PLAN 2nd & 3rd Aircraft Carrier wager & planning

[delft]

Anybody here in Shanghai or Dalian? If there are massive hirings for dock workers, welders, marine engineers etc in the proceeding next few years we know! LOL

Those people are likely to be recruited from those already working on the building of merchant ships. It will be difficult to estimate the influence of changes in personnel for the military side besides the changes in those needed on the much larger merchant shipbuilding side.

 

[Jeff Head]

Those people are likely to be recruited from those already working on the building of merchant ships.

Hey Delft...care to take a position on this little wager?

Which of the two camps would you sign up for?

 

[Brumby]

So where should one draw the line to determine whether concurrent development is feasible and how should it scale to carrier production?...

This is not a question that we can specifically address even though we may have an opinion. I think it is a function of :
(i) Level of technical and industrial expertise in executing the plans;
(ii) Design trade offs decision matrix between mission requirements; complexity in systems; and desire speed to commissioning
(iii)Political and military leadership and the dynamics thereof

Are similar hulls and powerplants the prerequisite for allowing concurrent development? Or maybe similar essential subsystems and their arrangement within a ship?
I'd argue it is neither of those specific examples but more dependent on the industry's relevant capability drawn from previous relevant experience, like how previous attempts of aircraft design and construction were important to the PRC's relevant aeronautical industries in allowing for the development of J-10 and J-11, or as previous attempts of radar and SAM design were important for the relevant industries in the development of HQ-9...

So to answer your question, in my view, "foundations" do not have to be drawn from having attempted a specific design of the exact same close type (whether it is building an empty carrier's hull or fitting out an empty carrier's hull) but more dependent on the relevant industry's overall capability that can be demonstrated in other projects demanding similar skills.
To illustrate my point, I consider current advanced shipbuilding industries like that of South Korea or Japan to also be capable of designing and constructing and fitting out carriers if they were called upon to, on the basis of their vast experience and capability in advanced civil and military construction.
Of course there are limits -- access to certain vital subsystems like nuclear propulsion or catapult technology may hinder such construction, but that has less to do with the shipbuilding industry itself (i.e.: the ability to design and produce the hulls and internal structures, and to fit them out with the relevant subsystems) than more exact subsystem industries.

Ability to build a big size commercial vessel does not necessarily mean one can build a carrier. This is a subject that is way off my pay scale. I would draw on a Rand Corporation study on differences between Military and Commercial shipbuilding and I quote "Most respondents stated that although they recognise that military and commercial projects require different worker skills, they regard the skills as generally portable, except for work on submarines and combat systems.)" Although carrier was not mention I guess it is safe to assume it is in the same category as submarines in terms of specialisation and that the skills are not necessarily portable. In addition. it is also mention and I quote from the same study "All the firms we interviewed agreed that, although military-commercial cost and time comparisons are highly dependent on ship types and equipment lists involved, military-ship design was more time consuming. It can take two years or more to design a military ship compared with six months for a commercial ship. Predesign work on a frigate or submarine can amount to 10 times that needed for a tanker. Developing the requirements set is more challenging for a warship—for which multiple functionalities need to be considered to meet an uncertain threat—than for a tanker, which is intended to profitably transport a fluid product of some type. This disparity in design effort occurs for several reasons. Warships often have relatively large propulsion systems for the space available to accommodate them, and their electrical systems must be capable of greater loads. Weapon and sensor systems must be planned, and the number and placement of such heavy systems must be addressed to ensure that the ship’s centre of gravity is not too high."

Also, at this point I think it is worth going back to my previous point about designing and fabricating a hull and internal structures, versus the fitting out and integration of subsystems for a carrier. It's easy to say "building a carrier is in a class of its own" but in regards to the present Chinese shipbuilding industry and the experience they have, considering those two major points, it is arguably only the ability to design and fabricating a carrier sized hull with its internals which has yet to be demonstrated...
However the design and production of large sized warships (such as 071 LPD), and any advanced and complex civilian ships of large size can shed light on the possible level of competency of the industry in regards to the matter of hull/internal structure design+fabrication, and from there we can consider if the capability of the industry may be at a point where the PLAN is willing to consider a concurrent or near concurrent carrier production programme...

Given the complexity and the timelines being advanced, I regard it as rather unrealistic to proceed with concurrency. We will have to disagree in terms of pathway. Time will tell which pathway will prevail.

 

[Blitzo]

This is not a question that we can specifically address even though we may have an opinion. I think it is a function of :
(i) Level of technical and industrial expertise in executing the plans;
(ii) Design trade offs decision matrix between mission requirements; complexity in systems; and desire speed to commissioning
(iii)Political and military leadership and the dynamics thereof

I agree that any such military procurement is dependent on those factors, however I was under the impression that you doubted the possibility of concurrent development for carriers mostly due to technical grounds.

Putting it another way, if there was a way for us to only focus on the technical and industrial capabilities necessary for concurrent/near concurrent carrier development, and assume that there was appropriately sensible levels of political and military support for the project, what would level would the minimum technical and industrial capabilities need to reach so as to allow for a sufficiently low level of risk?

It is of course a rhetorical question.

I myself have stated what I believe are the PLA's needs and timeline of needs for carrier development, which would drive political and military requirements (and what the acceptable levels of risk are), so the question for me is whether the industry is capable of supporting near concurrent development, with well defined requirements and capabilities that they want to achieve. And I have erred on the side of yes.

Ability to build a big size commercial vessel does not necessarily mean one can build a carrier. This is a subject that is way off my pay scale. I would draw on a Rand Corporation study on differences between Military and Commercial shipbuilding and I quote "Most respondents stated that although they recognise that military and commercial projects require different worker skills, they regard the skills as generally portable, except for work on submarines and combat systems.)" Although carrier was not mention I guess it is safe to assume it is in the same category as submarines in terms of specialisation and that the skills are not necessarily portable. In addition. it is also mention and I quote from the same study "All the firms we interviewed agreed that, although military-commercial cost and time comparisons are highly dependent on ship types and equipment lists involved, military-ship design was more time consuming. It can take two years or more to design a military ship compared with six months for a commercial ship. Predesign work on a frigate or submarine can amount to 10 times that needed for a tanker. Developing the requirements set is more challenging for a warship—for which multiple functionalities need to be considered to meet an uncertain threat—than for a tanker, which is intended to profitably transport a fluid product of some type. This disparity in design effort occurs for several reasons. Warships often have relatively large propulsion systems for the space available to accommodate them, and their electrical systems must be capable of greater loads. Weapon and sensor systems must be planned, and the number and placement of such heavy systems must be addressed to ensure that the ship’s centre of gravity is not too high."

I agree that being able to build civilian ships does not mean one can immediately build advanced military ships. It very much depends on the complexity of the civilian ships in question. Advanced oil tankers or large cruise ships require may complex skills and capabilities that can also be applied to military ships. Building a large variety of civilian ships also would yield a variety of skills and construction techniques that would be applicable to military ships.
That is why I chose the shipbuilding industries of south korea and Japan as examples, given the advanced state of their industries and the wide array of ships they were able to build (even if we ignore their LHAs/Ds like Dokdo, Hyuga and Izumo).

Given the complexity and the timelines being advanced, I regard it as rather unrealistic to proceed with concurrency. We will have to disagree in terms of pathway. Time will tell which pathway will prevail.

Okay then, we'll have to agree to disagree.

But I think we do at least agree that among the major reasons for disagreement, is the differing opinions of the capability and relevant experience of the Chinese shipbuilding industry (which is the end point I was trying to make this entire time)?

 

[Brumby]

I agree that any such military procurement is dependent on those factors, however I was under the impression that you doubted the possibility of concurrent development for carriers mostly due to technical grounds.

Putting it another way, if there was a way for us to only focus on the technical and industrial capabilities necessary for concurrent/near concurrent carrier development, and assume that there was appropriately sensible levels of political and military support for the project, what would level would the minimum technical and industrial capabilities need to reach so as to allow for a sufficiently low level of risk?

Technical capability is only one part of the equation. The technical capability to build a carrier is unproven. Combining it with concurrent development is too big of a risk to take in my view. Concurrency by nature is a higher risk approach and so your view of a low risk and concurrency is by definition conflicting objectives.

 

[Blitzo]

Technical capability is only one part of the equation. The technical capability to build a carrier is unproven. Combining it with concurrent development is too big of a risk to take in my view. Concurrency by nature is a higher risk approach and so your view of a low risk and concurrency is by definition conflicting objectives.

I'd argue that China very much likely has the industrial capability to build one carrier. The rebuild and fitting out of the varyag hulk is testament to their ability to plan and fit out a carrier with the entire variety of complex subsystems necessary for a carrier. From there it's a question of designing the actual hull, internals, and necessary modelling for a large ship of that type... hardly inconceivable given the sheer variety and size of previous military and civil ships which they have built. When one considers the other recent shipbuilding nations (say, India, or UK even) which are building carriers and the recent largest ships that they developed and the experience conferred form those ships, China's shipbuilding industry experience isn't in too bad of standing.
Whether they have the industrial capability to build two, near concurrently is another matter.

And by "low risk" I said "acceptably low risk". That is to say, whether the industrial capability can near concurrently build two carriers with a sufficient level of risk that is acceptable in a time and financial sense (the time and monetary consequences of risks of delay, risks of a need to redesign and rebuild in case of flaws etc).
I'm obviously not saying that concurrent development of two carriers is "low risk" compared to only building one carrier...

 

[SamuraiBlue]

I agree that being able to build civilian ships does not mean one can immediately build advanced military ships. It very much depends on the complexity of the civilian ships in question. Advanced oil tankers or large cruise ships require may complex skills and capabilities that can also be applied to military ships. Building a large variety of civilian ships also would yield a variety of skills and construction techniques that would be applicable to military ships.

Here are the structural outline of an aircraft carrier;

• A large cargo hold with little to no support pillars in the center area
• A flat top with structural integrity which can withstand both heat and pounding due to landing of aircrafts
• A very top heavy unbalance in weight distribution prone to capsize
• A sleek water cutting design to obtain maximum speed of 30knts

There are no civilian ship design that is remotely similar to the outline I drew above so you'll need to gain a new set of design skills to develop a new carrier from scratch.

On top if you want a steam CATOBAR you'll need to do the various heavy plumbing in order to pipe the high pressure steam from the bottom of the ship to the top without losing heat.

Again no civilian ship design requiring to pipe high pressure steam pipes through out the ship.

 

[Blitzo]

Here are the structural outline of an aircraft carrier;

• A large cargo hold with little to no support pillars in the center area
• A flat top with structural integrity which can withstand both heat and pounding due to landing of aircrafts
• A very top heavy unbalance in weight distribution prone to capsize
• A sleek water cutting design to obtain maximum speed of 30knts

There are no civilian ship design that is remotely similar to the outline I drew above so you'll need to gain a new set of design skills to develop a new carrier from scratch.

On top if you want a steam CATOBAR you'll need to do the various heavy plumbing in order to pipe the high pressure steam from the bottom of the ship to the top without losing heat.

Again no civilian ship design requiring to pipe high pressure steam pipes through out the ship.

I should say that the quoted part of my text is in relation to SK and Japanese shipbuilding industries to building military ships generally, not specifically regarding carriers. I do hold a similar view in principle, regarding carriers, but with a degree of nuanced difference.

Regarding the aspects you listed: are those show stoppers or bottle necks for the present shipbuilding industries of Japan or Korea if they were required to develop carriers?
In my opinion, no. Of course they would have to develop certain materials technologies, modelling, and design philosophies but IMO these are within the reach of their industrial capability and experience.

That is to say, there will be certain new technologies that must be mastered for an advanced civil shipbuilding industry to successfully build a carrier, but depending on how competent the industries are, one does not necessarily need to have demonstrated an attempt at building a carrier before successfully building a carrier.

----

So to clarify, my position regarding civilian shipbuilding industry and military shipbuilding in general, is that certain advanced civilian shipbuilding capabilites can greatly benefit military shipbuilding.
My position on the shipbuilding industries of japan and south korea and potential carrier production, is that both have the capability to build carriers if they desire on the basis of their extensive civilian and military shipbuilding capabilities and experience at present (even if we do not include their recent LHD/LHA production), although naturally they will have to develop certain new technologies and capabilities to facilitate carrier production but that growth in my view is within their scope.

 

[broadsword]

China has been building the technically more challenging projects like LNG carriers and oil rigs. LNG carrier is considered more challenging because of new designs and materials to hold the liquid at a stable and extremely cold temperature. So I don't think building a carrier is beyond the capability of the Chinese if they know the required design. I believe it is more of a design question than a material one that is required for the Chinese as I don't think there is any required exotic material that is beyond the reach of the Chinese shipbuilders.

 

[Brumby]

That is to say, there will be certain new technologies that must be mastered for an advanced civil shipbuilding industry to successfully build a carrier, but depending on how competent the industries are, one does not necessarily need to have demonstrated an attempt at building a carrier before successfully building a carrier.

The meaning of "successfully" can only be assess at least upon completion and not before and why the alternate description used is unproven. I don't understand how you can argue for success before the fact. I am not saying that China cannot get to the end point - eventually, but there are two steps ahead. Firstly, successfully build a carrier based off the Liaoning design (with some modifications). As I understand it, China has the blueprints. The second step is to migrate to CATOBAR which would mean a new design and another significant challenge. Attempting both steps concurrently while step one is still unproven is in my view not likely.