PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.

Discussion in 'Navy' started by antiterror13, Dec 24, 2011.

  1. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,314
    Likes Received:
    3,518
    The argument that they would definitely put a nuclear reactor in CV-18 if they could only follows if there are no reasons not go with nuclear if the option is available. We know that not to be true. There are plenty of reasons to not go nuclear even if the option is available. Hendrick did speculate that it was primarily cost, but that is not a unreasonable rationale.

    When I said program lead time I was referring to planning and design of the entire ship relative to intended timetables. Sometimes features you could deploy get dropped or changed because of deadlines. There's more to deciding the technology in any project than the "can we do it" question.
     
  2. antiterror13
    Offline

    antiterror13 Colonel

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,340
    Likes Received:
    4,736
    True nobody in this forum know for sure, ... but it does make this forum very interesting and exciting .. with the exchange of views and educated guess within massive knowledge members here.

    If everything about China were as clear as a crystal ..... there wouldn't be any excitement anymore.

    Surprises and surprises again and again makes this forum extremely exciting

    So YES, we are free to make educated guess and you are also free to challenge it as long as keep it polite, respectful and civilised
     
    Equation likes this.
  3. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,014
    Likes Received:
    2,609
    There may be "plenty" of reasons to not go nuclear given an available option, I'm just not sure I agree with any of the ones put forth here. As for program lead time, "deadlines" have exactly the same effect as "technology not ready" if your technology cannot make the deadline even if officially it is ready to go; clearly it wasn't ready enough to go in the first place.
     
  4. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,314
    Likes Received:
    3,518
    Sometimes time constraints aren't due to any particular component technology by itself. You can have a reactor design ready and still decide that the you're taking on too much complexity because you're adopting several other new technologies, for example. That doesn't mean the technology itself isn't ready. You could easily ditch some other technologies and include the reactor, but that may not make much sense given what the capabilities and requirements you're trying to attain are.
     
  5. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,235
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Here is what I wrote in Feb 2016.


     
    Ali Qizilbash and wuguanhui like this.
  6. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,235
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    For my next prediction.

    In the 2020-2025 timeframe, I reckon there is a good chance that they will go for 4x Type-55 per year.

    That is based on:

    1. China already being the world's largest trading nation, which historically means they also build the world's largest navy to protect that trade.
    2. That leads to China planning for a Navy which eventually is at least the same size as the US Navy, which requires an average of three large AEGIS destroyers over the next 30 years, and results in a fleet of 90 AEGIS ships.

    Now, this could be a short Reagan-like arms buildup, like when the US did 4 Bukers per year.

    But by 2022, it will be obvious (or not) whether China's economy and international trade will become significant larger than the USA.

    In that case, China may just decide to continue with 4 AEGIS destroyers per year as the new standard, as it does keep 2 shipyard production lines running at full-capacity which is efficient from a cost and competition perspective. Plus it's better for labour-intensive shipbuilding to be done earlier when China's labour costs are lower, than in 10 years time when labour costs will probably be twice as much.
     
  7. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    24,082
    Likes Received:
    27,824
    what would be the endgame in terms of the number of
    1. aircraft carriers
    2. Type 055 cruisers (please don't nitpick about the classification, possible later designation of a class with A or for example X or whatever)
    3. Type 052 destroyers
    4. Type 054 frigates
    ?

    as in (LOL OK my guess):
    1. 6
    2. 24
    3. 24
    4. 36
    sum = 90 major (4k+) surface combatants including aircraft carriers since it's
    PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.
    (at that point they wouldn't grow, but would be retiring older copies while replacing them with either newly built, or with ships which are currently unknown)
     
    Equation likes this.
  8. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,014
    Likes Received:
    2,609
    Nah, you wrote "I don't see any point in continuing production of both Type-52D and the Type-55" after you wrote 3 destroyers per year, which at that point in the conversation was referring to a combined 052D/055 annual production rate. Nice try, though.
     
  9. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    27,023
    As predicted Ma Weiming received the highest honor August medal as befit his outstanding contribution with 10 other PLA scientist, general
    MaWeiming_honor.png

    Here is the video
     
    delft and Bltizo like this.
  10. Intrepid
    Offline

    Intrepid Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,780
    Likes Received:
    1,954
    Remember, that in an iterative learning process you have to use an aircraft carrier for one or two years before building the next carrier.
     
Loading...

Share This Page