Very true. It takes the US about 7 years to build a CVN. And about 5 years to build a conventionally powered CV..when the US built them.On average it take 7 to 8 years of construction to build carrier
HMS Queen Elizabeth(R08) was placed in commission on December 7th 2017.have they commission QEII yet? not sure
Well we should not compare Chinese navy to US navy when it come to carrier. US has 100 years lead and has been building hundred or so carrier during the WWIIHendrik is correct in stating that there are many reasons the ship did not get underway. We as PLAN watchers do not know for certain.
Very true. It takes the US about 7 years to build a CVN. And about 5 years to build a conventionally powered CV..when the US built them.
I agree. I was ,however stating building times. I should have made that clear. The Chinese can build a conventional CV on par with any nation.Well we should not compare Chinese navy to US navy when it come to carrier. US has 100 years lead and has been building hundred or so carrier during the WWII
If what you stated holds true, that the true value of the CV-17 is in the construction process and not the actual carrier itself. Then the CV-16 and CV-17 would probably not have as long and illustrious a career as some might had thought.To be honest I also expected them to proceed more quickly. But it is quite likely this carrier has a lower priority than we think.
This might be more a proof of ability ship to guarantee they dominate the carrier construction process, this is not a carrier they want to put into service and manufacture in quantity.
In a way it reminds me of the Chinese human space program. Which has a lot of milestones, sometimes many years apart, and is made in deliberate steps to get to a point where they can make something like a Mir space station. But with a lot of steps in between which basically replicate most of the Soviet space program in terms of milestones. Like manned orbital mission, dual manned orbital mission, spacewalk, etc.
The program is deliberately made this way to ensure they understand the technology properly and get a firm grip on how it works. This means they have less of a chance of having a program failure because of aiming for a technology which is too complex for them to dominate. The Chinese had a lot of issues like that during the Great Leap Forward era like their civilian airliner or heavy tank programs.
The goal of the CV-17 might have been not to get a working carrier in use quickly but to evaluate their large ship construction and integration methods. That's why they are having such a long and morose demonstration and evaluation program. Any issues they find in the process of building CV-17 will be rectified in CV-18/CV-19 while they are still under construction.
In a way going for EMALS in the next carriers is a considerable risk for them and goes against this kind of development process.