Chinese shipbuilding industry

Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
That's huge. The ship's full load displacement could be about 4 times that of the biggest aircraft carrier?
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
Quickie said:
That's huge. The ship's full load displacement could be about 4 times that of the biggest aircraft carrier?
Click to expand...
Actually, building a container transport is much easier than building an aircraft carrier of equal or even less displacement. The obvious differences in standards of durability aside, since a container transport's main fare is containers, it can do away with all the human amenities required of a carrier's crew and air wing. Not to mention cargo goods often requires less attention then finicky munitions and planes.
So it is not surprising to see container transports being over twice the displacements of even the largest aircraft carriers.
 
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
Viktor Jav said:
Actually, building a container transport is much easier than building an aircraft carrier of equal or even less displacement. The obvious differences in standards of durability aside, since a container transport's main fare is containers, it can do away with all the human amenities required of a carrier's crew and air wing. Not to mention cargo goods often requires less attention then finicky munitions and planes.
So it is not surprising to see container transports being over twice the displacements of even the largest aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do appreciate the complexity of an aircraft carrier.

Even so, it's kind of interesting to look at it from the standpoint of size alone.

Concerning the ship's displacement, the loading capacity of the ship is already 2 times the full load displacement of the heaviest aircraft carrier, meaning that it can carry the weight of 2 of the heaviest aircraft carrier. The ship's full load displacement is probably more than 4 times that of the heaviest aircraft carrier.
 
S

SilentObserver

Junior Member
Registered Member
by78 said:
I should have been clearer with my original post: this ship has been in service for sometime. It's only now that a model of it has been photographed.

25323521897_ef4787f572_b.jpg

26322432448_8750f92bc7_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Hendrik_2000 said:
Look like car transport ship to me
Click to expand...
China's merchant fleet is a great asset to its amphibious invasion logistics. The ship had been designed for transporting 2 mechanised/motorised battalions. It also has the ability to be quickly modified to have military command and troop support capabilities by attaching modules.

Yes, normally this would be used to transport cars. During peacetime these ships would be used for commercial purposes. This way China would be able to preserve a large amphibious assault capability within its civilian sector.

253f55ba0645293e4117027dfbd489b5.png
616o000513nq775pop7o.jpg

Quickie said:
Yes, I do appreciate the complexity of an aircraft carrier.

Even so, it's kind of interesting to look at it from the standpoint of size alone.

Concerning the ship's displacement, the loading capacity of the ship is already 2 times the full load displacement of the heaviest aircraft carrier, meaning that it can carry the weight of 2 of the heaviest aircraft carrier. The ship's full load displacement is probably more than 4 times that of the heaviest aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...
China is a very new player in this field and only recently made breakthroughs in steel used on the carrier hull and deck, not to mention other systems that are involved. The complexity involved and industrial power required to produce a large modern carrier is not comparable with a large container vessel. They are not within the same magnitude. China is still in the stage of '小步快跑' (running with small steps). Wait until China produces the 002 and 003, they would be multiple times more difficult (and impressive industrially/technologically speaking) than the Liaoning and 001.

 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Just found at the CDF posted by "hmmwv" (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

fzgfzy release a series of photos allegedly showing current 003 progress at JNCX, and mentioned right now it's in sub assembly production, and we are a long way from seeing any major modules that can be recognized as carrier part. Mainly due to changes in design (I'd imagine that's related to switching to EM Launch) and subsequent upgrades in the new JNCX facility.

From the look of it the pictures shows JNCX's brand new carrier fabrication building which became operational last November.
Click to expand...

不要太想当然，我当时就说了，一旦要改就快不了，电蒸pk也是我先发的，之后改图纸可改死人了。到船厂还要按生产再深化一次图纸，我一小姐姐当时负责算某大补的绝缘，就用了一个月，更别说复杂几十倍的航母。至于新厂，盖了建，建又改（加东西），加了又加。厂还没整利索呢（见图），有些东西堆傍边，还不是03的。某地里面应该是有些号好的料了，小的组立可能也有，大分段就扯了，一旦展开是不能脱节的，前面的东西没有一定的量，是不可能进入下一步的。
Click to expand...

PLN Type 003 carrier - said to be u.c. - 20180608 - 1.jpeg PLN Type 003 carrier - said to be u.c. - 20180608 - 2.jpeg PLN Type 003 carrier - said to be u.c. - 20180608 - 3.jpeg
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
It bound to happen soon.:cool:

.....
Upsides and Downsides

The fact that Russia’s strategic rationale for carrier acquisition is tenuous may actually speak in favor of foreign acquisition. Unlike the United States and (apparently) China, Russia will have no need for the long-term infrastructure needed to maintain a modern carrier fleet. As many countries have done in the past, Russia could even outsource downstream maintenance and refurbishment work to China. And there is no question that China can churn out a carrier faster than Russia can build one, and probably at a higher quality of construction, given the extensive experience of its shipbuilders.

For China, the upsides would also be clear; the construction of a Russian carrier would further the development of infrastructure and human capital necessary to build future carriers. It would help cement the emerging Moscow-Beijing security relationship, and offer deeper insight into the proprietary technologies that Russia might wish to install on the carrier. It would give China greater administrative experience on the international warship-building market.

The only downside for China would be that a Russian carrier would take up space and industrial capacity in Chinese yards, but this is a small price to pay. The downsides for Russia are more palpable; an aircraft carrier purchased from China still costs money, and still requires a long-term investment in maintenance and modernization. Russian prestige might also take a hit; as Kofman suggests, “over time Russia will become more comfortable importing Chinese components, but this will take years to overcome pride and stigma. The Russian Navy, like most navies, suffers from its own megalomania and big ship dreams that budgets have to contain.” Gorenburg adds, “the visuals of Russia buying from China vs. selling to China would cement the image shift to junior partner.”

Getting Real

To be sure, there would be many obstacles to overcome. But Russia has made extensive use of Kuznetsov, the lack of a compelling strategic rationale notwithstanding. As the carrier grows older, it will likely become less useful for the prestige cruises that the Kremlin enjoys. Any substantial gap between Kuznetsov and the next Russian carrier (if there is one) would be devastating for training. Even acquiring a ship of the Kuznetsov-Liaoning type, which China can obviously build, would be an improvement for Russia. News of a Russian order from a Chinese yard would be surprising, but not shocking.
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top