CV-17 Shandong (002 carrier) Thread I ...News, Views and operations


Equation

Lieutenant General
But not to cut the steel plates. These will by cut by CNC machines. Bending I suppose ditto. You start needing prints to assemble the modules. Or do they use numerically controlled cranes to position those plates before welding?
Yes, but one would still need the big paper sheets to check and recheck the measurements and share that information with ALL of the construction managers and engineers out there in a dirty and dusty and noisy construction environment. Paper can be reprinted if damaged or gets ripped. Now imagine looking at a set of plans with a tablet or laptop in cad drawings. It's just not as practical as paper. Plus replacing a damaged tablet or laptop is a lot more expensive.
 

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
The front of kuznetsov's hanger abuts the SS-N-19 grant launch tubes. Why would Liaoning and 001A's hanger be exactly the same size if neither of the Chinese ships needed space for those tubes?

Also, the decision to appearently copy the Kuznetsov design so closely is odd if the next, totally indigenous Chinese carrier is supposedly already under construction. Clearly the Chinese didn't need the practice of faithfully replicating the kuznetsovs since the replica is not even finished let alone having time to convey any hidden lessons learned, and the Chinese already feel secure and confident enough to proceed With a follow on design. They could have cut out the 001 design altogether and jumped directly to 002 design. As it is, they seem to have burdened themselves with 2 Liaoning designs that would be at odds with every follow on Chinese carrier in terms of operating procedure and aircraft requirements.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24
The front of kuznetsov's hanger abuts the SS-N-19 grant launch tubes. Why would Liaoning and 001A's hanger be exactly the same size if neither of the Chinese ships needed space for those tubes?
They did not take those tubes and structur out on the Liaoning...so it is easy to understand why it would be the same sixe.

I believe on 0-01A they probably did redesign that area since they are not using thise missile tubes so am hoping that they made the hanger larger.

Also, the decision to appearently copy the Kuznetsov design so closely is odd if the next, totally indigenous Chinese carrier is supposedly already under construction. Clearly the Chinese didn't need the practice of faithfully replicating the kuznetsovs since the replica is not even finished let alone having time to convey any hidden lessons learned, and the Chinese already feel secure and confident enough to proceed With a follow on design.
Having two of that "class" or design helps the PLAN as a stop gap to a new, more risky indigenous design. They are helped logistically because they use the same types of parts, fuel, replacements, etc. They are helped with personnel because they are trained the same.

I believe that is why the second Chinese carrier, and their first indigenous one is basically an improved Chinese version of the Liaoning.

They they will move on to a CATOBAR design which will be brand new to them...and probably one of at least 80,000 tons. I expect they will build two of those as well.

Finally, after that, they will have had the experience and time to prepare for and build what will amount to thier "super carriers," which will be CATOBAR design that they will build on, and standardize on probably until the first four carriers are replaced. This will probably be a 90,000 or 100,000 ton vessel.

Two to begin with, followed by an improved version a few year later when they replace the Liaoning and CV-001A. Maintaining a six carrier fleet.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The front of kuznetsov's hanger abuts the SS-N-19 grant launch tubes. Why would Liaoning and 001A's hanger be exactly the same size if neither of the Chinese ships needed space for those tubes?

Also, the decision to appearently copy the Kuznetsov design so closely is odd if the next, totally indigenous Chinese carrier is supposedly already under construction. Clearly the Chinese didn't need the practice of faithfully replicating the kuznetsovs since the replica is not even finished let alone having time to convey any hidden lessons learned, and the Chinese already feel secure and confident enough to proceed With a follow on design. They could have cut out the 001 design altogether and jumped directly to 002 design. As it is, they seem to have burdened themselves with 2 Liaoning designs that would be at odds with every follow on Chinese carrier in terms of operating procedure and aircraft requirements.

Like Jeff said, I think producing a low risk Liaoning mod carrier is not a very odd decision if viewed within the context of the Chinese Navy wanting to rapidly acquire a more robust carrier seed capability.

I imagine the decision to produce 001A was made due to a pair of joint factors operating in tandem, one being that 002 was probably a few years away, and the second being that the Navy wanted another additional carrier more immediately, meaning they were willing to compromise with their second carrier after Liaoning even if it was not as capable as what 002 would be.

I think having an additional flat top along side Liaoning will be vital in developing a larger number of experienced pilots, flight deck crew and carrier experienced sailors in general. Even if CV-16 and CV-17 are less capable than subsequent 002 carriers, there are many core competencies of STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers which are shared, and it is those core competencies which I think the Navy wants to harness as much of as rapidly as they can so as to have a more robust and experienced pool of sailors, crew and pilots to draw upon to get 002 and subsequent carriers into readiness faster than would've been possible with only a single Liaoning.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #26
I imagine the decision to produce 001A was made due to a pair of joint factors operating in tandem, one being that 002 was probably a few years away, and the second being that the Navy wanted another additional carrier more immediately, meaning they were willing to compromise with their second carrier after Liaoning even if it was not as capable as what 002 would be.

I think having an additional flat top along side Liaoning will be vital in developing a larger number of experienced pilots, flight deck crew and carrier experienced sailors in general. .
Very well said.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Also, the decision to appearently copy the Kuznetsov design so closely is odd if the next, totally indigenous Chinese carrier is supposedly already under construction. Clearly the Chinese didn't need the practice of faithfully replicating the kuznetsovs since the replica is not even finished let alone having time to convey any hidden lessons learned, and the Chinese already feel secure and confident enough to proceed With a follow on design. They could have cut out the 001 design altogether and jumped directly to 002 design. As it is, they seem to have burdened themselves with 2 Liaoning designs that would be at odds with every follow on Chinese carrier in terms of operating procedure and aircraft requirements.
I think a second indigenous carrier being under construction is still just speculation at this point.
 

delft

Brigadier
Yes, but one would still need the big paper sheets to check and recheck the measurements and share that information with ALL of the construction managers and engineers out there in a dirty and dusty and noisy construction environment. Paper can be reprinted if damaged or gets ripped. Now imagine looking at a set of plans with a tablet or laptop in cad drawings. It's just not as practical as paper. Plus replacing a damaged tablet or laptop is a lot more expensive.
Use photogrametry to check and recheck the measurements. That takes much less time.
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
But you still need a computer screen. It's just not practical on the construction site.
Equation is correct. I got some actual experience in engineering and construction and here is how we do things in industry (oil and gas)
1) design on computer/paper. Computers to CAD, but still need paper form for checking. We are trying to go paperless these days, but the older engineers and designers are not used to it yet so there is a transition period.
2) build computer models at 30%, 60%, and 90% design completion. Review of models. All of this is on paper form and computer. It is hard to check 20 drawings at once on even big TV screens.
3) design locked at 60% completion. Only minor changes allowed past 60%. At 90%, if something significant needs changes, someone head will roll.
4) print out copies on paper for construction but also provide soft copies (computer files). This is because construction is a messy and dirty business, and a dropped computer or tablet is a useless one. I do typically bring both when I'm at site, computer as backup in case I didn't being the relavent paper forms. Also, during reviews its a lot easier to draw out people's comments by hand than with a computer.
5) final facilities, in my case it is oil and gas must keep the master copy on paper and on site and constantly update. The computer master and past revisions are kept on central servers.

So basically paper copies are not obsolete and in fact more popular to the people on site doing the construction. And we print on giant papers that is around 1m x 1.5m, or standard "D" paper.
 

Top