CV-XX (003 carrier) Thread I ... News & Discussions


lcloo

Junior Member
nlalyst said:
Chinese shipyards prioritize drydock time and consistently launch large naval vessels like destroyers and LHDs at a lower level of completion compared to US shipyards.

On what basis is this statement made?

Arleigh Burke DDG114 and 115 took 27 1/2 months and 27 months respectively from launch to commissioning. While Type 052D 156 and 122 took 24 1/2 months and 25 1/2months.

If level of completion of PLAN ships are lower when they were launched, they would required much longer time for fitting out and sea trials. We are not seeing this happening.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Such comparisons don't make a lot of sense, as they are not apples-to-apples. Those ships are of wildly different complexities and they were launched at different levels of completion.

And to add to that, there is a general trend that Chinese shipyards prioritize drydock time and consistently launch large naval vessels like destroyers and LHDs at a lower level of completion compared to US shipyards. That doesn't tell you much in of itself. In a different context, they could have the ships launched at a later date, and in turn have them spend less time outfitting pierside.

Time to launch comparisons are only meaningful for ships of same class, and preferably within the same shipyard where a similar level of completion is a reasonable expectation.

The level of completion of major Chinese warship types being launched is not dissimilar to the state of completion in which the US launches many of their own mainline warships.


As for the comparison between 003 and 002 itself (let alone with other carrier types), obviously they are different shipyards and different ship designs of different sizes and complexity.
But seeing as the question from abc123 was about how "slow" 003 was, there's enough evidence at hand for us to say that based on 003's current progress it is at least not slower than 002 when measured using fair metrics, despite being a larger and more complex ship.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
nlalyst said:
Chinese shipyards prioritize drydock time and consistently launch large naval vessels like destroyers and LHDs at a lower level of completion compared to US shipyards.

On what basis is this statement made?

Arleigh Burke DDG114 and 115 took 27 1/2 months and 27 months respectively from launch to commissioning. While Type 052D 156 and 122 took 24 1/2 months and 25 1/2months.

If level of completion of PLAN ships are lower when they were launched, they would required much longer time for fitting out and sea trials. We are not seeing this happening.
On the basis of your own reasoning.

One caveat: Flight IIA Burkes are significantly larger ships than 052Ds at 9,500 metric tons full displacement vs 7,500 tons.

For the duration of the first FLIIA program, at Bath Iron Works, their outfitting/trial time was on average 14 months with outlier removal, or 15 months (475 days) with all ships included. There was a noticeable shortening of outfit times in the middle of the program, during which the assembly time on the ways went up. For example, DDG-99 took less than 11 months from launch to commission and 18 months from being laid down to launch. On average, for the entire FLIIA program BIW took 1.2x as many days between laying down and launching a ship than between launching and commissioning.

For the 052D program, I couldn't find the dates when the ships were laid down. For the launch and commission dates, I used the data from the Chinese and Japanese wiki pages. I excluded the ships that were launched since Coronavirus pandemic began.The average outfitting/trial time was 29.3 months (909 days), roughly double that of the FLIIA program.

A similar observation was made by the Office of Naval Intelligence, USN, in 2020:
China is now building multiple units of the new RENHAI cruiser class at two shipyards (these yards also build LUYANG III/LUYANG III MOD class destroyers). China uses a semi-modular construction technique resulting in relatively short “on the ways” assembly times (usually less than 12 months), with longer outfitting times pierside. These timelines are intended to keep assembly ways and docks available for both naval and commercial construction, whereas outfitting pier space is more available.

The level of completion of major Chinese warship types being launched is not dissimilar to the state of completion in which the US launches many of their own mainline warships.
My claim was about large naval vessels, like the Type 052D destroyer. As I've demonstrated above, the 052Ds took twice as long from launch to commissioning than FLIIA Burkes. What better evidence do we have for their relative states of completion at launch?
 
Last edited:

voyager1

Junior Member
Registered Member
I wouldnt take the time between launch and commisioning as something to make comparisons in shipbuilding programs of two different countries.

The time for commisioning might be different due to testing regimes, sea trials, maybe more time for crew training etc.
There are a lot of variables here.

The only comparison I would make is the construction time, but even here it is complicated due to the different time it takes for building modules and assemblying them to the the ship, shipyards having dual military and civilian work etc
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Or the trials are more extensive and take more time.
I can think of a couple other reasons that are more credible:

1. many problems detected and extra debugging needed
2. outfitting work hours shortfall, inability to keep up with the on the ways work

Of the two, I give more weight to 2). The first Type 052D was commissioned in just 18 months after launch, the follow on ship took 31 months, with two ships of the class taking 39 months. The last two ships prior to the pandemic start spent 24 and 18 months outfitting. These massive variations cannot be explained with a more extensive trials program.

BIW started out with relatively short on the ways time of 10-11 months but long outfitting times (~20 months) and then transitioned to relatively long assembly times (17-20 months) and relatively short outfitting times (10-13 months). There is a clear correlation between the two.
 
Last edited:

snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
I can think of a couple other reasons that are more credible:

1. many problems detected and extra debugging needed
2. outfitting work hours shortfall, inability to keep up with the on the ways work
These reasons are more credible for you only.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
I wouldnt take the time between launch and commisioning as something to make comparisons in shipbuilding programs of two different countries.

The time for commisioning might be different due to testing regimes, sea trials, maybe more time for crew training etc.
There are a lot of variables here.

The only comparison I would make is the construction time, but even here it is complicated due to the different time it takes for building modules and assemblying them to the the ship, shipyards having dual military and civilian work etc
Do you have a list of laid down and start of sea trials dates per Type 052D ship? That would make for a more informed comparison.

However, there are certain caveats. Even when a ship has been commissioned it doesn't necessarily mean that its construction is complete. It's up to each navy to decide at what level of completeness it needs the ship to be at. For example, the Gerald Ford carrier is still under construction, even though it was commissioned way back in 2017. They only installed 7 out of 11 advanced weapons elevators as of March this year.
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
Or the trials are more extensive and take more time.
I think at one time Tam said the same thing It has something to do with definition of Commission in Chinese navy it meant the ship and the crew both have to pass proficiency test whereas in US navy the crew can honed their skill as they go along. I don't have a proof but ask Tam
 

Top