The Chinese aircraft carrier programme

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

... 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/e...set/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..._Engine/2.html

Nihao!

Take a look at this picture, http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/atta...3&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.

Originally Posted by Croq

Nihao!

Take a look at this picture, http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/atta...3&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/fsinodefence...tart=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.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

.....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/contr...ropulsion/man/
http://www.ship-technology.com/contr.../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


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 ....

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.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

...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

Originally Posted by Sczepan

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.

I was exaggerate to point one of the differences between SSKs and SSNs 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/proj...phibious_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.

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!

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/TwoStro...el=K98MC%20Mk7
http://www.cosco.de/news/#n39


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 http://www.mesj.or.jp/mesj_e/english...f04/YB04_2.pdf ).


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

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..

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

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 ....

Originally Posted by bd popeye

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)

Originally Posted by bd popeye

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