PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

FORBIN said:

With limited capacities for both...

Click to expand...

For true. And the reduced capacity will have implications for future carrier designs.

PanAsian said:

Not that China can't but that I think China's naval needs are better met by platforms other than carriers. More and better CG/DDG/FFGs, SSK/Ns, even adding LHDs, Y-20s, H-6s, and their fighter escorts make more sense in terms of strategy and mission. It also makes sense for them to continue R&D in their carrier program but not necessarily expand their carrier fleet within this timeframe, or only as a response to a relevant arms race. The emphasis on improving cost and combat effectiveness in recent PLA reform rhetoric lends weight to this line of thought.

Click to expand...

Some on this board probably already know that I'm one of the least enamored with carriers, so I certainly agree with you regarding the importance of other platforms. With that said, China doesn't have to choose between those platforms, it can develop them all at once. You can't just R&D without actually building ships and training people to use them. I think China will adopt a similar strategy with carriers as they did all other major naval platforms, with "small but quick steps". I think every carrier will be significantly different from the previous one for quite a while, and this will be done for precisely the reason you stated--to continue R&D while expanding the carrier fleet as little as possible. In other words, I completely agree with your strategy, I just have a different opinion over its execution because I don't think you can continue R&D without building and training.

PanAsian said:

At the time the Liaoning was the only carrier put in service by China, taking around fifteen years, and it was only refurbished rather than built from scratch. So based on the pace of that work if China is to have >2 carriers in the water by 2025, potentially new designs, and carrier fleet expansion was highly prioritized, it is reasonable to expect 2+ carriers to be under construction in 2015. Very relevant and logical representation of the opposite of my opinion, and thereby in negative form representing my opinion as well, as a wager proposal on the matter.

Click to expand...

Err the ex varyag only arrived in China in 2002 and it started sea trials in 2011 and entered service in 2012, so at most it was 10 years from receiving it to service entry, and 9 years from receiving it to having a ship "at sea" (on sea trial).

Considering that the original ex varyag was a hulk of a ship that required massive refurbishment before serious fitting out work could even begin; and considering the vast amounts of additional carrier related experience gained between 2002 and 2015 (partly through the laborious process of transforming ex varyag to become Liaoning); and considering the vast amount of additional general shipbuilding and fitting out expertise and experience that would have developed between 2002 and 2015 -- yes I do think the idea that two carriers needed to begin construction in 2015 to be in the water or at sea by 2025.

In other words, the timespan of assessing, refurbishing and refitting ex varyag by the Chinese shipbuilding industry of the time, is a poor metric to directly base a prediction of how long it would take to build and fit out a freshly built carrier by the Chinese shipbuilding industry if 2015 or beyond, and if one really wants to use the varyag-to-liaoning example, then one must account for all the aforementioned extenuating and unique factors which lengthened the time it took for Liaoning to go to sea from when it was first received by China.

And that brings me back to why the ten years prediction us a bit unreasonable to expect a carrier to begin construction then begin to go to sea or enter service, considering the Chinese shipbuilding industry of 2015. Maybe 6 or 7 years would have been more reasonable

From 2005 to 2012 there was visible work on Liaoning: eight years!

From 2015 on there is visible work on 001A - plus eight years we can expect commissioning in 2022.

Ehh that was revisionwork and rebuild.
Newbuild is always faster.
One of the ships is served on was mildly modernised (midlife) in 2 years. While build time was the same...
While liaoning had a full rebuild/revisionwork done and probaly also rewind research on the ship.

Bltizo said:

Err the ex varyag only arrived in China in 2002 and it started sea trials in 2011 and entered service in 2012, so at most it was 10 years from receiving it to service entry, and 9 years from receiving it to having a ship "at sea" (on sea trial).

Considering that the original ex varyag was a hulk of a ship that required massive refurbishment before serious fitting out work could even begin; and considering the vast amounts of additional carrier related experience gained between 2002 and 2015 (partly through the laborious process of transforming ex varyag to become Liaoning); and considering the vast amount of additional general shipbuilding and fitting out expertise and experience that would have developed between 2002 and 2015 -- yes I do think the idea that two carriers needed to begin construction in 2015 to be in the water or at sea by 2025.

In other words, the timespan of assessing, refurbishing and refitting ex varyag by the Chinese shipbuilding industry of the time, is a poor metric to directly base a prediction of how long it would take to build and fit out a freshly built carrier by the Chinese shipbuilding industry if 2015 or beyond, and if one really wants to use the varyag-to-liaoning example, then one must account for all the aforementioned extenuating and unique factors which lengthened the time it took for Liaoning to go to sea from when it was first received by China.

And that brings me back to why the ten years prediction us a bit unreasonable to expect a carrier to begin construction then begin to go to sea or enter service, considering the Chinese shipbuilding industry of 2015. Maybe 6 or 7 years would have been more reasonable

Click to expand...

That may be a reasonable estimate for a copy of or modified version of the Liaoning, but what if it is a brand new design?

And that doesn't account for if carrier fleet expansion is a high priority, which was a point of contention. Just as some think two carriers are currently being built, it could easily have been the case a year ago.

PanAsian said:

That may be a reasonable estimate for a copy of or modified version of the Liaoning, but what if it is a brand new design?

Click to expand...

I believe my argument (which is that using the time scale of Liaoning's refurbishment and refit to project the timescale of other future carrier projects is not logical), is still valid regardless for whether we are talking about 001A or 002.

If you want my exact estimate of how many years it may take for 001A and 002 to go from starting assembly to being launched to going to sea trials to entering service, that is something which is harder to put a specific number to, and I've also deliberately never committed myself to a date.
But I do definitely believe both 001A and 002 will be in the water/at sea by 2025 (which in my book means anything from going on sea trials to newly being commissioned to being fully operational).

And that doesn't account for if carrier fleet expansion is a high priority, which was a point of contention.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this -- are you suggesting that two carriers needed to be both under construction in 2015 to fulfill your definition of carrier fleet expansion as a "high priority" for the Navy, and that say, if one began construction in 2015 and another began construction in 2016 or 2017 then it would not be "high priority"?

Just as some think two carriers are currently being built, it could easily have been the case a year ago.

Click to expand...

The difference is that a year ago there were no credible rumours to suggest two carriers were under construction in 2015.
Even now, the rumours are only saying that 002 has begun initial stages of construction, it'll probably be a year or more until we start seeing 002 come together like we saw 001A last year.

I don't base my own position on these matters by plucking ideas out of a hat, on the contrary there are credible rumours that we try to critically assess and make projections out of, and last year there was no indications of any kind to suggest that 002 was beginning construction in any meaningful form.