steam cats. So what if it's a tech that decades old? it has worked very well for the last 50 and will work just fine for the next 50....Even in the USN the last Nimitiz class carrier will continue sailing the high seas for another 30 years before it's replaced by a Ford so USN herself will continue using steam cats for a very long time.
Click to expand...
Amen to every bit of that.

The USS George H.W. Bush, CVN-77, was commissioned in January 2009, the last of the Nimitz Class nuclear aircraft carriers. It is likely she will serve out to around 2060, another 46 years. And during the entire time she will be using steam catapults.

kwaigonegin said:
Like you said it's potentially another 10 years before China builds their own indigenous carrier. At that time they may likely put EMALS on her because the tech would have been fully understood and tested for mainline system but for now it is totally acceptable IMHO putting regular steam cats on Liaoning #2 or even #3.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the first indegenous Chinese nuclear carrier is temn years away. And perhaps they will intrioduce their own EMALS on her.

But I fully expect that the 1st conventionally powered carrier for the PLAN is already under construction, at the very least its modules, if not already the start in the main yards.

I also expect that tat first carrier, and perhaps the one after it, will simply be improved Liaoning carriers, where they apply the lessons learned from the refit of the Varyag into the Liaoning. Better deck handling, larger flight deck, smaller island, larger hanger, etc. And I also believe that most certainly the first...if not the second also, will be STOBAR just like the Liaoning is.

But time will tell (and hopefully soon) what they actually do.
 
by78

by78

General
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This thread has more info. on Chinese carrier plans from 'POP3', who is apparently an insider with an excellent track record in providing accurate information; he could be an 'official leaker'.

Chinese speakers here, please help me summarize, as my Chinese is rudimentary and am hopeless in comprehending internet slangs.

Many thanks in advance!
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Engineer said:
The issue isn't about whether China has a steam catapult research program. We have been pretty sure on the existence such program for a long time, since we know of the country's interest in the catapult on board the HMAS Melbourne. So, POP3 isn't actually telling us anything new.

The real issue is whether China will put a production version of a steam catapult into service. This is an issue that is still being debated, and what POP3 has said does not answer this question.

Here is my take on it. If China go with a steam catapult now, then they would not be able to swap the catapults out for EMALS on a later date. It would be incredibly expensive, as China would be forced into keeping separated logistic systems for single digit number of steam catapults and EMALS. Also, the next carrier China will build is expected to be a modification of the Liaoning, whereas a domestic flattop featuring catapults isn't expected for at least another ten years. As more research goes into EMALS during this period, the value of maturity in steam catapult research will diminish. So as time pass, there will be less and less reasons for China to go with steam catapult. In summary, the arguments presented by POP3 for steam catapults just aren't convincing.
Click to expand...

A couple of things should be noted:

1. There is an expanding pool of rumors and news pieces that claim that two carriers are under construction simultaneously. It was first leaked by the governor, who claimed that two carriers are being built. That was then backed up by the news that the major Chinese shipyard has been offered two super shipbuilding contracts. Then there are statements made by officials years before.

2. If the Chinese were really putting all of their effort on the EMALS, the steam cats would not have gone under development. The Chinese know how much time is needed to make such a device and would not have approved it had there not been a chance for it to serve either as the prime catapult on the carriers or as a backup.

3. Considering that two carriers are being built, there is considerable probability that the situation would be similar to that of the 052C and 051C. One would theoretically be an upgraded Kuznetsov while the other would have more radical changes to it. Having two platforms allows the freedom to maneuver within the PLAN in terms of technology and would at least offer a backup in case the EMALS does not work out
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Sinosoldier, regarding point one, he never said that two carriers were under construction, I believe he said China's second carrier was under construction, with liaoning being China's first carrier.

There have been other rumours suggesting china may be building two carriers concurrently, but we don't know.
 
L

Lezt

Junior Member
Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

SinoSoldier said:
A couple of things should be noted:

2. If the Chinese were really putting all of their effort on the EMALS, the steam cats would not have gone under development. The Chinese know how much time is needed to make such a device and would not have approved it had there not been a chance for it to serve either as the prime catapult on the carriers or as a backup.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, steam cats can easily be insurance even if EMAL is the main push. Honestly, why not put some money in R&D or espionage for a mid last century technology; it is not going to be expensive. Why risk having EMAL fail with no alternative? it is just risk management and China is obviously rich enough and having sufficient skilled people to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top