PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Engineer said:

Well, that's the thing: the 051C are next in line in the rank of white elephants after the Sovremenny-class. They are good illustrations as to why it is a bad idea to rush producing a ship when new technologies are becoming readied in just a few years.

Click to expand...

Well, by your logic, no one would ever build any warships , because there is always some new technology waiting around corner. I agree that you should "freeze" some designs for mass production in case of war , but in peacetime small series of stop-gap weapons are common thing. They serve to keep balance of power and to gradually expand own technological and industrial base .

kwaigonegin said:

There is absolutely nothing NOTHING wrong with using steam cats.

So what if it's a tech that decades old? it has worked very well for the last 50 and will work just fine for the next 50....it's not an 'active' system per se where it needs be be upgraded to support or combat future threats etc like say a weapon system, radar, sensors or some electronic gizmo.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't whether there is something wrong with steam catapults. The issue is whether it is worthwhile to lock an ultra expensive hull to steam catapults and cough up money for a dedicated logistical system for the next 50 years.

Prop fighters worked very well in the WWII, too. However, technologies that work well in the past does not mean they are equally good for the future.

kwaigonegin said:

Even in the USN the last Nimitiz class carrier will continue sailing the high seas for another 30 years before it's replaced by a Ford so USN herself will continue using steam cats for a very long time. If PLAN puts steam cat on a newly built carrier with a lifespan of 30-50 years there is still no reason to swapped it out for EMALS at a later date.

Like you said it's potentially another 10 years before China builds their own indigenous carrier. At that time they may likely put EMALS on her because the tech would have been fully understood and tested for mainline system but for now it is totally acceptable IMHO putting regular steam cats on Liaoning #2 or even #3.

Click to expand...

First, if steam catapult is so good, then there would be no point in switching to EMALS on the Ford Class at all. The fact that Ford Class will feature EMALS highlights the weakness of your arguments.

Second, catapult isn't just a cylinder sitting within a trench on the deck, but a system which includes a network of piping and tanks within the ship. Once a carrier goes with steam catapults, swapping them out for EMALS will be like doing blood vessels transplant -- not something possible. So, if PLAN goes with steam catapults now, PLAN would be forced to use this technology for the next 50 years. Worse, PLAN would have to build dedicated logistical support around this one single hull, and that's bad, very very bad. This is the biggest problem of going with steam catapults.

Third, the Nimitz class are forced to use steam catapults until their retirement. There is no way around this. Luckily for the USN, there are enough of them to spread out the logistical cost. China will have no such luxury. So whether Nimitz class will stick with steam catapults has no relevance here.

Lezt said:

I don't agree, steam cats can easily be insurance even if EMAL is the main push. Honestly, why not put some money in R&D or espionage for a mid last century technology; it is not going to be expensive. Why risk having EMAL fail with no alternative?

Click to expand...

Whether it is steam catapult or EMAL, it is still new technology to PLAN. Steam catapult is not an insurance for EMAL. The real insurance is the ski jump.

Lezt said:

it is just risk management and China is obviously rich enough and having sufficient skilled people to do it.

Click to expand...

No one is ever "rich enough" when it comes to aircraft carrier.

Engineer said:

Third, the Nimitz class are forced to use steam catapults until their retirement. There is no way around this. Luckily for the USN, there are enough of them to spread out the logistical cost. China will have no such luxury. So whether Nimitz class will stick with steam catapults has no relevance here.

Click to expand...

Well France will use steam catapults on a single Charles de Gaulle carrier until retirement . Brazil will also use steam catapults on São Paulo until retirement . India had one carrier with steam catapults (INS Vikrant ) and plans to build another one . Was maintenance of all those ships such a burden for their respective owners ? I don't think so.

There is nothing wrong for China to build let's say two carriers with steam cats and to switch to EMALS when it becomes available.

Engineer said:

Well, that's the thing: the 051C are next in line in the rank of white elephants after the Sovremenny-class. They are good illustrations as to why it is a bad idea to rush producing a ship when new technologies are becoming readied in just a few years.

An aircraft carrier requires much more investments and industrial supports than a destroyer, has a lifespan nearly doubles to that of a destroyer, and with no such thing as production volume. These pretty much force great leaps between each hull. The development strategy used on destroyers just isn't going to work when it comes to aircraft carriers.

How many ships built in the past 10 years carry VLS? How many CATOBAR carriers do you realistically expect China to be able to build in the next 10 years? These two situations are not even comparable.

Click to expand...

All the ships I mentioned are stepping stones to 052D now, which uses VLS that PLAN will use hopefully universally in the next 20 years. China didn't wait for the universal VLS when 052C were built, so they built 052C with a VLS that support only HQ-9. They didn't have universal VLS when 054A started building, so they use a VLS system that only supported HQ-16 and ASROC. Could they have waited until this universal VLS is ready? Yes, they could have. But they did not, because they needed these ships. PLAN does not stop building these surface ship to just wait for a technology to become ready. China bought Sov and 051C because they needed back up options in case 052C or 054A had major issues that caused delays. The planners didn't mind spending the extra money causing additional logistical issues. Whether you or I agree with that, that's not relevant. We are talking about how PLAN thinks.

You can say all day what makes more sense for you (whether it's stupid of PLAN to purchase Sov or 051C or to build carrier with steam catapult now), but you are not the person making decisions. We have to evaluate based on PLAN's past actions. That would point to if they need the ship, they will build with available technology and not risk putting something on they don't feel is ready.

If their first CATOBAR carrier does have EMAL catapult, it would mean they think it's ready. If it comes with steam catapult, it would mean they don't think EMAL is ready.

Lezt said:

Back to the question of efficiency; back to thermodynamic 101 "work" goes down a usefulness cascade; general rule is that the less levels of cascade, the more exergy is availble and less anergy is developed.

A nuclear reactor, steam catapult system follows this energy cascade:

Nuclear energy -> Thermal energy -> work

A nuclear reactor, EMALs system follows:

Nuclear energy -> Thermal Energy -> Electrical Energy -> work

practically speaking, EMALs maybe more efficient than last generation steam catapults, due to higher efficiency reactors, accumulators, generators and heat ex changers; but it would not be more efficient than a steam system built with the latest and the greatest technology.

Click to expand...

Not so. What you described above is that a new ship is more efficient, which is a different concept to EMALS being more efficient. When people talk about efficiency, the are referring to the following cascades.

For steam catapult:
Energy storage -> work

For EMALS:
Energy storage -> work

In a steam catapult, majority of the energy is lost before becoming work. You can even see this lost in the form of steam leaking from the catapult during launch of an aircraft.

thunderchief said:

Well, by your logic, no one would ever build any warships , because there is always some new technology waiting around corner. I agree that you should "freeze" some designs for mass production in case of war , but in peacetime small series of stop-gap weapons are common thing. They serve to keep balance of power and to gradually expand own technological and industrial base .

Click to expand...

Unlike what you have said, my logic has nothing to do with not building any warship. My logic is that aircraft carrier and the associated logistical support are too expensive to be locked with steam catapults, especially because doing so would compete with EMALS for funding.

Keep in mind, the J-15 is not waiting for steam catapults to be able to take off from the deck. The J-15 can perfectly take off using the ski-jump. All these reasons being conjured up to justify the rush in use of steam catapults are non-reasons in my opinion.

Engineer said:

Second, catapult isn't just a cylinder sitting within a trench on the deck, but a system which includes a network of piping and tanks within the ship. Once a carrier goes with steam catapults, swapping them out for EMALS will be like doing blood vessels transplant -- not something possible. So, if PLAN goes with steam catapults now, PLAN would be forced to use this technology for the next 50 years. Worse, PLAN would have to build dedicated logistical support around this one single hull, and that's bad, very very bad. This is the biggest problem of going with steam catapults.

Click to expand...

Engineer, you are trying to lecture an individual about carrier operations who served many years on carriers.

You speak from a purely theoretical point of view (unless you yourself have served on any carrier, or designed principle components of them) and that is fine...it represents your opinion and is based on the issues ypou describe. But Kwaig speaks from actually having worked and served aboard carriers and dealt with aircraft using these systems.

He knows what he is talking about from practical experience.

The fact is, if the Chinese are ready to go with EMALS, and have the vessel and the power to operate a system they have tested and proven when those vessels require their installation, they will go with it.

If they have no EMALS ready, and are not likely to have them for several years...and they desire CATOBAR carriers, then they will go with steam catapaults if they have them available, and not wait several years. The PLAN has already shown abundant examples of doing just this.

The opportunity to get the carrier out there (and maybe more than one) operating with a capability the PLAN puts significant weight on, and developing their doctrine will most likely outweigh a wait of several years for them.

What kwaig is saying is that it is obvious that the PLAN will be able to meet its CATOBAR needs with steam cats if necessary. And what he says is true. Those types of catapults are meeting needs now for the US and others, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

If they have neither availble, then they will build another STOBAR carrier...which is exactly what I expect them to do to begin with.

Time will tell.

thunderchief said:

Well France will use steam catapults on a single Charles de Gaulle carrier until retirement . Brazil will also use steam catapults on São Paulo until retirement . India had one carrier with steam catapults (INS Vikrant ) and plans to build another one . Was maintenance of all those ships such a burden for their respective owners ? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Is it a burden? May be, may be not. Regardless of which answer it may be, it does not dispute the fact that USN has the advantage of distributing logistic costs of steam catapults among 10+ carriers. This is an advantage that China simply does not have, hence it is a weak argument to suggest China to go with steam catapults merely because someone else has them.

The fact that Charles de Gaulle is forced to stick with steam catapults until retirement is a good warning to China to not go with steam catapults.

thunderchief said:

There is nothing wrong for China to build let's say two carriers with steam cats and to switch to EMALS when it becomes available.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong for China to use EMALS among all its carriers so as to minimize logistical costs and issues as much as possible.

tphuang said:

All the ships I mentioned are stepping stones to 052D now, which uses VLS that PLAN will use hopefully universally in the next 20 years. China didn't wait for the universal VLS when 052C were built, so they built 052C with a VLS that support only HQ-9. They didn't have universal VLS when 054A started building, so they use a VLS system that only supported HQ-16 and ASROC. Could they have waited until this universal VLS is ready? Yes, they could have. But they did not, because they needed these ships. PLAN does not stop building these surface ship to just wait for a technology to become ready. China bought Sov and 051C because they needed back up options in case 052C or 054A had major issues that caused delays. The planners didn't mind spending the extra money causing additional logistical issues. Whether you or I agree with that, that's not relevant. We are talking about how PLAN thinks.

Click to expand...

Unless China has plans to build 10+ carriers within the next decade, this VLS analogy simply has no relevance in this discussion. Enough VLS gets produced to justify the extra costs in maintaining multiple systems. This situation of production volume isn't be applicable when considering the limited number of carriers China will have.

tphuang said:

You can say all day what makes more sense for you (whether it's stupid of PLAN to purchase Sov or 051C or to build carrier with steam catapult now), but you are not the person making decisions. We have to evaluate based on PLAN's past actions. That would point to if they need the ship, they will build with available technology and not risk putting something on they don't feel is ready.

If their first CATOBAR carrier does have EMAL catapult, it would mean they think it's ready. If it comes with steam catapult, it would mean they don't think EMAL is ready.

Click to expand...

If they don't think EMALS is ready, they do not have to put it on the ship at all. This does not make it a good argument to support the use of steam catapults. In other words, not putting something on the ship is different from putting something else on the ship.