PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

tphuang said:

I have not told you what my conclusion. I've only given you what PLAN conclusion is. And I never said it's better to keep difference between hulls as small as possible. My point is that as ships get larger and more complex, you will see less number of a class built. If PLAN wants to proceed from Adm K class to a super carrier like the ones in USN, it will have to make changes. And the changes will be gradual. And don't try to divert the conversation by arguing this, because I'm just clarifying my original point. I don't want to discuss what kind of carrier PLAN wants at the end.

Click to expand...

Never have I said there won't be gradual changes. Please read my posts carefully. Doing things gradually does not equate to the idea that steam catapult will be used on China's first flat top, especially consider EMALS and steam catapult operate on different technology principles.

tphuang said:

You are not mimicking what PLAN thinks. You made up your mind and are now trying to piece evidence together. As for your argument that PLAN waited this long for CV-16, have you heard of the Project 048? Do you know when that was decided on and how long it has been since that time?

Click to expand...

Clearly, what you said is not true, as I am mimicking what PLAN thinks. PLAN let the Liaoning sit in dock for years to get everything readied before working on the ship. That's a fact. Following that thinking, I predicted that PLAN will see the benefits of using just one type of catapult and will wait a few more years.

tphuang said:

My examples of VLS and destroyers completely apply here, because they show how PLAN thinks. Even though they can build multiple destroyers every year, have 2 additional classes of ships in 051C and Sovs still represent additional support/maintenance that they have to deal with. Same with the VLS on 051C and 052C. Do you have evidence that the cost of maintaining steam catapult is much higher than that of the cost of maintaining the destroyer class 051C and Sovs? Remember, they actually created industrial support for everything on Sov class and for VLS on Russian stuff on 051C. And they are also asking the military industrial complex to develop upgraded parts now to support Sov in its modernization effort. Can you show evidence that the cost of supporting steam catapult is significantly higher than that?

Click to expand...

The reason I said your examples don't apply is that they don't carry the same risks and costs as a carrier. PLAN's decisions with regards to 051C and Sovremenny-class were not brilliant even according to us laymen. That should be a very strong reason why PLAN won't be repeating the same mistakes.

tphuang said:

I think POP3 has more information than we have. And he has seen enough that makes him believe that PLAN will go for steam catapult first. None of us really know what PLAN will go for until that day we see it. Our argument has been that PLAN will go for steam catapult if they are ready to build a CATOBAR carrier and EMAL catapult is not ready rather than wait and not build CATOBAR carrier and wait for EMAL. And my argument is that PLAN's past actions dictate this is what they will choose. Your argument has been that my examples were less important systems, so it doesn't apply to carrier.

Nobody forgot it. And you are not the only person to consider maintenance and infrastructure. The additional support and maintenance required for 051C and Sov are well known here and a lot of people disagree with PLAN's decision to get them. But in the end, we are speculating on what PLAN will do rather than what you find logic. This entire debate has been about you argument that PLAN should not forget the cost involved with support and maintenance of additional catapult. But PLAN has their own data/beliefs over the progress of technology, the cost of maintaining and support different subsystems, how it values certain capabilities and training for those capabilities, which you and I are not privy to. It has shown in the past that it is willing to take the hit on additional cost of maintaining supporting additional class of ships, VLS systems and weaponry for getting certain capabilities sooner. In this equation of whether to go for steam catapult if EMAL is not ready, POP3 has far more information over where PLAN is at in all aspect than you and I have. It's not surprising to me that PLAN would be willing to go for steam catapult if EMAL is ready based on PLAN's past behaviour.

Click to expand...

POP3 has said nothing new. What he said has been speculated and argued upon by members on this forum for a long time. I disagreed with him, which stirred up a hornet's nest. I think that has to do with our eagerness to see China's CATOBAR carrier.

The next carrier China will build is said to be very similar to Liaoning, which suggests the first carrier to take advantage of catapults would not appear for another ten years. During this time, PLAN's EMALS would have moved along much further. Arguments in support for steam catapults tend to revolve around what China has now, but they are not strong arguments considering a lot can change within just a few years.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Engineer said:

Clearly, what you said is not true, as I am mimicking what PLAN thinks. PLAN let the Liaoning sit in dock for years to get everything readied before working on the ship. That's a fact. Following that thinking, I predicted that PLAN will see the benefits of using just one type of catapult and will wait a few more years.

Click to expand...

No, what Tphuang said is not "Clearly, what you said is not true."

What is clear is that you and Tphuang (and most others discussing this with you on this thread) disagee about what the PLAN thinks and has done.

Please do not tell him that what he is saying is "clearly not true." The same could be said by him of you, and ultimately those kind of accusations lead to problems we do not need here on this thread or on SD.

Time will tell if the Chinese use or do not use a steam catapult on their first CATOBAR carrier. Or if they go for EMALS.

As regards the discussion of the Type 052C VLS vs Type 052D VLS, here's just a bit of clarification.

It is not just a single vessel, and it is not just the VLS system.

Several years after the first two Type 052Cs were built, the PLAN rapidly put out four more Type 052C vessels with that VLS, main gun, APARs, and CIWS configuation. Then, the very next ship on the ways was the Type 052D. There was not a several year wait between those last four and the first D model, and its rapidly following 2nd, 3rd, and 4th D model vessels. There was literally no pause at that point.

The Type 052D came out with significant modifications required to the hull to accomodate a completely new and larger APAR, a completely new and larger main gun, and a completely new VLS system.

But the PLAN did not wait for those significant enhancements at all.

In fact, this occurred so quickly that the first Type 052D is now commissioned and in operation before the last Type 052C was completed outfitting and with trials There are SIGNIFICANT differences that will require completely different logistics and completely different training.

If I have been reading your explanations and theories right, the PLAN would never have done this.

They could have easily cut their "losses" and waited even 1 1/2 to 2 years and come out with all the new designs and not had to deal with a much larger logistics and training issue due to having six of these "older" vessels as opposed to having just two. In fact, since they had already launched, commissioned, and used the two for several years, this scenario fits your thinking perfectly. Here it was several uyears later and all of this new stuff was already designed and about to be built, and yet the PLAN finished four more of the older design before putting out the first new one.

That's what they did. And they did so because they did not want to wait even two years to have the numbers of vessels they could get with the older Type 052C capabilities right then.

Now, whether or not they will apply that same logic to the carrier...I cannot say. But the PLAN, in very meaningful numbers and costs, showed with the Type 052C - Type 052D vessels that they are very willing to forego the new tech to get the capability in the filed as fast as they can.

As it is.

ENOUGH OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMMINENT CARRIER BEING EITHER EMALS OR STEAM AND ALL OF THE BACK AND FORTH REGARDING IT.

That discussion has now been beat to death over several days and many posts. We are not even sure which carrier will be catobar at this point, and when it comes, it will be clear which route the PLAN chooses.

Move on. Do not respond to the moderation included in this post

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

China does not think small scale, short term nor does it's leaders like being over dependent on any one thing.

A single factory capable of making carrier grade steel is both a huge bottleneck as well as a big vulnerability that I just do not see China's leaders being happy to put up with. Making the investment necessary for a second or even third steel mill to make carrier grade steel seems very much in character for China. Maybe currently the right grade of steel is a limiting factor, but I cannot see that not having been noticed and foreseen long before now with how much planning, investment and ground work have been done in preparation for the launch of China's carrier programme, so I would be amazed if plans were not drawn up, or even being implemented to upgrade additional facilities to be able to produce carrier grade steel.

If you look at all recent major Chinese projects, you will notice an overall trend. China takes its sweet time deciding on what it wants to do, but once a decision has been made, they don't mess around and instead get things done pretty damn fast.

The Chinese objective with carriers is not just to have one for the sake of having one, but rather to form a credible, deployable operational capacity as soon as humanly possible. For that, you need ideally a minimum of 3 carriers.

As I mentioned before, China's leaders don't like to be overly dependent on any single thing, thus its perfectly within their nature and interest to develop carrier building capacity in two competing shipyards rather than one.

If you are to build two carriers simultaneously, it makes sense to build two radically different designs. You play it safe with one to make sure that if worst comes to worst and the 3rd carrier is a total loss, at least you will have two carriers, which while not ideal, still should be able to give China one carrier ready for deployment at all times.

But with the other carrier, it makes sense to go with a radical new design to test out new concepts and technologies, which if successful, will pave the way for China to leapfrog the traditional carrier development path and jump a generation or two. So instead of having a Liaoning class, then 5, 10 years later having a Kitty Hawk Class before finally moving onto Nimitz/Ford class 5, 10 years after that. China can squeeze two generations in one class, and potentially be ready to move onto nuclear carriers 5, 10 years and 2-3 carriers earlier.

If you factor in the construction and life cycle costs of carriers, and see nuclear supercarriers as the ultimate goal, with all previous classes as necessary investment in order to reach that goal, taking a little risk and compressing two conventional generations in one could yield enormous savings and capacity boosts if you compare the combat potential of a Kitty Hawk class to a Nimitz/Ford class.

And I thing I don't need to point out that compressing conventional development routes and leapfrogging is another key defining feature of almost all recent Chinese major projects.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

plawolf said:

A single factory capable of making carrier grade steel is both a huge bottleneck as well as a big vulnerability that I just do not see China's leaders being happy to put up with.

Click to expand...

china only has one steel factory capable of making carrier grade steel ? what factory is this?

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Kuznetsov class vs Nimitz class.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

I would expect that the special steel mentioned would be produced in electro steel ovens. Such ovens are relatively cheap to build so as many as necessary will certainly be available within a small number of years of the need having been identified.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

I speak as a non expert here but I thought "carrier steel" is pretty much the same type of HS steel used in other capital warships. I may be wrong but I don't think there is a 'special carrier' grade steel.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Franklin said:

Kuznetsov class vs Nimitz class.

Click to expand...

Just a couple of small issues with the comparison.

1) It's the side view, not the front view.

2) When comparing like that, it is best to set both vessels at the end and edge, as opposed to having one offset. When they are offset, it does not show the true difference. In this case, the Kuznetsov Class which is over 100 ft shorter than the Nimitz, does not look that way.

3) I would also place the displacement and a major characteristic with the vessels to further show the true differences.

So, with that in mind...


Just my two cents.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

kroko said:

I wonder why there hasnt been any recent photos of liaoning recently. The carrier is on permanent vacation or what?

Click to expand...

I think they were reported to have meant to have gone out a little while ago, but who knows.

As with always, no photos of the PLA doesn't mean they don't exist.

Jeff Head said:

Just a couple of small issues with the comparison.

1) It's the side view, not the front view.

2) When comparing like that, it is best to set both vessels at the end and edge, as opposed to having one offset. When they are offset, it does not show the true difference. In this case, the Kuznetsov Class which is over 100 ft shorter than the Nimitz, does not look that way.

3) I would also place the displacement and a major characteristic with the vessels to further show the true differences.

So, with that in mind...

​

Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

It is probably also worth noting the Nimitz graphic shows the complete hull where as the Kuznetsov graphic only shows to the waterline.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Bltizo said:

I think they were reported to have meant to have gone out a little while ago, but who knows.

As with always, no photos of the PLA doesn't mean they don't exist.




It is probably also worth noting the Nimitz graphic shows the complete hull where as the Kuznetsov graphic only shows to the waterline.

Click to expand...

That is correct. The Nimitz's deck is not as high as it shown in the comparo for the reason you stated.