plawolfAre all the orders that are booked suddenly being canceled? And what happens if the economy perks up in a year?
Do a simple google search and find out if orders are being cancelled.
And I would like to see your economic credentials if you want to have your view taken above that of pretty much every reputable economist on the planet.
Everyone is predicting the recession to continue and worsen over the coming years. What more, there is a big time lag between when the retail sector starts picking up when new ship orders will materialize when there has been a contraction in the shipping industry, as underused or mothball ships are put back into service before there is a need for new ships.
Perhaps you might wish to have a go at attempting to answer some of your own questions first, instead of posting the first thing that pops into your head.
Nothing is perfect. The French had to redesign CdG to handle the E-2 and they’ve had experience in building carriers, operating carrier aircraft, and had the cooperation of the country supplying the aircraft to help them.
The effectiveness of CAD is based primarily on the computing power of the computers used. Surely you might have noticed a certain trend in that regard in the last few decades.
Just because the had CAD thirty years ago does not mean that its anywhere close to as effective as the modern day version.
I’m not dismissing computer design, but it’s only as good as the programmers and their experience. 787 looked perfect on the screen, but in reality they’re finding glitches here and there. And I’d suspect a carrier is far more complex than an airliner, and if a company like Boeing can make mistakes, it’s well within the realm of believeablity that a country with zero experience building warships of that size and design will produce something with issues. They may not be show stoppers, but they’ll be there.
So what is your example of a perfect design then? Look close enough and you will find flaws in everything designed and build by man. The only issue would be how much the flaw would effect the operations of the ship. The general rule of thumb is that the bigger the flaw, the more unlikely it is to occur, especially when you are applying tired and tested technologies, concepts and designs. Just compare the development times of the J10 verses the FC1.
So lets spend all this money on building two unproven designs with yards that have never built something like it before and then spend more money, time, and resources fixing it…twice. That sounds like something mandated by Congress, not logic.
Thats the price of progress. If you want to improve, then you must do the unprecedented. And in this regard, China has shown itself to be far wiser then most, preferring to spent far longer learning, planning and testing before attempting something new and groundbreaking.
That is a sign of risk minimization. And they do it to improve the chances of success and to lower the cost of achieving their goals despite the fact that the ignorant will mistake those endeavors with a lack of imagination. China simply does not care as long as it gets what it wants in the end.
If they built one ship, they’d learn their trade and isolate the mistakes. The USN didn’t go from USS Langly to USS Essex simultaneously, it took decades of experience to get to that stage.
I see you have a reading problem. Go back to re-read my last post direct at you.
I’m not saying they can’t do it, just that I’m think that by doing it this way that they’re going to get two ships that are going to be more than yard queens for the first few years of their waterborne lives.
Baseless and already addressed before. Read my last post again.
plawolfI suppose experience in designing such vessels, experience in building them and experience in operating them can be distinguished. As far as experience with building is concerned, not only is an aircraft carrier quite a different thing to build than a tanker or a bulkcarrier, but there is also a learning curve in building a particular type of vessel again and again. Hence, I would expect a first of class to take longer to build and trial than then next or, say, the tenth)
That is a fair point. However, the time it takes others is no indication on how fast China might be able to build carriers. After all, would you take the average European build time and cost of tankers or whatnot as a estimate of how long it will take Chinese yards to turn out similar vessels?
Also, without prior experience in building and/or operating, even after having studied various existing designs, one could still finalize a design only to discover during building or operating that some of the design solutions chosen are not optimal from the perspective of building or operating.
Again, a fair point. But that does not give any indication of how long it will take China to build carriers.
plawolfSo China pulls all these workers off other projects so they can build two carriers in six years and leaves the rest of the yards understaffed. That’s going to bode well for the economic health of the yard.
I suspect you might have noticed the tiny bit of economic doom and gloom sweeping the world. In the next few years, the biggest concern for yards around the world would be how to get enough orders to keep their expensive docks occupied. You would need to be a real optimist if you think many yards are going to have problems with excess demand.
It is widely suspected that the timing of the carrier orders has more to do with the current world economic climate then any actual operational need.
By placing large naval orders, not only would China be massively boosting the combat capabilities of its navy, but will also help boost the national economy and keeping thousands of highly skilled jobs safe, so that the shipbuilding industry does not suffer too much lasting harm, and can emerge comparatively stronger then competitors who were forced to shed jobs and cut capacity.
And if a flaw is discovered? Oh…that’s right…China has been studying what everyone else has done. Don’t you think that France did the same thing when they were developing CdG? Yet you see the issues that cropped up there and France has a much more robust track record with building, operating, and knowing what’s really needed for a CV.
In this day and age of computer based designs and far more accurate modeling and testing methods, you would need to do something special to allow a crippling flaw to go unnoticed until the actual ship has been built. Thats just the realities of the modern shipbuilding industry. Thus, ruling out such a spectacular screw up, any design flaws would be more of an annoyance instead of major hinderance, and any crew should expect such things as part of their lot. Again, thats just the realities of the world.
What more, if you have not noticed, I posted early that there is no reason for the PLAN to built two identical carriers.
Even if they did build two twins, and a flaw is found, that would give then the option of keeping one ship in drydock and correcting the problem while the other ship is commissioned and put into service. Thats like added insurance that they will have at least one new carrier ready for operations no matter what.
If they just built one ship, then the PLAN high command would face a hard choice of either sending the ship back to be fixed and not have a new carriers as was planned, or to just use the flawed ship as it has until a major re-fit many many years down the line.
plawolfThe nuclear propulsion was new for a carrier, but old in that it derived from that in Frances nuclear subs. Carrying capability of CdG is the same as the preceding Clemenceau class (35-40 aircraft). Overall, I don’t consider it an abberation: UK case is similar > it just as well illustrates knowing about design and building of nuclear subs doesn’t guarantee quick build times for (STOVL) carriers.
All the build-times I gave were for BUILD-times i.e. construction i.e. time from being first LAID DOWN to being COMMISSIONED (which includes sea trials). At no point did I include time for design.
Well I think your emphasis on build time is rightly put. But I fail to see the connection between build time and design experience once you have a design finalized.
Because of the lack of carrier design experience, China would no doubt take a lot longer to DESIGN a carrier then nations that have designed and built carriers before. However, once those designs had been finalized and construction started, the building process would be no different then that of any other warship – you just follow the plans and apply the technology and skills you used on bigger and more complex designs on this project.
These are conventional carriers, so there is not the added complication of trying to build, install and test nuclear reactors. The only things that would effect the build time is the quality and quantity of the necessary men and machines. Thus past construction projects are the most important determining factors, and little else.
plawolfAnother point I would like to make is that just because China is building two carriers does not necessarily mean that they are going to be clones of each other.
It could just as easily be the case that they are building two different designs that they cannot choose between to see which on works better operationally, or a fairly radical design with a far more conservative fall back option, just like the 052C v 051C.
Two different designs are even more likely if the ships are to be built at two different yards under two different companies.
plawolfLastly, I share other people’s questionings of exactly what they mean by turning Varyag into a ‘training ship’, given the key experience which must be gained is landing and launching from a ship moving under its own power, something she obviously can’t do at the moment. There’s nothing to stop them putting turbines in her of course but it would then seem a very daft waste to spend that amount of money and then only use her for training when she’s a mostly finished and successful carrier design there for the taking.
The Varyag will be a training ship in that its primary function, at least to start off with, will be to test out new kit and concepts, help develop tactics and training crews for the new built indigenous carriers. But that does not mean she can’t or won’t be a fully combat-capable carrier in its own right.
She may not be as ‘optimized’ as she could be, since I suspect there will be a good deal of space set aside to test multiple competing systems and theories to determine which is most suitable, and may not get the full weapons and sensor suit as the new built carriers. But all that could be easily amended in her first major overhaul. Hell, there is nothing stopping the PLAN making her anything other then a combat carrier in the first place.
plawolfI will believe this when I see metal being cut and fabricated.
Not going to happen. Unless there is a radical chance of policy within the PLA, you won’t know what they are building until it starts to take on a distinctive shape.
You might get pictures of metal being cut, but good luck trying to decide what its being cut for.
I think a decade is a more realistic time frame to see this kind of platform enter service. Not only is this a huge untertaking from a shipbuilding point of view there will be a multitude of training and equipment issues that will be needed to be straightened out before they go to sea in a meaningful way.
I think Varyag will enter some sort of service and she will be underway under her own power. Satellite shots can’t look through a steel deck and we only have speculation as to what is happening below decks. I have a feeling that in a couple of years she will be at sea in some form.
I think you answered you own point there. Sure, with no past experience, the PLAN will need longer then normal to learn the ropes before their carriers can be classed as combat ready. That is one of the key reasons for restoring the Varyag. So it can be used to test out tactics and train crews while the indigenous carriers are being built, so there is less of transitional period between when the new carriers are finished and when they become operational.
plawolfSo your only arguments are
1. China has been studying carrier designs &
2. There are no incompetant people in Chinaso
1. There will be no design flaw in China’s very first carrier carrier
2. Any changes required will be easily identified, since they know all that they require.I rest my case. :rolleyes:
A typically thoughtless response.
All you have are generalizations and circular reasoning.
“China can’t build carriers because it has not designed any carriers before, and China can’t design carriers because it never built any before”.
That is basically your entire case, and it has more holes then a fishing net.
China has never designed and built carriers before, and that is why it has spent so much time and money looking at how others have done it.
All the restoration work they have been doing on the Varyag will also be invaluable hands-on experience.
plawolfThis makes good copy, plawolf, but for me it doesn’t pass the smell test. You’re expecting me to believe that of all the nations who have fielded carriers in the last 50 years, none of them studied and researched carrier ops and how the other guys are doing it with an eye to improve their own CVs?
It boggles the mind.
And where did I say that?
I also don’t buy the manpower argument. I don’t care how many men you have lining up for a job, you don’t build a carrier with unskilled workers. At least not if you want it to work right.
I didn’t bring up the manpower argument, and your a long way off the mark with that response.
China has a vast shipbuilding industry. If it wanted, it can bring in as many highly skilled men as they could reasonably want to work on their carriers.
When everyone is at a similar skill level, having two guys on the job is certainly a lot faster then only one man.
One carrier in the water in six years, maybe. One carrier commissioned and mission ready in ten years, probably. Two carriers in any of those time frames, highly doubtful.
Thats only if they are build sequentially, if work starts on both at the same time, then there is no reason why they can’t build two in that timeframe.
plawolfDepends. There ar many drydocks available for building a frigate or destroyer, there will only be 1 drydock for carrierbuilding, from what these reports ell us.
The new yard in Shanghai will have a dry dock almost tailor made for carrier construction, and there is another dry dock big enough for a carrier in Dalian. The Varyag itself spent several months in it, and there are pictures knocking about on most Chinese military forums.
Nobody says China can’t build ships, even highly cmplex ones such as nuclear subs. But, as the example of France shows, knowing how to make nuclear subs doesn’t guarantee smooth sailing when it comes to designing and building a nuclear carrier, even with some experience in conventional carriers. And, as the example of UK shows, knowing how to make nuclear subs and many conventional carriers, doesn’t guarantee speed in building.
The French example is more of an aberration rather then the norm. It might not have been bigger, but it was still a highly ambitious project, being nuclear powered, having many new features like the propellers you mentioned, as well as its carrying ability.
The PLAN is certain to have studied the French case to see where and why things went wrong to avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Uk and US have at least as much mature technology and many designs to draw upon. US has built some 70 fleet carriers (of which 20 post WW2) and a good 130 escort carriers, not counting any LPH/LHA/LHD. In 20 classes. The Uk record, while less numerous in terms of number of ships and classes, is no less impressive and much of the pioneering and experience with UK carriers went into US carriers.
I think there are two issues here that are getting a little muddled.
One is carrier design, while the other is carrier construction. The two are intimately linked, but should be discussed separately.
What you are arguing is that China has no Carrier design experience. That is true, but that has little baring on how fast China can build carriers once it has the designs it wants.
China has spent the last several decades studying carrier design and drawing up blue prints of its own. For China to start construction of its carriers would mean that China has long since finalized the design and the only thing left to do is to build the ships themselves.
That is where China’s past shipbuilding record becomes important, since it clearly shows that Chinese yards have the technology and experience needed to successfully complete projects of that level of complexity and scale. It would just be a case of following the building instructions like any other contract.
Going from a blank piece of paper to two finished carriers in 6 years is highly improbable, and if you think that was what I was suggesting, then no wonder you had such a hard time accepting it. However, turning out a pair of 50-60kt warships in 6 years, when they are built simultaneously, is not such a tall order now is it?
plawolfFurthermore…
And that is why China has spent decades looking at many carrier designs from many different nations.
As for carrier ops affecting the design, well that is only the case in a very broad sense for it to effect the operation of the ship. You would need a major design flaw for it to not be easily fixed with a few small modifications. When working with tried and tested designs and concepts, you need to be pretty incompetent to make such a big mistake, and incompetent people don’t get very far in China.
No carrier that China bought had any critical design flaws that would impede the smooth operation of the ship. Any lessons learnt from them would work just fine.
The ships might be optimized for different roles, but any competent engineer would be able to spot that, just it would be easy for an aircraft designer to look at the blueprints of the A10 compared to the F15 and see which features are suited for ground attack and which are for air combat.
plawolfAnd because they are logical and rational, they’re not complex? What kind of logic is that?
If you actually tried to understand instead of wasting all your time finding comebacks, you might have understood what I was talking about. Just because something is complex and intricate does not mean the laws and principles of physicals and design apply differently to it. Every machine is complex, but made up of simple parts. The key to understanding a design is to see what the purpose of each part is, and what effect it has on the whole. It gets a lot more complex, but thats the basic idea.
Not true. Just because you have the blueprint doesn’t mean the logic behind the design is easily inferred. The F-15 is a case in point. With some of the original designers gone, some parts of the design had current people mystified as to their functions.
And that did not stop the US from making better planes now did it?
plawolfPlease, don’t say something that makes you look so base…
Oh wow, you actually read a book, want a cookie or something?
Carrier design, like the design of all functional things, are highly logical and rational. Only someone who has no idea of engineering would think it so complex.
There is nothing about the design of a ship you cannot learn from examining the ship, provided you had the right schooling and experience. Its as simple as that.
The Varyag is not the USSR’s first attempt at carrier designing, and is the culmination of all their past design experiences and lessons learnt from them, the Varyag’s sister ships are either operational or in the process of being put into operation, further validating the design. Meaning nothing major is missing from the design. With her as the starting point, they have already got the hardest part out of the way.
plawolfThe complexity of super tankers and other large commercial ships are barely comparable to that of a modern destroyer, least of all to an aircraft carrier.
Please try and read more carefully. Where did I say supertankers are as complex as carriers? They are certainly bigger.
The point is that it takes great skill and expertise to design nuclear subs, and that is a good indication of the skill and technology level of the ship building industry.
There can be no question that technology needed to build 80s era carriers are readily available, and the only question mark might be over the design. But the PLAN has that covered as well since they have been spending the last several decades studying carriers and the last few years going over all the carriers they bought with a fine tooth comb.
plawolfChina can study as much as it wants ….
Nonsense and sour grapes.
You are getting carrier design mixed up with carrier operations. Carrier operations takes time and real experience, but a design is just a design. You put this feature in for this reason and that bulkhead is that shape and thickness for that reason.
A carrier is a ship, a very complex ship, but still a ship. There is nothing mythical or unknowable about their design a competent engineer cannot easily devise from just looking at it. And the Chinese have been studying carrier designs from many nations very carefully. Or did you actually think she bought all those old carriers for public amusement?
Sign In
