The Chinese aircraft carrier programme [Archive]

Dongfeng

08-30-2005, 01:35 PM

Hi, everyone

To get the discussion in the professional forum started, I put one of my old essays on sinodefence here. The page originally containing this essay has been removed now for update. Before I start working on a new carrier page, I wish to hear your opinion on this subject.

One of the main points I wish to explore more is the fate of Varyag. Is China really going to commission this ship? If so, how are they going to solve the problems with the propulsion and electronic systems? What aircraft is likely going to be deployed on the carrier (fixed-wing or helicopters only?), etc

The PLA Navy has been reportedly seeking to acquire an aircraft carrier force as a part of its ambition to achieve a â€˜blue-waterâ€™ naval capability for over a decade. Also it is generally believed that China has no financial or technological difficulties to build an aircraft carrier. However, despite various reports claiming that China may plan to refit one or more former Soviet Unionâ€™s aircraft carriers, or build carriers indigenously, no firm evidence has been found to show that such a plan has ever been initiated.

On the other hand, the aircraft carrier is of great importance to the PLA Navyâ€™s power projection capabilities. Although China can already project military forces superior to those South-East Asian countries could deploy to the South China Sea, the PLA is still incapable of providing its forces in this region with credible air support. A fully operational aircraft carrier battle group could also shift the power balance in the Taiwan strait and the East Asia, and has implications for U.S. naval policy in Asia-Pacific region.

Chinaâ€™s ambition to build a â€˜blue-waterâ€™ navy comprising aircraft carriers, large surface combatants and nuclear submarines can be traced back to the late 1950s, but the building of an aircraft carrier was not seriously considered until the early 1980s, when Admiral Liu Hua-Qing became the commander in chief of the PLA Navy, and later in the 1990s the vice chairman of the Central Military Commission (1989-97). Liu studied in Voroshilov Naval Academy in Leningrad, Soviet Union between 1954 and 1958, and became the driving force behind the transforming of the PLA Navy from a costal defence force to a regional naval force during his tenure.

Under the influence of Liu and other PLA Navy officers who strongly supported the ocean-going offensive strategy, in the early-1980s research institutes and think tanks within the PLA began to study the possibility of building a light aircraft carrier of around 15,000 to 20,000 tonne displacement and carrying helicopters and vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft such as Sea Harrier.

The aircraft carrier research programme was boosted when a Chinese ship breaker purchased the retired 15,000t aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne from Australia. The ship, which was stationed in a seaport in Guangzhou for five years before it was finally dismantled for scrap, provided a valuable opportunity for the Chinese shipbuilding engineers to see at first-hand how the ship was designed and built.

China was reported to have approached the Ukrainian and in 1992 to purchase the unfinished Soviet Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag, but was refused. Later China approached the Russian government to purchase one of the four Russian navyâ€™s 40,000t Kiev-class carriers, but the effort was unsuccessful too.

In 1995-96 the Spanish shipbuilder Empresa Nacional Bazan approached the Chinese government to promote its two low-cost, lightweight conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft carrier designs, the 23,000t SAC-200 and the 25,000t SAC-220. However, China was only interested in obtaining the design blueprint rather than ordering the actual vessel. At the end of 1995 it was reported that France had offered to sell China the 32,700t carrier Clemenceau, which was decommissioned in September 1997. Again the deal went nowhere.

Between 1998 and 2000, three ex-Soviet Navy aircraft carriers, the 45,000t class Kiev class Minsk and Kiev, and the 67,500t Kuznetsov class Varyag, were purchased by Chinese commercial companies. The two Kiev class carriers have been developed into floating tourism parks based in Shenzhen and Tianjin respectively. The third ship, Varyag, is currently receiving refit at Dalian Shipyard to become a floating casino in Macao according to its owner, a Hong Kong/Macao based private company. It is unknown that how much value these three vessels are of to the Chinese aircraft carrier research programme, but without a doubt they all have been carefully examined by Chinese shipbuilders to benefit the future indigenous aircraft carrier project.

According to Chinaâ€™s navy development plan in the early 21st century, the second layer of defence and sea-denial capabilities are designed to primarily to break a blockade of the first island chain by 2015 to 2020. The roles of the aircraft carrier in this strategy remains uncertain. In fact many within the PLA and PLA Navy suggest that the military importance of the aircraft carrier is much less than its political importance. They argued that other platforms such as nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) would be much more useful for the PLA Navy in the near future. Some are also concerned that without a sufficient air, sea, and underwater protections, the aircraft carrier is no more than a sitting duck in a modern sea warfare. As the focus of Chinaâ€™s military planning shifts to the Taiwan Strait, the acquisition of aircraft carriers seems to have lost whatever urgency it had.

bd popeye

08-30-2005, 02:47 PM

This toipic created a lot of post in our old forum. It is a great topic.
Let me qualify myself for new members. I am retired from the USN. I served on five USN CV's & various shore commands in 20 years. I was an avation ordanceman for 11 years and a parachute rigger for 9.

As for a PLAN CV/LPH type ship I think the PLAN is re-fitting the Varyag. You just don't have a ship in the shipyard for three years with armed guards for nothing. When we will see the Varyag operational no one knows. I think when operational the ship will more than likely have helos. Whereas China has no VSTOL aircraft. Unless of course a ski ramp is installed. Then we may see Mig-29's if Russia is willing to sell them.

I personally feel that somewhere in a unknown shipyard clouded in great secrecy the PLAN has under construction a LPH/LHD of approxmiately 22,000-25,000 tons. 225m X 32m in size. It will carry 24-30 JZ-10 helos and ASW helos. Plus 750-1000 PLA troops...It will of course carry the full complement of amphibous equipment.

No I have no proof of this . It is just my opinion. I know the PRC is building landing craft by the dozen. Well they will need amphibous ships to deliver them to the landing area.I would not be surprised to see the PLAN with as many as 6 LPH/LHD type ships in the next 10 -12 years. the technology is there for the PLAN to build a blue water Navy.

rommel

08-30-2005, 02:53 PM

The Russian Varyag or the ex Riga, i think, will not be refit for military use. Instead, I think, that China is more likely to develloped a new carrier but on the basis of the Kuznetsov Class. I think that the PLAN will build an maybe slow (China's engine are not so good) but instead powerfully armed with SAM, SSM and with a jump deck for fixed wing plane. The SAM would be in VLS on the side of the ship along with SSM, (well, i really think that China will copy those russian design) They'll use Su-27 or 30 as plane and Dolphin as ASW chopper. But still, I don't know if there's a real need for China to build a ship like this. I think that carrier could also be a command post for fleet and will maybe carry a Marines Unit and support them ???

Dongfeng

08-30-2005, 03:49 PM

A recent photo of Varyag. The sign near the ship reads "no photographing!". Well, at least that didn't scare this guy away. I agree with bd popeye that there must be something going on. If the ship is going to be decommissioned or converted for civilian use, you don't need security like that!

http://show.imagehosting.us/show/617016/0/nouser_617/T0_-1_617016.jpeg (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=617016)

Gollevainen

08-31-2005, 12:00 PM

I'm also quite covinsed that the Varyag is going to be put on service or least the should do it. There's no question about the chinas need for carrier, It's neccerity if China will ever trying to act as a true superpower.

Why Varyag, and not some other desing? Well first of all i think that chinese shipbuilding indrusty isen't capaple at the moment of indegeniously build a carrier, or even small V/STOL or LPH type desings. And the capapility to build one isen't enough, you need to know what you are building. Althoug chinese have studied the ex-RAN Melbroune and of course the Varyag i still think it would take too long to estabilish a working carrier building industry. China have needed carriers for decades now and, in my obinion they shouldn't wait any longer.

The awnser is Varyag, i'm not aware about the details of those accusations that varyag was bought for the PLAN in the first place under the cover of "Macao's floating casino", so i'm not going to comment about those in this post. Anyway the fact that Varyag is in the chinese hands is the key. From all existing possibilities of chinese getting carrier, the Varyag is surely the best for three main reasons:

1. It's (as already mentioned) in China. Buing a foreing desing or existing carrier is quite difficould couse only countryes able to provide any carrier in even theory are USA and the EU members, France and Spain. USA won't sell one, thats for sure and the EU countryes are tied couse the weaponban.
Russia doesen't got any carrier left (they are already in china, but about those in later) and any other country isen't capaple to build one.

2. Varyag is relatively new. All other carriers out there wich could theoretically be availble for china are the Kiev, Minsk and Foch. The russian vessels, althoug they are in china, are both build in the 1970's and counting the defaults of soviet shipbuilding, exspecially in carrier field, they are in bad shape. Foch in other hands is build in the 1950's and althoug representing western shipbuilding, it's still quite ageing. Varyag in other had where laid down in 1985 so it's newer than the Gorshkov currently being refitted for India.

3 The overall concept. Varyag is as we all know a STOBAR type carrier wich means it have Ski-jump in the bow to launch aircrafts but normal arrested recovery. It's simblyer to use and maintain than steam catabult and a good choise for new carrier nations. The Varyag size is also an advatage as it leads us to the Airgroup. Now China dosen't posses any other suitable Jetfighters at the moment for carrier conversion than the Su-27/J-11. The J-10 is still on the prototype stage and to make twinengined (or even single-engine) naval version of it would take at least a decade. Also aqustion of MiG-29s isen't wise thing to do in my obinion. China isen't common whit the type and to purchase it would seriosly threaten the J-10 project as the both planes fill the similar role. Su-27 is in the otherhand introducted for PLAAF for over decade now and it propaply wouldn't be so big change to adjust the J-11 production line for the modifeid Su-33 line.
Now as we are left whit the Flanker, the only suitable carrier for it is Varyag. Kiev and Minsk would in theory (if underway similar conversion as the Gorshkov) be able to operate only MiG-29 size planes and Foch is so lightly build that it cannot operate such heavy aircraft as the MiG-29.

Varyag isen't whiout faults. It lacks engines wich is the main disavantage (tough so does Kiev and Minsk) . Also the overall desing of Varyag isen't the best possiple for any carrier (It's bit limited airwing due the desing concept, hangar is short and narrow) but that isen't enough reason to delete the carrier. Indians ar getting new steam plants for the Gorshkov and as it orginally used the same engines that Varyag where suposedly to use, it would be inpossiple to fit the same engines to Varyag also. The engine question would come agross whit idegenious carrier as well.

Varyag is in my obinion the ideal solution for PLANs need for carrier in this decade. Ofcourse China should estabilish a indegenious carrier production, but the Varyag is a good start. Also the development of own carriers is much easier if you allready have a carrier in use. The operational experience is vital to make a sucsesfull carrier, just look how Soviets grumbled whit their own desings...

bd popeye

08-31-2005, 02:04 PM

The operational experience is vital to make a sucsesfull carrier, just look how Soviets grumbled whit their own desings...

You are so right! The Soivets thought that buy building a carrier they could operate one. They were so wrong. They had so many problems with all their ships. Espeically with the powerplant. Ther propulsion plant on a CV must be top notch. And be capable of operating the ship at high speed for hours at a time. Without breakdowns.

Just because a country has a carrier does not mean they can operate it.. Look at Thialand. Have they ever done anything with their carrier?

It takes years of training to operate a CV/LPH in a safe manner. Presently it takes a USN CV from 9-15 months to prepare for a major deployment. And that is with a crew with many sailors that have years of experience operating carriers.

I'm sure the PLAN has considered all these factors. Thye may even now have a crew in training .We shall see.

utelore

08-31-2005, 02:30 PM

Yes, I agree with the ability of deploying a "True" blue water carrier group is a huge undertaking. I think you need to look at the operational needs of the PRC navy. What would be the objective of having a blue water carrier group with Fixed wing "fast movers"??.. I believe that the main function of any kind for a PRC Carrier would be to give the PRC Marine corp a large Helo platform to launch local offensive military operations. I think that would be less of a undertaking while at the same time provide the PRC with a much more needed "resource" as opposed to wasting resources on a "true" blue water carrier designed to launch fixed wing fighters....cheers ute

Gollevainen

08-31-2005, 03:02 PM

well that's why excatly PRC needs to get the Varyag operational...to train itself before more capaple ships can enter service. THe first step must be taken sometimes...the British, americans and japanese all pioner of fixedwing aviation they all had to start from the scarts and strugle thru all kind of difficoulties. Whit Varyag china can skip one phase of that long rocky road, to desing and build it's first carrier. Whit Varyag China saves yaers, maybe decades when learning to become a true bluewater fleet.

Sczepan

08-31-2005, 03:18 PM

I agree, to a true "Blue Water Navy" some carriers are need
and if the PLAN will start in the future they should start soon;
it needs years of experience to use a carrier ....

but I 've a problem with Varjag:
the engines:
1)
when they was installed in the "Varjag-Birthplace" in the Ukraijne, they didn_t work for long years - and going rusty more and more;
the Varjag must be towed to China, and the enginless Varjag hat big problems to pass the Bosporus; it will be a waste of money to turn circle by circle for weeks and weeks in the Black See, when these engines could made running
so I don_t think this engines (when they was installed before in ukraijnian Yard) coud be made running

2)
the Varjag was in Dalian - for arround 3 Years - at a Pier without cranes (we 've seen a lot of pix these time), so the PLAN could do a lot of things there - but they had no way to change the engines

3)
the time in dry dock was only enough for sand-blast and new painting, but not to change the engines

4) after painting nobody would cut the hull to install new engines

5) without running engines the Varjag is useless

So I can't believe, that the Varjag will be used in trainee-program, to get experience in carrier operations and and and .....

Gollevainen

08-31-2005, 03:23 PM

The engine proplem is the main disavantage in Varyag, but no way overhelming. As i said before China could go ahead whit similar engines beeing fitted for Gorshkov at the moment. I'll try to find the article about those new powerplants of the future indian carrier.

Sczepan

08-31-2005, 03:28 PM

its not the problem to get the engines .... China also could buy western dual use engines, I am sure, if China want they can have more as enough engines to power Varjag, Minsk and Kiew additional ....

there was no way (opportunitiy) to install new engines in Varjag
- not the last 3 years without crane at the pier
- and not the short days in dry dock

bd popeye

09-01-2005, 01:03 PM

there was no way (opportunitiy) to install new engines in Varjag

I've never been to the shipyard that holds the Varyag or the PRC for that manner but I think engines could have been installed. You really don't need a large crane. The engines could have been disassembled and re-assembled on board Varyag.

The below text is an answer that I posted to a similar question in our old forum.

Please read carefully. My opinion only..the technology does exist to change the power plants without a large pier side crane. Whether or not the PLAN has it I don't know. I know the USN has pulled reduction gears {they are very large} out of carriers. Also replaced nuclear power plants power cores. This is accomplished by cutting large holes in the decks above and rigging a crane in the hangar deck and lifting them out. The hangar on the Varyag has to be at least 6.5 meters high. High enough for a heavy lift crane. The engines could be disassembled in sections and then lifted out. And the new one lifted down and assembled in the engine room. Or as in the case of the USS Saratoga in the '70's a hole was cut in the side of the ship. But you all say this was not done. We all will just have to wait to see what happenes.

Sczepan

09-01-2005, 02:16 PM

bd popeye, your right:
.....the technology does exist to change the power plants without a large pier side crane. ....
but - didn't you think, this technology is expensive (disassembling the old engines in sections and then lifted out. And the new one lifted down and assembled in the engine room - or cuting a hole in the side of the ship) ;
at the other hand :confused: - hm - to cut a hole in all decks from landing deck about hangar down to engine room seems also very expansiv;
the last one didn't happened, we 've seen some pix of Varjag at the pier,
all times with closed landing deck
cuting a hole in the side of the ship .... hm, I've only seen parts of Varjag, the front part - indeed, not the back section .... this part was conceales by Containers ... :eek:
and, of course, by disassembling the old engines in sections and assembling the new one in the engine room .... they could use the hole of the aircraft hangar to handle these parts in- and outside .... :cool:

sounds interesting, so the engines and some equipment could be installed now, after 3 years of pier side - and we all didn't see this ...
top secret, no fotos on pier,
the Varjags pier side was opposed to starting and landing aeroplanes in Dalian,
and our "roof photograph" in Dalian, in front of the Shipyard, also didn't see these pier side of Varjag ....
We all will just have to wait to see what happenes.
your right again

bd popeye

09-01-2005, 03:54 PM

but - didn't you think, this technology is expensive (disassembling the old engines in sections and then lifted out. And the new one lifted down and assembled in the engine room - or cuting a hole in the side of the ship) ;

I've seen it done my friend. On the USS Constellation CV-64 in the early 80's. The reduction gears were removed and replaced in about 5 weeks time...Expensive? You bet. The same technology could repalce engines.

sounds interesting, so the engines and some equipment could be installed now, after 3 years of pier side - and we all didn't see this ...

Nope nobody saw a thing. Not me not you nobody! :confused:
Does not mean nothing happened. Only time will tell and like I said..We shall see!

Hey would'nt we all be a surprized if the PLAN unvieled the Varyag as an LPH type ship loaded down with JZ-10's and Ka-28's. :eek: ..well it could happen! :rolleyes:

Sczepan

09-02-2005, 05:20 AM

Gollevainen

09-02-2005, 08:17 AM

well, ists only a possibility, not more - but the Varjag could carrie more as only JZ-10's and Ka-28's;
didn't the PLA Naval Air Force (PLANAF UI unit) have some Su-30MK2 as part of the Ease Sea Fleet? The 24 examples of the upgraded Su-30MKK2 variant should be enough to arm the Varjag. :)

And about the J-10: didn't we have seen some pix of J-10, including a arresting hook? May be the J 10 is also designed to be used from carriers .... ;)

well first of all, those "pics" whit J-10 carrying arrestor hook are clear photoshoped ones...I once read an article about F-16 and how it isen't suitable for carrier operations due it's airintake arragment. Now i don't have much knowlidge on airframes so if anyone have more info about that, please enlighten me. But anyway as i was saying J-10 have quite similar arragment than F-16 so thats makes me doupt that the chinese fighter might never be usefull as a carrier plane.

The Su-30 in otherhand is quite useless as a carrier plane due the ski-jump and the handycaps of STOBAR arragment. To my knowlidge the aircraft taking of from the ski-jump needs power-to-weigt-ratio to be over 1. Thats limits greatly the suitable planes and their capapilityes. SU-30 wouldn't be able to use it's prominent Air-to-groud ordnance and not able to carry so much fuel that orginal two-seat flanker concept, the ultra-long range interceptor concept would'nt be an option either.

bd popeye

09-02-2005, 10:50 AM

well first of all, those "pics" whit J-10 carrying arrestor hook are clear photoshoped ones...I once read an article about F-16 and how it isen't suitable for carrier operations due it's air intake arragment. Now I don't have much knowlidge on airframes so if anyone have more info about that, please enlighten me

An F-16 landing gear and airframe are not suitable for carrier arrested landings. Carrier borne aircraft have strengthened landing gear and airframes. There is tremendous stress created when making an arrested landing. Therefore putting an arrestor hook on an aircraft does not make an aircraft capable of arrested landings.

As for the F-16 intake. The intakes on the old A-7 Cosair & F-8 Crusader was pretty low. They were great carrier aircraft.

Sczepan

09-03-2005, 06:21 AM

...
The Su-30 in otherhand is quite useless as a carrier plane due the ski-jump and the handycaps of STOBAR arragment.
wait a moment, please:
as I know all the SU-30 variants have the same engines; also the Su-33 (Su-27K) which is a carrier-based variant that first flew in May 1985, and entered service in the Russian Navy in 1994. The air regiment comprising 24 fighters of the type was formed up on Russia's only operating aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov (which is simillar to Varjag). They all have 2 Lyulka AL-31 afterburning turbofans, only the weight of the SU-33 with a maxim of 30,000 kg is lighter as SU 30 MK I (maxim. 34,000 kg), but they normal have a weight of 25,670 kg. Also the normal payload (1,400 kg) seems to be simillar, the maxim payload at the carrier based SU-33 is smaller.
Source: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-30.htm

O.k., the lift and hanger needs folded wings (like the SU-33 have) to be used - but PLAN-pilots could use the deck of varjag for touch and go, landing and start operations and so to get experience and carrier licence. After that time it should be no problem to buy SU-33 from russia - or to modifi the Chinese licensed copy of Su-27SK, the J-11 (as J-11 C )
see http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j11.asp.

Please, its only a possibility - but could be a realistic option;
...
The intakes on the old A-7 Cosair & F-8 Crusader was pretty low. They were great carrier aircraft. they used Catapults, so the engine don_t need so much power; thats why i vote for catapults at the angled deck of varjag. China could copy and develop the one of the Melbourne ....

Gollevainen

09-03-2005, 08:37 AM

wait a moment, please:
as I know all the SU-30 variants have the same engines; also the Su-33 (Su-27K) which is a carrier-based variant that first flew in May 1985, and entered service in the Russian Navy in 1994. The air regiment comprising 24 fighters of the type was formed up on Russia's only operating aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov (which is simillar to Varjag). They all have 2 Lyulka AL-31 afterburning turbofans, only the weight of the SU-33 with a maxim of 30,000 kg is lighter as SU 30 MK I (maxim. 34,000 kg), but they normal have a weight of 25,670 kg. Also the normal payload (1,400 kg) seems to be simillar, the maxim payload at the carrier based SU-33 is smaller.
....

But my point was that whit ski-jump, THe Su-33 or Su-30 both cannot use their maxium playload...they are limited to basicly for AA armament...therefor there's no avantage whit Su-30 against the Su-33...

By the way has anyone got some up to date info of the Su-33KUb???
http://www.lindenhillimports.com/images/Su-27KUB%2003%200823%20600.JPG

Sczepan

09-03-2005, 01:43 PM

sorry for missunderstandig you, my english seems not to be the best one ....But my point was that whit ski-jump, THe Su-33 or Su-30 both cannot use their maxium playload...
thats why i vote for catapults at the angled deck of varjag.
China could copy and develop the one of the Melbourne ....

btw.:
reportet:
F-8 Chinese fighter was reportedly shot off of a steam catapult
China has apparently been working on an aircraft carrier program since the early 1980s, and as part of this effort a F-8 Chinese fighter was reportedly shot off of a steam catapult at the Lushun naval base in 1987.

Related link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/lushun.htm ...could anybody tell us more about the story???

I am also interested in stuff about http://www.centurychina.com/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi/plaboard/?cmd=get&cG=33636313734393&zu=33363631373234&v=2&gV=1&p=#3661749
1) PLAN Project 9935 [Aircraft Carrier]FAS ...
2) PLAN Project 9985 Melbourne 48,0000 4 steam catapult...
it sounds like phantasie or sf, but I should clear it up .....

Gollevainen

09-03-2005, 04:37 PM

those melbrounes catabult's are small and old...desinged to launch 50's era jets...I woudl imagine it being quite a task to get them strong enough to launch Su-33...

...and soviets tryed to do similar thing based on the Vikrant's catabults, same ones that where onboard Melbroune. They failed to copy them and therefor settled whit the Ski-jump. No offence to Chinese engineering skils, but if soviets couldn't do it, i seriously doupt that chinese could do it either...

about that project 9935, i run across it a while ago and from the start knew it was just some military enthusiast wet dream. If you look hard enough those meansures that the article gave you will figure it out by yourself.

Sczepan

09-03-2005, 05:25 PM

about that project 9935, i run across it a while ago and from the start knew it was just some military enthusiast wet dream. If you look hard enough those meansures that the article gave you will figure it out by yourself.thats what I thought to .... but sometimes I check out other professional meanings about that :)

and about the Melbourne catapult:
they launched planes like the Skyhawk (take off weight (normal) 11,113kg) or Super Etendard (max.take off weight:, 12000 kg).
The JZ 8 (which the story of http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/lushun.htm told) have a normal take-off 13,850kg; max take-off 16,580kg, as I know, so the story seems ..... :rolleyes: (without by redesign a new catapult, may be based by and develope out of the Melbourne design);
I think, chinese ingeneers could do the same thing as brazil ingeneers - they build a new one to be used by the "Minas Gerais".

The Melbourne-catapult - without modifications - only could be used to lift small trainers and ground attack planes like the JL-9/FTC-2000 ADVANCED JET TRAINER (Normal take-off 7,800kg; max take-off 9,800kg) and these planes only could be used to support amphibious operations - but this would be another topic ;)

Gollevainen

09-04-2005, 04:43 AM

The Melbourne-catapult - without modifications - only could be used to lift small trainers and ground attack planes like the JL-9/FTC-2000 ADVANCED JET TRAINER (Normal take-off 7,800kg; max take-off 9,800kg) and these planes only could be used to support amphibious operations - but this would be another topic

well this is chinese aircraft carrier topic and aircrafts are big part of it so i'll think we can continue.

Those small armed jet trainers aren't the best solution for close support due their limited playload...They are usefull only in very low-threat area and those areas are not worht of vasting sole carrier...To close-support, Su-25 or A-10 size aircraft would be ideal and those kind of planes need heavyer catabults.
But Su-25 have taken of from the Kuznetsovs ski-jump...touhg whitout the heavy playload needed for close-support operations...

Sczepan

09-04-2005, 05:55 AM

well this is chinese aircraft carrier topic and aircrafts are big part of it so i'll think we can continue.
...
Indeed, I think the PLAN should build amphibious carriers soon - to be fitted by helos and small ground attack aircrafts, and in my opinion the blue prints of the ol Melbourne could be tha basic of a new design.
You remember our discussion in the old forum? I think, the speculations there about a new (redesigned) amphibious carrier ar not so concrete to use the Professional Area > Professional Discussions. We have no facts about this idea, without studying of Melbourne by chinese naval ingeneers and military necessary. So someone my add 1 and 1 and create the same idea.

In my opinion this should be a new topic in the member-aerea, like the Minsk- and Kiew topic. It's also another kind of ship .....

Gollevainen

09-04-2005, 06:21 AM

actually there is amph carrier discussion slowly starting in the navy forum...

bd popeye

09-04-2005, 05:31 PM

I read a lot of post about catapults. And how small the Melborne was etc.

I was stationed on the USS Hancock CVA-19. We had A-4's and F-8's in our air wing. Although small the A-4 was a very reliable attack aircraft. No it could not carry the payload of a larger aircraft but they served the USN well for many years. However small A/C like this do limit the mission. But are well suited for ground attack.

In the old forum someone mentioned the old Russian Frog foot. This would be the type aircraft the PLAN would need for a CTOL CV.

Gollevainen

09-05-2005, 04:25 AM

USS Hancock CVA-19.

wasent she a essex class??

based on operational history, no Colossus/majestetic class ligth carrier has operated heavyer aircraft than A-4. Argentinian navy tested the Super Etendard, but didnt but it on service.

Im not sure but the length of the catapult is major factor when discussing about the power of the catabult, am i rigth?
And if PLAN is planning to fit more powerfull catabult on Colossus desing, and it would considerably increase the length of the catapult. That would but the already tigth deckspace into future stress and limits the negible deckparking space to nil...

And about the frogfoot, if PLAN would like to take that one to sea, it would need a carrier able top field A-7/FA-18/A-6/ and MiG-29K size aircraft. Frogfoot isent exactly a 'tiny' plane...

bd popeye

09-05-2005, 11:01 AM

based on operational history, no Colossus/majestetic class ligth carrier has operated heavyer aircraft than A-4. Argentinian navy tested the Super Etendard, but didnt but it on service.

On the Hancock we could launch A-3 Skywarriors. they were pretty big. They were lnow as a "Whale"

Yes the Hancock was a Essex class.

Im not sure but the length of the catapult is major factor when discussing about the power of the catabult, am i rigth?

I'm pretty sure. But don't quote me on that :confused: ..The USN is very proctective of it's catapults. As I mentioned In the old forum all 5 of the USN retired carriers and the now sunk CV-66 had their catapults removed.

Also on the FS Charles De Gaulle the catapults major re-fits are done by workers fron Newport News shipyard.

Neko

09-06-2005, 12:34 PM

I believe that the Blue Angel's transport was also capable of being launched from a carrier deck, although I can't remember any specifics off the top of my head.

bd popeye

09-08-2005, 12:46 PM

I believe that the Blue Angel's transport was also capable of being launched from a carrier deck, although I can't remember any specifics off the top of my head.

The Blue Angels use a C-130 for transport.

Neko the US Navy did test landing & launching a C-130 on a CV. That was the USS Forrestal CVA-59. But that was in 1963. The plane made 21 landings and takeoffs. No catapults were used. The aircraft was deck launched. Check this website. Pics included!

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp

Neko

09-08-2005, 01:37 PM

Well, the only reason why it crossed my mind was that my first CO was both former enlisted and the former Co of the Blue Angels. The whole thing was quite amazing, seeing such a massive aircraft (Launched with rockets, of all things) fly.

Sczepan

09-09-2005, 02:11 PM

A recent photo of Varyag. .....
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/617016/0/nouser_617/T0_-1_617016.jpeg (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=617016)
isn't there a big hole in the after section of the hull - behind the island?
There should be the hangar lift locatat, but it seems to be a bigger hole ....,

and what about that?

bd popeye

09-09-2005, 03:06 PM

Sczepan, The picture is not that clear but I think the "aircraft lift"(elevator) is simply lowered to the hangar. I know on USN Cv's this is common practice inport. It allows for a platform so supplies can be brought on board in port.

Sczepan

09-10-2005, 02:45 PM

youright, its the normal elevator-hole

Sczepan

12-30-2005, 07:28 AM

....but I 've a problem with Varjag:
the engines:
1)
when they was installed in the "Varjag-Birthplace" in the Ukraijne, they didn_t work for long years - and going rusty more and more;
the Varjag must be towed to China, and the enginless Varjag hat big problems to pass the Bosporus; it will be a waste of money to turn circle by circle for weeks and weeks in the Black See, when these engines could made running
so I don_t think this engines (when they was installed before in ukraijnian Yard) coud be made running

2)
the Varjag was in Dalian - for arround 3 Years - at a Pier without cranes (we 've seen a lot of pix these time), so the PLAN could do a lot of things there - but they had no way to change the engines

3)
.......... I ve to correct me - there was a crane at the Pier. big enough, to change the engines;
it is the small yellow crane near the stern of Varjag.

Sczepan

01-22-2006, 06:17 AM

the question was: how to make the carrier run with full operation speed?

I can't believe, that the Ukrainian engines - if they was installed at the Varjag before towing to dalian - becomes running.
So they have had to be replaced by other engines.

I found a little bit interesting informations:

1)
Dalian New Shipyard is the biggest modern shipbuilding yard under China State Shipbuilding Industry Corporation and an exceptionally large corporation and an export base for shipbuilding granted by the State.
It is supported by the Dalian Marine Diesel Works, a marine propeller plant, and Dalian Ship Research and Design Institute.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/dalian-new.htm

2)
Dalian Marine Diesel Works (DMD) building slow-speed Sulzer and MAN engines under licence;
http://www.dalian-gov.net/chinese/2000qiye/qy-e/chycyj-e.htm
see also:
http://www.manbw.com/article_003238.html
http://www.dmd-cn.com/

3)
Following the link "products" at http://www.manbw.com/article_003238.html you may see a link "Marine Power"
and there http://www.manbw.com/products you find "Two-Stroke engines", "Medium-speed engines" and "High Speed" Marine Diesels.
MAN producing also
two-Stroke engines
http://www.manbw.com/category_000077.html
Medium-speed engines
http://www.manbw.com/category_000078.html
and high speed diesel engines,
http://www.manbw.com/category_000259.html
http://www.manbw.com/category_000081.html
http://www.manbw.com/category_000297.html

4)
The capacitiy of MAN diesels engines in commercial high speed ships seems to be great.

a)
The Hapag-Lloyd containership "Shanghai Express" and "Berlin Express" have large MAN Diesel engines,
93 360 hp which allow a operating speed of 24,6 Kn or 46 km/h.
http://www.shipphotos.co.uk/images/shanghaiexpress.jpg
2002 / 88493gt - launched as Berlin Express, built by Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ulsan (1364),
operated by Hapag-Lloyd Container Linie

b)
The "Colombo Express", dimension of 335 Metern lenght to 43 Metern (104.000 ts) have
engines of 68.640 kw or 93.500 hp with a operating speed of 25 Kn (50 km/h).
http://www.hapag-lloyd.de/images/gallery/ColomboEx21_72dpi_rdax_350x235.jpg

c)
The MS Norwegian Dawn is powered by 14 V 80/60 MAN diesels Type
http://www.dieselpub.com/ww/news_detail.asp?pick=253
http://www.ship-technology.com/contractors/propulsion/man/
http://www.ship-technology.com/contractors/propulsion/man/man2.html
lenght 294.13 m to 32.2 m to 8,2m; 92.000 BRZ; 2 x 19.500 KW will allow 24,6 kn operating speed (49 km/h)
http://www.meyerwerft.de/main.asp?what=ship&id=1262
http://www.cruiselines.us/ndawn01.jpg

d)
MAN B&W Diesel Ltd have received an order to supply four, 20RK280 engines to Italian ship builder Fincantieri to be used in a 122 meter monohull fast ferry.
The MAN B&W Diesel Ltd 20RK280 engines are continuously rated with classification society type approval at 9000 kWb at 1000 r/min.
Each engine will drive through a ZF 6000 NRH gearbox to Rolls Royce Ka Me Wa S140 II waterjets.
The vessel .... will have an approximate speed of 40 knots and an operating speed of 36 knots, which will be achieved at 85% engine power.
http://www.dieselpub.com/ww/news_detail.asp?pick=28

e)
The same engines could drive a vessel like the Varjag,
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fleet/russian/surface/kuznetsov-carrier-pr1143-07.jpg
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fleet/russian/11435.htm
Displacement: 67,500.0 (Tons) (Fully Loaded); Length: 280.0 (Metres); Beam: 37.0 (Metres); Draught: 10.5 (Metres)
and wouldn't give the same engine more speed to an smaller ship - didn't you think so?

(about the power of MAN high speed marine diesels - A VIRTUAL EXPERIMENT TOOL FOR MARINE DIESEL ENGINE POWERPLANT ANALYSIS -
including the Shanghai-Express engine see also)
www.lme.naval.ntua.gr/publications/papers/downloads/2002/imam1.doc

5)
China ordered some 12K98MC and S35MC Marine engines,
http://www.manbw.com/category_000297.html
http://www.manbw.com/category_000265.html
http://www.manbw.com/category_000333.html

The last years, at least in 2005 MAN high-speed Marine Diesels was sold to Chinese Yards.
German sources say, China now could produce all Marine Diesels of MAN by licence.

p.s.: The RK 280 MAN seems ideal for high speed military vessels
http://www.manbw.com/article_002527.html
http://www.manbw.com/category_000259.html

So:
there is a possibility, that Varjag got new engines by chinese build MAN-licence

ANOTHER POSSIBILITY:
Dalian COSCO Marine Eng
http://www.dmedockyard.com/map/neiye-eng.htm
http://www.dmedockyard.com/news/main3e.asp - as I know- also produce MTU engines by licence;

http://www.dmedockyard.com/

bd popeye

01-22-2006, 03:28 PM

Sczepan

01-22-2006, 03:59 PM

Desiel engines are certianly reliable. But the two remaining USN conventionally powered CV's(80,000 tons dis) have eight boilers, four geared steam turbines, four shafts with 280,000 shaft horsepower and in the case of the Kitty Hawk ahve been operating since 1961....
please, don_t missunderstand me:
1) I just found some information which could be a possibility, also could be the wrong track;
so I know:
The original Jianghu class frigates had steam boilers which was blamed for the notorious short range handicap of the PLAN during the 70s and 80s. It seems this was dealt with by upgrading to German diesel engines. I remember the original WWII German pocket battleships were also famous for their long range due to the then innovative use of diesel power, and the russian carriers have had big problems with there engines (boiler explosions, if I remember right). May be the PLAN have better experience with diesels instead of steam boilers - and the PLAN-Leaders trust in diesels.
Diesels directly power the vessel. In the case of steam, energy (via diesel, nuclear) is needed to convert water into steam to drive the turbines. Also the steam is needed to work the catapulte - but the Varjag as I see by new sat pix did not have this installation (see pix at http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529&page=30); so the Varjag don't need boilers to serv a catapult.

Other things that come to mind:
1) More maintenance, higher cost
2) Safety and surviability of vessel
3) There is also time required to workup sufficient pressure to start the turbines.

Chinese yards have good relations to produce modern diesel engines, espec. Dalian shipyard have this know how:
http://www.dieselpub.com/ww/news_detail.asp?pick=255
MAN B&W Diesel and CSIC Intensify Cooperation

The MAN B&W Diesel Group and the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) agreed upon comprehensive cooperation with regard to the development and production of large diesel engines. The frame agreement that was recently signed in Munich also provides for close cooperation in the purchase and production of components, personnel training and license production of MAN B&W turbochargers. ....
The Chinese shipbuilding group already holds licenses for the manufacture of two-stroke and medium-speed, four-stroke engines. The frame agreement that has now been signed comprises a closer technical cooperation covering all engine types. In the future, large medium-speed engines, as well as radial and axial turbochargers will be license-built by CSIC and their associated companies. In addition, CSIC will be supported by MAN B&W in the establishment of their own crankshaft manufacturing site in China.
and http://www.dieselpub.com/ww/news_detail.asp?pick=149
Hudong Heavy Machinery Co. Ltd. and Dalian Marine Diesel Works ...have been producing MAN B&W Diesel engines since the mid-eighties and so far they total almost 750 engines a total output in excess of 7 000 000 kW. ....

2) I am also looking for steam (gas-) turbines, but I didn't found some tracks leading me to Dalian Shipyard

bd popeye

01-22-2006, 07:38 PM

Other things that come to mind:
1) More maintenance, higher cost
2) Safety and surviability of vessel
3) There is also time required to workup sufficient pressure to start the turbines.

Well we have diffrent ideas about turbines...That's ok.:) But I can speak only for the USN. They have only a handful of ships that still have boilers..older LPDs LHA/LHD's two conventionally powerd CV's. All the rest are gas(JP-5) turbines instead of steam. While the USN like all navies has had some engineering maintenance problems but nothing to the scope of exploisions and fires in steam plants or turbine engines. It does reqiure lots of time to build up proper steam pressure. I don't know if the USN turbines cost more to maintain than a desiel engine.

Nothing wrong with desiels but they have limited ablity to power a vessel the size of a CV at great speeds. That's my opinion.

Good discussion!

Sczepan

01-23-2006, 06:10 PM

Good points - lets talk about gas turbines and Dalian

So the question is:
2.1. did China imported gas turbines by western or ukrainian/russian builders?

2.2. have China experience and know how to build there own?

2) I am also looking for steam (gas-) turbines, but I didn't found some tracks leading me to Dalian Shipyard

Lets talk about the last Navy vessels, build in Dalian Shipyard:

The Shenzhen ('Luhai') class multirole destroyers - one of the last in Dalian build (1997-98) modern destroyers of PLAN - has follwing Propulsion:
CODOG arrangement consisting of two Ukraine GT25000 gas turbines rated at 48,600hp, and two Chinese licensed-built MTU 12V 1163TB83 diesels.
www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/051b.asp

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/luhai.htm reportet:
The Luhai was built at Dalian, a notable difference between the previous Luhu-class and Luhai-class and the Luyang is the replacement of the diesel-gas-turbines with gas-turbine engines. This follow-on to the Luhu destroyer has a wider hull (broader beam) to accommodate the different and somewhat larger and bulkier marine gas-turbine engine. The post-Tiananmen sanctions imposed by the US precluded acquisition of additional GE LM 2500 engines like those in the Luhu. These follow-on ships use Ukrainian G525000 gas turbines, selected due to a combination of technical and political factors. additional http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/luhai_luhu_luda.htm
Luhai 167 Shenzhen ...Launched in October 1997 at Dalian Shipyard and commissioned in late 1998... Main powerplant are locally manufactured boilers (Type 453B?) which give it a top speed of 31kt. and about the last 051C 115 Shenyang type:..The ship is belived to be powered by boilers...

another source http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=797&z=30 reportet
... Luhu DDG-112 featured imported GE LM-2500 main propulsion gas turbine engines. The Tiananmen Square crackdown and ensuing U.S. embargo halted further LM-2500 imports, on which China had counted. An alternate source was the huge Nikolayev plant in Ukraine that provided main propulsion for all major Soviet warships. The combined design and production team of Mashproekt and Zarya sold four gas turbine engines to China in July 1997. These became the gas turbines on the Luhu DDG-113 and the lead Luhai DDG-167. Ukrainian Mashproekt has a license agreement for GT-25000 gas turbines with Xian Aero-Engine Corporation and the Harbin marine boiler and turbine works. Harbin is the second largest marine generator plant in China and is just up the railroad line from Dalian shipyard. Follow-on guided missile destroyers probably will also incorporate Ukrainian gas turbine engines.

Both classes of vessels have two MTU 12V TB83 diesels designed by Siemens AG of Germany. Similar units have been used on new Chinese domestic and export frigates as well as modern German-built MEKO frigates and other Australian and Spanish ships. The China state shipbuilding corporation, which includes the modern New Dalian shipyard where these ships are built, advertises licensed production of marine generator sets, diesels and switchboards. Because of the shipyard’s proximity to the Siemens AG office in Guangzhou, which is working on the massive three river dam project, Siemens equipment on new construction warships since the 1980s certainly was built in Chinese plants. The Shaanxi diesel engine works has a license agreement for 1163 high-speed diesel engines with MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH, Germany.
; the last source also reportet something about diesels engines or Combination Diesel + GasTurbines ... Dalian Marine Diesel Works has licensees of MAN K90, K80 and K60MC-S type diesels, where gas turbines, can be applied www.manbw.dk/documents/p291_0108.pdf

China and Britain agreed in the early 1980s to upgrade the Type 051 destroyers with Royce-Rolls TM3B gas turbines.

So it seems, that in the 1980s and 1990s chinese Navy didn'd used gas turbines.

this sounds like "Dalian yard major propulsion system ar diesels, and they didn't used the gas-turbines tech so much in the past" and indeed - the 1992 also in Dalian build Zhuhai ('Luda-II' class) surface warfare frigate Nr. 166 (Zhuhai) got a Propulsion of Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts, 60,000 shp, 32 knots;

So I suspect: there ar not to much experience of gas-turbines in Dalian.

but wait - didn't the speak about:
"... Ukrainian Mashproekt has a license agreement for GT-25000 gas turbines with Xian Aero-Engine Corporation and the Harbin marine boiler and turbine works...."
see http://www.afcea.org/SIGNAL/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=797&z=30
and http://nippon.zaidan.info/seikabutsu/2003/00183/contents/0009.htm
sounds intersting, but sorry, that are to only sources I found

Harbin Marine Boiler and Turbine Research Institute - according to http://www.csic.com.cn/portal/Csic/en/organizational.htm and www.softwar.net/pladef.html - is also part of China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), like Dalian Yard. So there is a possibility for using licenced gas turbines....

hmm - my feeling says:
Dalian Shipyard preference diesels, may be in combination with gas turbines, but not sole gas turbines. To me it seems they don't have enough experience in gas turbines.

in this constellation I suspect "Varjag could get main diesel-propulsion" - CODAD or CODAG

p.s:
Dr. Peilin Zhou, Visiting Professor to Dalian Maritime University, China, since 1997, is working on COGAS (combined gas turbine with steam turbine cycles) propulsion system studies, COGAS marine propulsion system simulation, an analytical approach; so they a developing new propulsions
www.na-me.ac.uk/per_pages/academic_staff/pzhou.htm

Sczepan

01-29-2006, 11:46 AM

well, lets look about the propulsion-systems,´used by navy ships which was build by different chinese yards:

Dalian SY.
Shenzhen ('Luhai') class multirole destroyers (1999 and further more/Type 051 C):
- CODOG: 2 Chinese licensed-built MTU 12V 1163TB83 cruise diesels, 2 boost Ukraine GT25000 gas turbines,
Zhuhai ('Luda-II' class) surface warfare frigate (1992)
- Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts,
Jinan ('Luda-I') class surface warfare frigates (161-165 /
- Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts
=> the developement is steam turbines => CODOG / MAN or MTU diesels

Qiuxin SY & Jiangnan SY, respectively, Shanghai
Type 052C (Lanzhou class) air defence missile destroyers (2004)
- CODOG, 2 Shaanxi diesels (Chinese copy of the MTU 20V956TB92) and 2Ukraine-made DA80/DN80 gas turbines
TYPE 052B (GUANGZHOU CLASS) MISSILE DESTROYER (2004)
- CODOG, consisting of two Ukraine-made DA80/DN80 gas turbines and two Shaanxi diesels (Chinese copy of the MTU 20V956TB92)
Harbin ('Luhu') class multirole destroyers (1993, 1996):
- CODOG; 2 MTU cruise diesels, 8,840 bhp, 20 knots; 2 LM2500 boost gas turbines (possibly Ukranian turbines in 113)
Xiamen ('Jianghu-I') class light patrol frigates
- 4 SEMT-Pielstick diesels, 2 shafts
=> the developement is SEMT-Pielstick-diesels => CODOG / MTU diesels

Zhonghua SY, Shanghai
Jinan ('Luda-I') class surface warfare frigates (131-134)
- Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts

Hudong SY, Shanghai and Huangpu SY, Guangzhou:
Ma’anshan class (Type 054)
- combined diesel and diesel (CODAD);primary propulsion is two French-made SEMT Pielstick diesel engines - secondary propulsion is two indigenous Shaanxi diesels (Chinese copy of the MTU 20V 956TB92
'Jiangwei-II' class light frigates (1998 and further more)
- 4 MTU diesels, 2 shafts,
Anqing ('Jiangwei') class light frigates (1991 ....)
- 4 MTU diesels, 2 shafts,
Zigong ('Jianghu-V') class light patrol frigates (1993-1996)
- 2 SEMT-Pielstick diesels,
Siping ('Jianghu-IV' class) light ASW frigate (1986)
- 2 SEMT-Pielstick diesels, 2 shafts
Huangshi ('Jianghu-III') class light surface warfare frigates (1986 - 1993)
- 2 SEMT-Pielstick diesels, 2 shafts
Xiamen ('Jianghu-II') class light patrol frigates
- 4 SEMT-Pielstick diesels, 2 shafts
=> the developement is: SEMT-Pielstick diesels => MTU diesels

So there is a high possibility for using MAN- or MTU dieses if Dalian Shipyard is going to power the Varjag-hull

Hudong Heavy Machinery Co. Ltd. and Dalian Marine Diesel Works have been producing MAN B&W Diesel engines since the 1980s. So far they total almost 750 engines with an amalgamated output in excess of 7,000,000 kW. For both licensees this means an increase in their already considerable output of MC engine power.
(Source: http://www.hansa-online.de/print.asp?artikelID=536)

I just found more big, diesel powered, high speed ships, which ar powered by these kind of diesels which also can be build in Dalian:

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/gotland/images/gotland5.jpg
Gotland is powered by four 20RK270 four-stroke diesel engines with a rating of 7,080kW at 1,030rpm. Each powers a Kamewa 125 SII waterjet, giving the vessel a service speed of 35 knots.
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/gotland/

also the SuperSeaCat (lenght 100m, 17.1m beam, depth of 10.7m, draught of 2.75m and dead-weight of 340t) is powered by four 20RK270 diesel engines. Each engine is rated at 7,080kW to give a service speed of 38 knots at full displacement,
and the vessel has a maximum continuous speed of 40 knots at full load.
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/superseacat/
http://www.diabox.fi/Sivusto/kuvat/Superseacat-1-1.jpg
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/superseacat/images/seacat1.jpg

This could be a possibility to power the Varjag - but I am looking on for gas turbines and Dalian Shipyard.

Gollevainen

01-29-2006, 12:17 PM

Sorry, i've been bit busy and i haven't noticed your posts in here.

First of all that Superseacat is quite nice ship, i've traveled few times with it from Helsinki to Tallin.

But anyway to the point. If i'm correct, you suggest that Varyag could be powered with Diesel engines. Frankly i doupt it. I'm not so aware of the general performance rations of different diesel engines but i've noticed that they are quite rarely powering modern main surfance combatants around the world. Only exeptions are frenchs which are using diesels quite effectively on their Frigates. Diesel engines poweres many secondary role ships, some quite large, like amphipious ships and auxiliary ships. The default of diesel engines is quite evident, the speed. Like in those examples that you gave, Ship as big as Varyag, the highest speed possiple to achive seems to be around 25 knots. Clearly not sufficient enough for fleet operations.
So if Varyag is going to be fitted with diesels, it would mean that PLAN is not going to use her as real operational carrier during all her service time. It would end up like many have suggested, to simply just aviation training ship. Perhaps not the result many of us PLAN fans would like it to turn to be;)

Sczepan

01-29-2006, 02:29 PM

I don't believe only in gas turbines, may be they could be used additional, but the main (primary) engines ...
I think, the PLAN and Dalian shipyard ar sedate for diesel propulsion,

and the MAN RK280 engine (could be produced in Dalian Marine Diesel Works) is the most powerful and fuel efficient 1000 R/min diesel engine in the world.

If four of these engines gives the seacat a maximum continuous speed of 40 knots at full load, what could some more gives to Varjag?
Of course, seacat is a high speed vessel, constructed by light material like Aluminium, but some more engines (diesel and/or gas turbines) would even out more weight and bigger dimensions.
Didn't you think so?

Gollevainen

01-29-2006, 03:34 PM

Yeas ofcourse, but we must remember that Varyag is 60,000 full load Aircraft carrier where as Superseacat is fast catamaran passanger ship. The most important factor is that can any diesel engine availble at the moment anywhere in the world give Varyag size ship a enough power so that she can run approx. 30 knots required for real fleet work?

Sczepan

01-29-2006, 04:22 PM

...Varyag is 60,000 full load Aircraft carrier ..... The most important factor is that can any diesel engine availble at the moment anywhere in the world give Varyag size ship a enough power so that she can run approx. 30 knots required for real fleet work?
1)
diesels can give a operating speed of 25 knots to ships of 104.000 ts (see page 3)
2)
did the Varjag need 30 knots all the time?
I didn't think so!
30 knots could be usefull by starting and landing of planes,
but I don't think they will run this approximate speed all the time 24hr/7days a week, and - I think - they could have this speed by adding additional engines (like turbines)
3)
so the result coud be:
primary engines: diesels
secound engines: ?
could become CODOG or CODAG

Gollevainen

01-29-2006, 04:32 PM

That migth be more better solution... I once read that Argentinians were planning to re-engine their 25 de mayo whit diesels, it just popped my head...

why not a CODAG arragment, but then the guestion is, what size of gas turbine is required to give speed dashes of 30 kn to aircraft carrier size boat???

Sczepan

01-29-2006, 04:54 PM

... what size of gas turbine is required to give speed dashes of 30 kn to aircraft carrier size boat???
thats what I am looking for;
I didn't heard any rumors about selling russian or ukrainian gas turbines to chinese / Dalian Shipyard;
may be they can got local build / chinese copies,

but how to find information about gas turbines and dalian shipyard?

some information about marine propulsion is at this side, may be we found a track to Dalian ....
http://www.ship-technology.com/contractors/propulsion/

additional MTU China:
http://www.mtu-friedrichshafen.com.sg/china/
http://www.mtu-friedrichshafen.com/en/frameset/f_prdi.htm
http://www.mtu-online.com/en/wo/woasChina.htm
http://www.mtu-friedrichshafen.com/en/wo/woasChina.htm

additional chinese products:
http://www.alibaba.com/productsearch/Marine_Engine/2.html

Croq

01-30-2006, 08:28 AM

bd popeye

01-30-2006, 11:36 AM

Nihao!

Take a look at this picture, http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=153&d=1137790732.

Since you been talking about what kind of propulsion the Chinese Aircraft Carrier would be using couldn't somebody who's better at math than me compute the size of that hole which is the shape of a upside down L straight out from the "Island" on the ship. Then somebody who's alot better at marine propulsion than me tell us what's the biggest piece in an engine and how big it is.

Maybe then we can get an answer to why is there a big hole in the Varyag carrier, or how big a hole in a carrier need to be.

I don't think that a "big hole" in the flight deck on the Varayag. If it is it probally not large enough to lift an engine down to be installed. I explained that in the older forum. That sort of work is usally done in the hangar deck on USN CV's.

My post from the old forum;
@ bd popeye, do you realy think the PLAN could lift new big engines in the ship - without a crane - or they could made the old engines run, which probably was installed before the Varjag left the ukrainian Yard ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read carefully. My opinion only..the technology does exist to change the power plants without a large pier side crane. Weather or not the PLAN has it I don't know. I know the USN has pulled reduction gears {they are very large} out of carriers. Also replaced nuclear power plants. This is accomplished by cutting large holes in the decks above and rigging a crane in the hangar deck and lifting them out. The hangar on the Varyag has to be at least 6.5 meters high. High enough for a heavy lift crane. The engines could be disassembled in sections and then lifted out. And the new one lifted down and assembled in the engine room. Or as in the case of the USS Saratoga in the '70's a hole was cut in the side of the ship. But you all say this was not done. We all will just have to wait to see what happenes.

You guys should go back and read that thread. It is too cool...Excellent points made by yours truely!! And others/..Hey what happened to onesdream88???

http://p098.ezboard.com/fsinodefenceforumfrm8.showMessageRange?topicID=51. topic&start=1&stop=20

Gollevainen is correct in saying a desiel engine is not parctical for propulsion on a CV this size(60,000 tons dis). This is a big ship. Also desiel engines having so many moving parts, pistons, crankshaft etc are more prone to breakdown. Turbine's have fewer moving parts and are the way to power a modern naval vessel.

Sczepan

01-30-2006, 03:41 PM

.....Gollevainen is correct in saying a desiel engine is not parctical for propulsion on a CV this size(60,000 tons dis). This is a big ship. Also desiel engines having so many moving parts, pistons, crankshaft etc are more prone to breakdown. Turbine's have fewer moving parts and are the way to power a modern naval vessel.
thats the american view; the USN using nuclear reactors and gas turbines, but they also cancelled SKs, and now they have a problem to deal with ...

Most of american warships ar using gas turbines, most of the new chinese warships ar powered by (MTU-) diesels.

Now look at the big ships on page 3, esp. the "Norwegian Dawn", its a is diesel powered Vessel of 92.000 BRZ which allow an operationg speed of 24,6 kn http://www.dieselpub.com/ww/news_detail.asp?pick=253
http://www.ship-technology.com/contractors/propulsion/man/
http://www.ship-technology.com/contractors/propulsion/man/man2.html
lenght 294.13 m to 32.2 m to 8,2m; 92.000 BRZ; 2 x 19.500 KW will allow 24,6 kn operating speed (49 km/h)
http://www.meyerwerft.de/main.asp?what=ship&id=1262
http://www.cruiselines.us/ndawn01.jpg

The alternative is: modern diesels instead of russian or ukrain gas-turbines or boilers.

Do you remember (no, not the Admiral Graf Spee, the german diesel powerd WW cruisers) the russian propulsion (turbines or boilers) of Kiew, Minsk ... they had big technical problems with this kind of technology, and if I have correct informations, they ar not much better now.

I would prefer well tried technology which could be produced in chinese factorys (in a secret overhaul) to power a new kind of warships, if the tried and tested technology will allow me nearly the some operations. So the risc of new technology will become minimized.

Thats why I am pointet by diesels - esp. the MAN-diesels, which ar licenced to Dalian Marine Diesel Works ....

bd popeye

01-30-2006, 05:47 PM

thats the american view; the USN using nuclear reactors and gas turbines, but they also cancelled SKs, and now they have a problem to deal with ...

Very true. The USN has ships that have been operating since the 1960's with steam turbines and gas turbines. the Kitty Hawk has been operational since 1961.

SK???? Do you mean SSK? I was unaware that the USN was going to build SSK's. As far as I know. The USN decided over 30 years ago to go with Nuke subs.

Sczepan

01-31-2006, 03:19 PM

...SK???? Do you mean SSK? I was unaware that the USN was going to build SSK's. As far as I know. The USN decided over 30 years ago to go with Nuke subs.
my mistake, I meant SSK ....
the USN decided to go with Nuke subs, which have a lot of speed - but which ar not to quiet and easy to detect, some engines like pumps have to work every time ....
- and the super quiet conventionell subs (esp. the new propulsion) ar not to detect by enemys :)
I don't like to sit in a nuke sub if the SSK is the enemy

bd popeye

01-31-2006, 03:50 PM

my mistake, I meant SSK ....
the USN decided to go with Nuke subs, which have a lot of speed - but which ar not to quiet and easy to detect, some engines like pumps have to work every time ....
- and the super quiet conventionell subs (esp. the new propulsion) ar not to detect by enemys :)
I don't like to sit in a nuke sub if the SSK is the enemy

Humm? Well I don't think..in fact I know that US nuke subs are not that easy to find. LA, Virginia, Ohio & Seawof class subs have superior noise dampening ablities. They just aren't noisey. That at least according to my son a USN sonar tech with almost 8 years experience.. But each one of us can believe what we want...

Anyway getting back to propulsion. What ever method the PLAN does use if the Varyag is ever sent to sea should,and I'm sure it will, propell the CV at at least 25 knots. the the Norwegiean Dawn is powered by desiels I'm sure it can power the old Varyag.

Sczepan

01-31-2006, 05:04 PM

I was exaggerate to point one of the differences between SSKs and SSNs :off end
back to te carrier:

you'r right, 25 knots ar good, 30 knots ar better;

at the one hand:
we have Carriers, operating fighters which have a speed of 29/30 knots:
(let me quote http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/#Aircraft_Carriers_and_Amphibious_Ships)

ADMIRAL KUZNETSOV is conventionally powered and has eight boilers and four steam turbines, each producing 50,000hp, driving four shafts with fixed-pitch propellers. The maximum speed is 29 knots, and the range at maximum speed is 3,800 miles. The ship provides a maximum range of 8,500 miles at a speed of 18 knots.

NUCLEAR POWERED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS like the USS NIMITZ CLASS has two General Electric pressurised water reactors driving four turbines of 260,000hp (194MW) and four shafts. (There also are four emergency diesels of 10,720hp (8MW)).

The propulsion system of GARIBALDI AIRCRAFT CARRIER provides a maximum speed of 30 knots and, at an economical speed of 20 knots, the range is over 7,000 nautical miles. The ship's propulsion system is a combined gas turbine and gas turbine (COGAG) arrangement.

The INVINCIBLE CLASS is powered by COGAG (combined gas turbine and gas turbine), consisting of four Rolls Royce Olympus TM3B gas turbine engines generating 97,000hp, providing a speed of 28 knots. At the economical speed of 19 knots the range of the ship is 7000 miles.
(GARIBALDI and INVINCIBLE are primarly fitted with Harrier VSTOL fighters)

at the other hand
a speed of 25 knots and/or diesels are used by primar helo carriers
The PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS AIRCRAFT CARRIER is equipped with a COGAG (combined gas turbine and gas turbine) propulsion system, consisting of two General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine engines, each rated at a sustained power of 34.6MW. The main propulsion system provides a maximum speed of 25 knots and the range at an economical speed of 20 knots is 6,500 miles.

HTMS CHAKRI NARUEBET propulsion is by a Combined Diesel or Gas Turbines (CODOG) system which is made up of two pairs of GE LM-2500 gas turbines rated at 44,250hp with a power turbine speed of 3,600rpm and Izar-MTU 16V1163 TB83 diesel engines, each with an output power of 6,437hp at 1,200rpm, which will drive two variable-pitch five-blade propellers. (Thailand's two Naresuan Class frigates, which may escort the carrier, are also fitted with CODOG systems).

The HMS LPH01 OCEAN HELICOPTER CARRIER is provided by two Crossley Pielstick 16 PC2.6 V 200 medium-speed diesel engines, rated at 23,904hp, with two independent shafts and a five-bladed fixed-pitch propeller. A 450kW KaMeWa bow thruster is fitted. The maximum speed is 18 knots and the range is 8,000 miles.
The three LPD SAN GIORGIO CLASS LANDING PLATFORM DOCKs ar powered by two GMT A 420.12 diesel engines supplied by the Diesel Engine Division of Fincantieri. The engines provide 16,800hp, delivered to two shafts with constant pitch propellers. The ship is equipped with four Fincantieri GMTB 230.6 diesel generators supplying 3,080kW. The propulsion system provides a maximum continuous speed of 21 knots. At the economical speed of 16 knots the maximum range of the ship is 7,500 nautical miles.

The two french FOUDRE CLASS LANDING PLATFORM DOCKS propulsion system is based on two 16 PC2.5V 400 diesel engines supplied by SEMT-Pielstick. The propulsion system provides a maximum speed of 21 knots. At an economical speed of 15 knots the range is 11,000 miles.
Also the GALICIA CLASS LANDING PLATFORM DOCKS (LPD) ar fitted with two Caterpillar 3612 diesel engines.
The LPD (R) ALBION CLASS LANDING PLATFORM DOCK have diesel-electric propulsion system comprises two Wartsila Vasa 16V 32E diesel generators, two Wartsila Vasa 4R 32E diesel generators, two shafts, two slow-speed electric motors and a bow thruster. The top speed is 18 knots.
The netherlands LPD ROTTERDAM CLASS LANDING PLATFORM DOCK is equipped with four Stork Wartsila diesel generators, model 12SW28 generating 14MW, and two Holec motors generating 12MW, driving two shafts. The bow thruster is rated at 185kW. The top speed is over 18 knots, and the range at 12 knots is over 6,000 miles.

May be, Dalian shipyard replace some of the original propulsion by modern diesels .... but thats a speculation, resulted by the engines of the last build warships there.

The Varjag seems to be a nice vessel for getting experience in carrier operations.
May be, 25 knots ar good enough to get experience, but it should be more to be used in fighter-operations.

Croq

02-01-2006, 06:41 AM

The Varyag has it's own dock in the Dalian Harbour thats about three or four years old. The blue long rectangular building that stretches parallel with the dock resembles the Cutting shacks at the Huyndai Shipbuilding Works,(largest in the world).

The cutting shacks are buildings where large pieces of steel is cut, formed and wielded thogether to form the pieces of hull and superstructure of a ship. These big pieces are then lifted to a dry dock where they are wielded togheter with other pieces to form a ships hull and superstructure.

On the other side of the dock are what appears to be a traversing crane lying down on the ground with its "wheels" towards the rectangular blue building(Cutting shack?) and it's tracks are clearly visible beneath its structure

Don't just at Varyag, take a look at the dock for clues also!

Sczepan

11-12-2006, 04:17 PM

after looking for a long time, I only found some information about new giant container vessels, powered by diesels and have a speed of nearly 30 knts
for example:
"Maersk Boston": lengh 294m, wide 32m, draft 13.5m, DWT 52400T, GT 48880, TEU 4170; 12-Zylinder-Sulzer-Diesel; 29,2 kn;
"Cosco Guangzhou", lengh 350 m, wide 42,8 m, 107.277 MT, 9.449 TEU, powered by 12 Zylinder MAN Diesel K98 MC, > 100.000 PS (PS = horsepower)
http://www.manbw.com/engines/TwoStrokeLowSpeedPropEngines.asp?model=K98MC%20Mk7
http://www.cosco.de/news/#n39
http://www.cosco.de/gfx/cosco_guangzhou/As.jpg

the biggest diesels ar
12-Zylinder-2-Takt-Reihenmotoren, type MAN-B&W 12K98ME/MC, 94.000 PS, 94–104 U/min
Wärtsilä-Sulzer 12RT-flex96C Common Rail, 93.400 PS 100 U/min.

Since 2003, the Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd produced maximum-sized engines K98MC, 12KC90MC-C, and 8K90MC-C for large container ships of China Navigation Company, which is a british owned company, resident in Hongkong (http://www.cnco.com.hk/web/common/home.xml).
China also produced 136 sets of big diesel engines and 1,096,046 kW in output (168.7% of the previous year) and occupied the third place (behind S.korea and Japan), followed by Germany, Poland, Italy, Denmark, and Taiwan (see Table 2.1-3 at www.mesj.or.jp/mesj_e/english/pub/yb/pdf04/YB04_2.pdf ).

I really hope, Dalian don't use these crappy russian or ukrainian engines (powered Kiew, Minsk ....) by powering the Varyag.

bd popeye

11-13-2006, 01:19 PM

I really hope, Dalian don't use these crappy russian or ukrainian engines (powered Kiew, Minsk ....) by powering the Varyag.

Ouch! That hurts. But it's the truth. Those Russian engines just are not built to the same quality of standards as western engines.

Your post does bring to mind just what sort of power plant will the varyag have...

I can't imangine a container ship operating at 30 knots for any extended period of time. 18 - 20 knots is more like it. On a CV the speed varies all day when conducting flight operations. When the ship is in transit a steady speed is maintained..

Sczepan

11-13-2006, 06:03 PM

bd popeye

11-14-2006, 02:51 PM

bd popeye, as I know the US-Carriers operate 40 Minutes per hour in high-speed by start- and landing operations (each of this operations will need 20 minutes), and than they need 20 minutes to clean the deck, supply and arm new fighters ... - and the carrier don't need the maxim. speed in this time.
In that zyklus US-Carriers could launch arround 250 planes per day (including the night) and pick them up to.

Actually a carriers speed depends on how much wind there is. The more wind the lless speed is need to launch aircraft. The less wind, of course, the more speed is needed.

A trainee-carrier shouldn't have so much operations per day, esp. when the carrier only operate a small number of planes and helos, like the Varyag will do. The ship and the hangar isn't so big to operate much more fighters ....
So I think, the Varyag don't need operating at 30 knots for any extended period of time.

May be I am wrong, but I don't know any other engines as modern diesels (without these russian crapp), which could be used by chinese yards to power those big vessels.

In my opinion a training carrier has to have the same ablity to launch and recover aircraft as an operational carrier. What would be different? The training enviroment should be as close to the "real thing"..That how you learn.

Presently the USN uses it's CVN's for training as they are available. The USN has not had a deticated training carrier since 1991.

Sczepan

11-15-2006, 12:19 PM

Actually a carriers speed depends on how much wind there is. The more wind the lless speed is need to launch aircraft. The less wind, of course, the more speed is needed.
but you only need the speed by starting- and landing operations, not when you clean the deck, supply and arm new planes there ....

In my opinion a training carrier has to have the same ablity to launch and recover aircraft as an operational carrier. What would be different? The training enviroment should be as close to the "real thing"..That how you learn. in deed, you'r right - but do you think the PLAN will start with this full operations? Didn't they should first train touch and go, starting and landing operations by a small number of (test-)pilots and add new pilots step by step; the full operational deck-management will come after a long time of training (compare to the russians: they startet there first night operations after long years of pilots training)

Presently the USN uses it's CVN's for training as they are available. The USN has not had a deticated training carrier since 1991. they don_t need trainee-carriers any more, they have enough full operational carriers to order one of them in training-operations from time to time
and - of course - the PLAN could go another way, may be, the PLAN could use the Varyag as deticated training carrer (as the US have done before 1991) to aquire carrer-licence for pilots and construct new ships for full operational service

bd popeye

11-15-2006, 12:36 PM

but you only need the speed by starting- and landing operations, not when you clean the deck, supply and arm new planes there ....

True enough. Mostly you are just going in slow circles....

in deed, you'r right - but do you think the PLAN will start with this full operations? Didn't they should first train touch and go, starting and landing operations by a small number of (test-)pilots and add new pilots step by step; the full operational deck-management will come after a long time of training (compare to the russians: they startet there first night operations after long years of pilots training)

They have to start somewhere. After the crew learns how to operate the ship then flight ops can begine. first with a few "Touch and go's"..then arrested landings. And launches. Gradually building to more operational capablity as they get profecient. Don't expect 12 hour cyclic ops like the USN after a few weeks. They will train to suit the needs of the PLAN.

Jeff Head

11-15-2006, 12:48 PM

They have to start somewhere. After the crew learns how to operate the ship then flight ops can begine. first with a few "Touch and go's"..then arrested landings. And launches. Gradually building to more operational capablity as they get profecient. Don't expect 12 hour cyclic ops like the USN after a few weeks. They will train to suit the needs of the PLAN.It'll take the PLAN many years to get strongly proficient in carrier air operations...to the point where they have their own traditions and culture surrounding those naval aviators and the crews that make their careers possible.

In the mean time, although the Varyag may be used principally for training purposes, I believe it will be fully opertional should the need ever arise for humanitarian or defense purposes. Stopping short of that would not make much sense to me, given the time, money, and effort they are putting into it, and given the fact that the second vessel will be several years behind the first.

Just my thoughts.

SampanViking

11-15-2006, 02:28 PM

bd popeye

11-25-2006, 08:00 PM

China does posses some very profficent Marine Desiel Engineering Companies, involoved in Military and Commerical Engines, I am sure that they will be able to produce the goods.

Please do not make the mistake of underestimating Chinese Engineering. They have been absorbing advanced Western techniques at an astonishing rate, through both joint venture and techniology transfer arrangments. The fruits of these processes are now making themselves felt ever more vigourously.

Don't forget China's major shipyards are at the height of an ongoing 5 year old ship building boom which shows no signs of slowing down. As a consequence these people have plenty of money for R&D experimentation etc.

I'm sure we all realize these facts. China has the most robust shipbuilding industry in the world. Bar none.

As far as the powerplant is concerned will the PLAN go the route of the IN has on the IN Vikramaditya?;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/r-vikramaditya.htm

The eight boilers are being renewed and converted to take diesel fuel instead of furnace fuel oil and modern oil-water separators as well as sewage treatment plant are being incorporated to meet international standards. She is also being fitted with six new Italian-made Wärtsilä 1.5 MW diesel generators, Global Marine communications system, Sperry Bridgemaster navigation radar, a new telephone exchange, new data link and IFF Mk XI system.

I think they mean deisel engines not generators. I'm not 100% sure...so what sort of powerpalnt will the Chinese install on the Varyag? They most readily available I think. Deisel marine engines of some sort. I've been reading up on the ones available. From what I have read they are most reliable.

This is a change of heart for me. For I do prefer steam turbine engines.

Sczepan

11-26-2006, 05:51 PM

time will see - we shoudn't make a religious obsession about this ;)
I myself prefer diesels instead of this russian scrapp .... :D
(anyone other ideas ? :nono: :nono: :nono: )

edit:
've you'ver seen these links?
http://www.manbw.com.cn/en/business_engine.html
http://www.manbw.com.cn/en/company_dalian.html
http://www.manbw.com/article_003238.html
http://www.manbw.com.cn/en/partners_licensees.html
http://www.manbw.com.cn/en/partners_licensees_2stroke.html
http://www.manbw.com/article_005201.html
http://www.dmd.com.cn/
http://www.manbw.com.cn/en/partners_licensees_medium.html
http://www.manbw.com.cn/en/business_engine_propulsion.html
http://www.manbw.com.cn/en/partners_links.html

Sczepan

12-25-2006, 04:32 PM

I just found some new informations about new diesel propulsion and big non military vessels:
K98MC type is the latest engine developed by MAN B&W Diesel A/S for main machinery of large container ship, and the output of one cylinder is the world largest 7,780 BHP.
Today I saw in TV a story about this diesel, powering a big container-vessel with 11 cylinder (and optional 3 to add) which give th ship (according to tv) a service speed of 24 knots and a max speed of 30 knts
MANs K 98 MC Diesel have more than 100.000 PS (Pferdestärke = Horsepower);

...With an output of 101,645 bhp (74,760 kW) MAN B&W Diesel breaks the single-engine barrier of 100,000 bhp. The powerful 12K98MC, with a record output of 8,470 bhp (6,230 kW) per cylinder, is by far the most powerful MAN B&W Diesel designed engine in production.

Five of these 12K98MC engines will be built by MAN B&W Diesel licensee, Hyundai Heavy Industries in Korea. They are to be installed in five ultra large container carriers, which are under construction at Hyundai Shipbuilding for Greek owner Costamare. The vessels will be chartered for a very long period to Coscon (COSCO Container Lines) in China, and the first is planned for delivery in February 2006.
...

On their own COSCO has ordered four 12K98ME engines. These are destined for four 10,000 TEU container vessels also to serve the Coscon fleet. source:
http://www.manbw.com/article_004724.html

and some more about other vessels:
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/antwerp/
The 4,864 TEU panamax containership Antwerpen Express ..... has been fitted with a seven-cylinder MAN B&W two-stroke K98MC engine. The engine was developed by MAN B&W in Denmark and its twelve-cylinder 93,360bhp configuration has been chosen by Hapag-Lloyd for its 7,200 TEU series of containerships under construction at Hyundai. .... The 9K90MC installation in each of the Hannover Express sisters delivers 55,980bhp at 94rpm, at a mean effective pressure of 18bar, whereas the seven-cylinder examples for the Antwerpen Express series turn out 54,460bhp at the crankshaft speed, on 18.2bar. The slight reduction in maximum power was regarded as acceptable on the basis of the speed performance of the vessels already in operation.

The 7K98MC engine is supercharged by three units of the TPL85-B11 turbo charger design developed by ABB Turbo Systems based in Switzerland, providing one of the first applications for the new TBL-B generation, tailor-made for two-stroke machinery..... and http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/antwerp/specs.html
http://www.hapag-lloyd.com/images/gallery/antw_exp_klein_rdax_88x66.jpg the ships dimensions ar 294 m x 32,30 m;

http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/Scheepvaartnieuws/Pdf/scheepvaartnieuws/2001/december/13-12-2001.pdf (page 9)

see also about diesel engines: WIKIPEDIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine
....Today (2006), the 12 cylinder MAN B&W Diesel K98MC turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine built by MAN B&W Diesel licencee Hyundai Heavy Industries in Korea is the most powerful diesel engine put into service, with a cylinder bore of 980 mm delivering 74.8 MW (101,640 bhp).....
http://www.mes.co.jp/english/press/2001/20010405.html
http://www.mes.co.jp/english/business/energy/energy_01.html

bd popeye

12-25-2006, 04:41 PM

time will see - we shoudn't make a religious obsession about this
I myself prefer diesels instead of this russian scrapp ....

No we shouldn't.:) Like I said China will use the best engines that are available. Personally I like US built marine steam turbines...The ones in the USS Kitty Hawk have been going strong for 45+ years.

Today I saw in TV a story about this diesel, powering a big container-vessel with 11 cylinder (and optional 3 to add) which give th ship (according to tv) a service speed of 24 knots and a max speed of 30 knts

30 knots is fine.The desiel marine engine should be more than adequte to power a Cv the size that China will send to sea. 4 engines should be enough to power a ship the size of the Varyag.

Sczepan

02-03-2007, 03:27 PM

Today they repeted the story
the ship was the LIONS GATE BRIDGE, a post panamax container vessel
http://www.shipphoto.net/images/lions%20gate%20bridge.jpg
source: http://www.shipphoto.net/lions%20gate%20bridge.htm
owned by Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. (called “K”LINE),
loa 246 m, beam 40 m; 86000 t. full load
powered by one K98MC MAN diesel, 11 cyl. (+ opt. 3 to add), 108.688 hp
http://www.manbw.dk/documents/k98.pdf
http://www.manbw.com/engines/TwoStrokeLowSpeedEngines.asp?model=K98MC-S
including 3 turbos, which give at least a maxim. speed of 30 knts;
Service speed 25 not and need 180 t. heavy oil per day

another vessel - the COSCO GUANGZHOU
http://www.cosco.de/gfx/cosco_guangzhou/Ab.jpg
source: http://www.cosco.de/news/#n39
chartered by COSCO Pacific (China Ocean Shipping Company)
loa 350,56 m, beam 42,8 m, 107.277 tdw,
is also powered by this diesel, 75.000 kW / 101.000 hp, speed >25 kn

In Febr. 2005 two major orders, for a total of 12 engines, have been placed with Chinese shipyards both calling for Mitsui-built K98-cm bore engines of MAN B&W Diesel design ( Source: http://www.manbw.com/category_000265.html and http://www.hansa-online.de/artikel.asp?ArtikelID=536
http://www.hansa-online.de/print.asp?artikelID=536 ).

According to the last source, by the end of February 2005 Chinese engine builders Hudong Heavy Machinery Co. Ltd. and Dalian Marine Diesel Works have received orders for various K90MC-C engines for a series of 3,500 TEU and 4,250 TEU vessels to be built in China.
See also: http://www.danskemaritime.dk/filer/nyheder/presse9.pdf
Chinese engine builders expand their range – now also K90MC-C ...
For more information about this type of diesel see http://www.manbw.dk/documents/k90c.pdf

I really believe, this diesels could become the new engine to power the Varjag trainee vessel in the future ....

duskylim

03-10-2007, 10:41 AM

Dear Sirs:

I personally prefer large low-speed (or even medium-speed) marine diesels to steam turbines for a variety of reasons:

First: the higher thermal efficiency of the diesel over the steam turbine.
Second: the greater power to weight ratio of the diesel over the steam turbine.
Third: the greater fuel economy of the diesel over the steam turbine.
Last: the greater simplicity and maintainability of the diesel over a steam turbine. - you won't appreciate this unless you've actually worked with both engines.

Just my 2 cents:

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

Sczepan

03-11-2007, 04:14 AM

...Like I said China will use the best engines that are available.
.....
thats a true word,
I only found MAN diesels, available in chinese hands, to power big ships like the varjag and give them a speed of 30 knts;
could someone give us a source or link for another engine?

tphuang

03-11-2007, 03:56 PM

thats a true word,
I only found MAN diesels, available in chinese hands, to power big ships like the varjag and give them a speed of 30 knts;
could someone give us a source or link for another engine?
you can check the china naval power, a couple of weeks back, I posted a list of gas turbines that China has either developed or is under development.

Sczepan

03-11-2007, 04:09 PM

you can check the china naval power, a couple of weeks back, I posted a list of gas turbines that China has either developed or is under development. thx, I see http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2748&page=7
post 105
It seems like they have some indigenous/cloning designs ready in the form of QD-168, QC-185 and QC-260, but still waiting to see what ships they go on. Actually this is the gas turbine page of Shenyang Liming, you can take a look at the projects that they have on going if you can read Chinese.
http://www.china5e.com/liming/text/qd168_2.htm
This is a nice listing of the specs of QD-168
Output: 16.8 MW
Thermal Efficiency: 36.5%
Heat Rate (KJ/KW.h): 9896
Exhaust gas flow (kg/s): 64.84
Exhaust gas temp (K): 722
power turbine speed rpm: 5300
alternator rated speed? rpm: 3000
full-life span: 5000 hours
MTBO: 1000 hours
no mention of size

And now, the much talked about QC/QD-185.
http://www.zhuhai.gov.cn/english/363...4/2012711.html
It was first shown in Zhuhai 04, this is the one they developed using technology from WS-10A I think.

If you read this page.
http://www.china5e.com/liming/text/qc185_1.htm
It talks about in October of 2005, they had CMC, PLAN , AVIC1 officials all attending its unveiling, seems to be a pretty big deal. ...

....
some specs here.
output: 17.8 MW (compared to the current LM-2500, which delivers 25.1 MW, still lagging quite a bit)
Thermal Efficiency: 37.2% (37% also for LM-2500)
Heat Rate (KJ/KW.h): 9710 (6860 BTU/shp-hr for LM-2500)
Exhaust gas flow (kg/s): 58.6 (155 lb/s -> 70.5 kg/s for LM-2500)
Exhaust gas temp (K): 1538 (1000 F for LM-2500)
power turbine speed rpm: 5500 (3600 rpm for LM-2500)
no mention of the size or life expectancy.

Finally, there is also the QD-128, which you can find here http://www.china5e.com/liming/text/qd128_1.htm
It has a peak output of 13.2 MW and is ready for commercial order.
There are also RO-110, QD-70, QD-45, QD-20, producing 120 MW, 7.1MW, 4.8 MW and 2.1 MW respectively.

As for the mystical QC-260, I assume with the number 260, it's suppose to generated 26 MW of power. Although, I haven't found any official specs on this yet.

I think if QC-185 and QC-260 are more ready, we might see them on the next batch of 052D or 051D.
...

So, we have QC-70, QC-185, QC-260 as what appears to be the 3 types of ship powering gas turbines.
...

Do you think, these engines are powerfull enough to speed the big vessel Varjag up to 30 knts?