PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Yes...I know. After all, I have been on these boards for ten years! LOL! I did say pardon my impatience.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Forrestal class was never 82,000 tons and they are much smaller than the Fords. At full displacement in wartime surge I can see Ford class 30 k tones over the forrestal class. That's the weight of 3 Burkes. LOL
Well, the Forrestal class never came close to 82,000 tons. Full load they were about 72,000 tons.
Full load of the Ford is going to to approach 105,000 tons.
Where I come from, thirty thousand tons would be called substantially bigger.
Now, if the Chinese build a carrier that displaces 82,000 tons, it will defintely be a large carrier, and will undoubtedly be very capable.
Currently, their rebuild of the Varyag into the Liaoning is also a large carrier, probably well over 65,000 tons and maybe close to 70,000 tons.
I believe that 15-20 years from now you will be correct in this.
Not so. The Indians will have three carriers operating in the same time frame. The Vikramaditya at 45,000 tons with 36 aircraft, the Vikrant at 40,000 tons with 30 aircraft, and the Vishal (IAC2) at 65,000 tons with 48 aircraft. That's a total of 114 aircraft at sea on those three carriers.
I agree.
In that case, he sounds like just another guy that's reading through Chinese forums and summarizing things. I don't know you would need these predictions when they are everywhere. On Chinese bbs, there are many posts online regarding carrier production. But as with everything else Chinese military, we will get updates with photos coming out. I think we should keep that in mind and use what we see rather than what we read from some internet warrior.
I agree that Henri K is probably just another guy summarizing BBS posts, however the claims that he has made has been made elsewhere too, from 055's armament to the number of 056s eventually to be built. It could mean different guys are simply reading the same BBS posts, but it also means those BBS posts are being independently seen to be somewhat reliable.
I think we've all been here long enough to take any carrier rumours with a healthy portion of salt, but that doesn't mean we should ignore rumours just because of it.
We'll get confirmation once photos come out, but prior to it I think speculating and distributing rumours from "internet warriors" who have a somewhat reliable reputation isn't a problem.
If anything I think we have a responsibility to deliberately say "hey, this is something that might be happening soon/right now, let's keep an eye out for evidence".
Not to mention PLA discussions would be remarkably barren without these rumours to keep things interesting.
Like others have said, there is a 20k-30k difference in displacement between Forrestal and Ford, hardly insubstantial, and it would obviously influence build time.
I agree though, that this is JN's first carrier and all that, so it may add some time onto building even a smaller carrier than Ford.
And yes, we don't know what powerplant 002 will use -- that's why I said if they're using something new like IEPS it might add some time onto their construction/sea trial duration compared to say using steam turbines.
However I do think most people believe 002 will be a conventionally powered carrier rather than a nuclear powered carrier.
I agree that three carriers by the late 2020s would be a competent force.
However if steel has already started cutting for 002 I'd put it a decade away from commissioning, with probability for delay, more because of 002's expected size relative to bigger ships like Ford suggesting it should have a proportionally shorter build time, but with delays kept in mind due to the complexity and size and first time nature of the ship for JN.
To be fair, I think he meant combat planes as in fighters/strike fighters rather than a full airwing of fighters + helicopters + AEW.
Defence updates blog wrote a pretty good summary of the PLAN's likely carrier plans about a year ago. I don't often post extensive write ups from blogs, but this particular one seems to have very good entries for both Chinese and other nation's hardware. Its 052D VLS and Kolkata write ups among others are quite informative.
This article in particular I like how it takes a critical approach to the ski jump vs catapult debate.
China Building Additional Aircraft Carriers
According to several Chinese media reports, Wang Min, the Communist Party leader of the province Liaoning stated that the port city of Dalian in his province is now building an aircraft carrier for the Chinese Navy with at least two more being planned.
Dalian is the place where the former Varyag or Liaoning, currently China's only aircraft carrier, was refurbished after being bought from the Ukraine. The shipyard is also in the process of building two Type 052D destroyers to become the second shipyard to build the type, next to Shanghai where four destroyers are under construction or fitting out.
While the reports are officially unconfirmed, there can be no doubt that China will eventually have aircraft carriers next to the Liaoning. China has already developed its own J-15 aircraft, which is roughly similar to an improved Su-33, for service on carriers, not to mention other supporting infrastructure on land.
That kind of heavy investments would not have been made if there was no intent to build their own aircraft carriers. What remains to be seen are in the details, such as how many aircraft carriers are to be build by China, the time schedule for inducting them into service and their exact configuration.
STOBAR VS CATOBAR COMPARISON
The Liaoning is a STOBAR carrier with a ski-jump and the next carrier being build is almost certain to retain this configuration. There will probably be some minor improvements such as increasing deck space and hangar space, but the new carrier will retain the basic hull configuration to avoid potential difficulties.
STOBAR carriers with their ski-jump are often criticized for their alleged inferior performance by some people who prefer CATOBAR carriers that use a catapult to launch aircraft instead of a ski-jump. This criticism is very often exaggerated in mainstream media.
For instance, it's often stated that a ski-jump restricts the take-off weight of aircraft to such an extent that it reduces aircraft such as the Su-33 / J-15 to air-to-air missions only due to their inability to take off with heavy ordnance that is often required for air-to-ground missions.
However, extensive testing by the Russians aboard the Varyag's sister ship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has proven that the Su-33 is able to take off at up to 30 tons under certain conditions. This is more than enough to carry sufficient payload to carry out air-to-surface missions.
Both the ski-jump and the catapult are solutions to the same problem. Neither existed when aircraft carriers came of age during World War II. They became a necessity only after jet fighters were stationed aboard aircraft carriers. Both require that aircraft be explicitly designed for either type.
The catapult in general is the better solution because the ski-jump requires a longer deck than a catapult for similar aircraft. To compensate, an aircraft carrier would have to be made longer if a ski-jump were to be selected instead of a catapult.
Due to the fixed size of aircraft carriers which tend to have a length of 300 m more or less, it's not possible to have a sufficiently long deck to equal the performance of a catapult on a carrier.
However, the ski-jump is still adequate and can be used aboard an aircraft carrier. The catapult does offer significant advantages over the ski-jump, such as:
This article in particular I like how it takes a critical approach to the ski jump vs catapult debate.
China Building Additional Aircraft Carriers
According to several Chinese media reports, Wang Min, the Communist Party leader of the province Liaoning stated that the port city of Dalian in his province is now building an aircraft carrier for the Chinese Navy with at least two more being planned.
Dalian is the place where the former Varyag or Liaoning, currently China's only aircraft carrier, was refurbished after being bought from the Ukraine. The shipyard is also in the process of building two Type 052D destroyers to become the second shipyard to build the type, next to Shanghai where four destroyers are under construction or fitting out.
While the reports are officially unconfirmed, there can be no doubt that China will eventually have aircraft carriers next to the Liaoning. China has already developed its own J-15 aircraft, which is roughly similar to an improved Su-33, for service on carriers, not to mention other supporting infrastructure on land.
That kind of heavy investments would not have been made if there was no intent to build their own aircraft carriers. What remains to be seen are in the details, such as how many aircraft carriers are to be build by China, the time schedule for inducting them into service and their exact configuration.
STOBAR VS CATOBAR COMPARISON
The Liaoning is a STOBAR carrier with a ski-jump and the next carrier being build is almost certain to retain this configuration. There will probably be some minor improvements such as increasing deck space and hangar space, but the new carrier will retain the basic hull configuration to avoid potential difficulties.
STOBAR carriers with their ski-jump are often criticized for their alleged inferior performance by some people who prefer CATOBAR carriers that use a catapult to launch aircraft instead of a ski-jump. This criticism is very often exaggerated in mainstream media.
For instance, it's often stated that a ski-jump restricts the take-off weight of aircraft to such an extent that it reduces aircraft such as the Su-33 / J-15 to air-to-air missions only due to their inability to take off with heavy ordnance that is often required for air-to-ground missions.
However, extensive testing by the Russians aboard the Varyag's sister ship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has proven that the Su-33 is able to take off at up to 30 tons under certain conditions. This is more than enough to carry sufficient payload to carry out air-to-surface missions.
Both the ski-jump and the catapult are solutions to the same problem. Neither existed when aircraft carriers came of age during World War II. They became a necessity only after jet fighters were stationed aboard aircraft carriers. Both require that aircraft be explicitly designed for either type.
The catapult in general is the better solution because the ski-jump requires a longer deck than a catapult for similar aircraft. To compensate, an aircraft carrier would have to be made longer if a ski-jump were to be selected instead of a catapult.
Due to the fixed size of aircraft carriers which tend to have a length of 300 m more or less, it's not possible to have a sufficiently long deck to equal the performance of a catapult on a carrier.
However, the ski-jump is still adequate and can be used aboard an aircraft carrier. The catapult does offer significant advantages over the ski-jump, such as:
- Greater take-off weight using an equivalent take-off run
- Shorter take-off run, all else being equal
- Frees up deck space to park aircraft
- The ski-jump requires no maintenance and cannot break down, unlike a catapult which would severely hamper operations during combat. This can be especially true in certain climatic conditions.
- A catapult puts severe stress on aircraft, which over time will significantly reduce the lifespan of an airframe. A STOBAR aircraft will last longer than CATOBAR aircraft, all else being equal.
Forrestal class had later full displacement at 80ish thousand tons. But that's not even what Blitzo and I were talking about here. The issue is tonnage of 002. 001a is rumored to be bigger than 001, so we're already at some 70-75 thousand tons there. And then if 002 is anything like those models or even anything like the Ulyanovsk - it's bound to go at least a little over 80 thousand tons.
IF steel was already being cut for 002 then that's a different story. But Henri K suggested construction would start a year from now. For me that that's first steel cutting. For someone else, construction is a module already built and laid onto the drydock.
Even if 002 ends up with steam cats and conventional propulsion, anything before 2023 for commissioning and 2025 for IOC is unlikely in my opinion. That'd be just mere several years after 001a after all.
IF steel was already being cut for 002 then that's a different story. But Henri K suggested construction would start a year from now. For me that that's first steel cutting. For someone else, construction is a module already built and laid onto the drydock.
Even if 002 ends up with steam cats and conventional propulsion, anything before 2023 for commissioning and 2025 for IOC is unlikely in my opinion. That'd be just mere several years after 001a after all.
Whoops, this whole time I misread 2016 as 2015. In that case, a 2027 commissioning date is somewhat more reasonable.
Of course, this is assuming by "construction" it is meant first cutting of steel, like you've said.
Personally I expect 001A to displace around 70,000 tons. I think most rumours have said 001A adopts a hull similar to Liaoning and retains the ski jump with mostly internal modifications and relatively small refinements, so I do not expect a big jump in displacement from Liaoning's 65,000 tons.
However I do expect a bigger jump from 001A to 002, as I'm under the impression that 002 will be a new hull and flight deck configuration, and I think in excess of 80,000 tons for full displacement doesn't sound unrealistic. Forrestal class at full displacement was about 81,000 tons. And I'm not sure what Ulyanovsk has anything to do with 002 unless we think it is going to adopt a ski jump + catapults on the waist configuration, along with nuclear propulsion, and there's not much to suggest they're planning on using the Ulyanovsk configuration never mind copy its displacement for their own indigenous carrier design.
Of course, this is assuming by "construction" it is meant first cutting of steel, like you've said.
Personally I expect 001A to displace around 70,000 tons. I think most rumours have said 001A adopts a hull similar to Liaoning and retains the ski jump with mostly internal modifications and relatively small refinements, so I do not expect a big jump in displacement from Liaoning's 65,000 tons.
However I do expect a bigger jump from 001A to 002, as I'm under the impression that 002 will be a new hull and flight deck configuration, and I think in excess of 80,000 tons for full displacement doesn't sound unrealistic. Forrestal class at full displacement was about 81,000 tons. And I'm not sure what Ulyanovsk has anything to do with 002 unless we think it is going to adopt a ski jump + catapults on the waist configuration, along with nuclear propulsion, and there's not much to suggest they're planning on using the Ulyanovsk configuration never mind copy its displacement for their own indigenous carrier design.
- Status