PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.


latenlazy

Colonel
It's definitely not "ship design". CV-18 is a new ship design, and if a nuclear reactor was ready for that ship and the PLAN wanted a nuclear carrier, it would have been on that ship. The Charles De Gaulle is 43,000 tons full and is a nuclear carrier, so it's not a matter of size either. "Program lead time" is essentially the same as technological ability in that the technology is not ready for CV-18 which has been my point this entire time, whereas Hendrick thinks the choice of conventional for CV-18 was a matter of cost not technology. "Requirement mismatch" could be argued, though I did already address this point by saying that perhaps nuclear carriers are not in the PLAN's future plans. The argument that the PLAN did not require nuclear carriers currently was also addressed by me earlier.
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.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #262
I don't remember you predicting 3-4 055s under simultaneous construction. In fact I don't remember anyone making this prediction, and yet it is happening right now. So while you may make guesses on the development of the PLAN and its "strategic requirements", I'm pretty sure they are just guesses, just like the rest of ours, without any qualifiers as to how educated they are or are not.
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
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
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.
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.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
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.
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.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
I don't remember you predicting 3-4 055s under simultaneous construction. In fact I don't remember anyone making this prediction, and yet it is happening right now. So while you may make guesses on the development of the PLAN and its "strategic requirements", I'm pretty sure they are just guesses, just like the rest of ours, without any qualifiers as to how educated they are or are not.
Here is what I wrote in Feb 2016.


...
For AEGIS-type destroyers built with modular construction techniques, I think we're looking at a steady state of at least 3 destroyers per year, in order for 2 shipyard assembly lines to be kept busy. This would be consistent with current production rates in China over the past 5 years and the average US production rate over the past 30 years.

AndrewS, Feb 1, 2016
I don't see any point in continuing production of both Type-52D and the Type-55

They both fulfill the large destroyer function, but the Type-55 will probably only cost $200million more than the Type-52D, which is probably around $800-$1000million. These figures are based on extrapolations of the cost/labour for the Burkes built by SK/JP/US and the Type-54 detailed cost breakdown estimate that was published.

So the Type-55 would cost some 16%-25% more than the Type-52D, but would have the following benefits:

1. 75%-100% more VLS cells. Remember the current Type-52D doesn't have enough cells.
2. Radars mounted higher on the superstructure which means a better detection range over the horizon for sea-skimming missiles and higher-flying aircraft.
3. More cruising range, better living conditions and better redundance, damage resilience etc
4. More space for helicopters/UAVs/UUVs which are the future.
5. A lot more electrical power for radars. Future railguns and lasers would also benefit from this.

So the Type-55 simply offers much better value for money, particularly as China's increasing defense budget can absorb the additional cost.

AndrewS, Feb 1, 2016
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
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.
 

Jura

General
For my next prediction.

...
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)
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Here is what I wrote in Feb 2016.
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.
 

Top