What's new

CV-17 Shandong - Type 002 Aircraft Carrier News & Discussions

That's the advantage of a smaller, less complex aircraft carrier. A large number of less sophisticated shipyards can produce the simple 001A design if the situation calls for it.

You only need two things. A dry dock big enough to accomodate the carrier. And a gantry crane to lift the modules into place.

Think about it like this. If a shoddy looking Indian shipyard can launch an aircraft carrier, the smaller Chinese shipyards can do the same.

INS_Vikrant_being_undocked_at_the_Cochin_Shipyard_Limited_in_2015_%2807%29.jpg

INS_Vikrant_being_undocked_at_the_Cochin_Shipyard_Limited_in_2015_%2808%29.jpg


On the other hand, the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier is the most advanced aircraft carrier ever built, but only a single shipyard can build it. Who has the advantage here?
Thanks for your interesting insights!

What's your opinion from the COST factors of going on the smaller, less complex aircraft carriers such as Type 001A even Type 002 vs. the highly complex Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier?
 
. .
@j20blackdragon :

US can only build one aircraft carrier at a time.

China is planning to build two simultaneously.

China does have the advantage but remember the US already has 11 1000,000 tonne carriers whereas China will only have 2 65,000 tonne ones in service by 2019
Btw you have the imposingly scaring excess zero in tonnage making it only Alien mothership can match :D:P

Don't really think that China should ever go to the same path in terms of CV development and ownership, aside from the different needs [so have several CVs are great, but not excessively], what folks never look into seriously here is the COST FACTOR. Not only the construction costs but also the operating incl. the maintenance costs of those 11 CVBG are killing [and what its impact on the real economy development], and well, China does not own such WRC "Printer", neither China has such "Petrodollar" regime to defend! :P

Unlike a decade or more ago, the CV nowadays are much more prone to its neutralizers [A2AD anyone], may be much less effective in adjacent waters in any real conflict among the major powers. Though they still look good in scaring and smacking the smaller nations with weak defense [cases of Iraq, Libya, etc] and of course, their sizes still naturally keep the charming appearances for most viewers :D:P


Following is an excerpt from the "Type 055 DDG" thread:

"CHINA’S TYPE 055 DESTROYER: FROM BLUEPRINT TO REALITY" originally appeared at southfront.org in February, 2017 as just posted by @cirr today :coffee:

"... The United States Navy has embarked upon a very different path, and is already paying a heavy price for deciding to not only field a number of totally new vessel designs, but at the same time abandoning proven technologies for unproven ones. The Freedom and Independence LCS programs, the first in class Gerald FordCVN, and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer project are all glaring examples. [LCS: Littoral Combat Ship]

Both class of LCS have experienced major engineering casualties since they were commissioned. Initial investigations have pointed to a combination of faulty engineering systems and inadequate engineering management processes. A major goal of the LCS program was to reduce vessel crews by automating as many processes as possible, and to gain flexibility through a modular design that allowed the platforms to be made mission specific by swapping warfare modules. For example, an LCS could be fitted with an ASW module to focus on anti-submarine duties one year, and then have the module removed and replaced with an AAW module the next, so that it could be shifted to air-defense duties as requirements changed. The benefits of this modularity have largely not been realized to date. For example, the LCS has failed to meet its intended ASW capabilities, even though the first vessels were commissioned in 2008 (Freedom LCS-1) and 2010 (Independence LCS-2).

The DDG-1000 Zumwalt was originally planned as the first of 32 vessels; however, the U.S. Navy later settled for only 3 vessels, as cost overruns and the failure of the design to meet mission requirements became evident. What resulted from the ambitious program are a $4 billion USD cost per vessel, advanced deck guns that are too expensive to use as intended (with an estimated cost per round of $800,000 USD), and an Advanced Induction Motor (AIM) propulsion system that left the Zumwalt dead in the water on its maiden trip through the Panama Canal on November 22, 2016. The DDG-1000 class are not Aegis vessels, have limited AAW capabilities due to their smaller missile payload, and lack any Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capability. They cannot integrate and coordinate AAW or BMD defense like all other Aegis class vessels. This is a major weakness, compared to all other Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class surface combatants, that can work together seamlessly using shared Aegis-based systems.

The most expensive naval vessel ever constructed, the Gerald R. Ford CVN-78, has already cost U.S. tax payers a cool $13 billion USD, yet the Navy Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) has no idea when it will be able to officially take delivery of the vessel. Major defects in the main turbine generators (MITs), and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) that has yet to be deemed operational, have only added costs to a program that has already experienced cost overruns approaching $3 billion USD. The adoption of multiple unproven technologies in the key areas of propulsion, and aircraft launch and recovery systems, was a foreseeable mistake..."
 
Last edited:
. . . .
001A seemed to be much wider than expected. Assuming both Liaoning and 001A are of the same length, these photo showed that 001A is much wider.

I used a ruler measuring manually the width of both ships as shown on computer screen. You can do the same to make your own conclusion.

104351lfwb1a4zh9h4j224.jpg
 
. .
this is exactly the moment of the launching ceremony. What a close watch on China's military building program......
So, should China build some giant enclosed building for the builders, taking the advantage of sheltering against the weather as well as the nosy spy satellites??? :D:P ha ha ha
 
.
That's the advantage of a smaller, less complex aircraft carrier. A large number of less sophisticated shipyards can produce the simple 001A design if the situation calls for it.

You only need two things. A dry dock big enough to accomodate the carrier. And a gantry crane to lift the modules into place.

Think about it like this. If a shoddy looking Indian shipyard can launch an aircraft carrier, the smaller Chinese shipyards can do the same.

INS_Vikrant_being_undocked_at_the_Cochin_Shipyard_Limited_in_2015_%2807%29.jpg

INS_Vikrant_being_undocked_at_the_Cochin_Shipyard_Limited_in_2015_%2808%29.jpg


On the other hand, the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier is the most advanced aircraft carrier ever built, but only a single shipyard can build it. Who has the advantage here?
I think you are missing one important part here, aircraft carrier? sure, aircraft carrier jets/helos? sure however despite all that you will need to train crew members and the air wing and not only train them but for them to work together efficiently, that is the complex part
 
. .
Btw you have the imposingly scaring excess zero in tonnage making it only Alien mothership can match :D:P

Don't really think that China should ever go to the same path in terms of CV development and ownership, aside from the different needs [so have several CVs are great, but not excessively], what folks never look into seriously here is the COST FACTOR. Not only the construction costs but also the operating incl. the maintenance costs of those 11 CVBG are killing [and what its impact on the real economy development], and well, China does not own such WRC "Printer", neither China has such "Petrodollar" regime to defend! :P

Unlike a decade or more ago, the CV nowadays are much more prone to its neutralizers [A2AD anyone], may be much less effective in adjacent waters in any real conflict among the major powers. Though they still look good in scaring and smacking the smaller nations with weak defense [cases of Iraq, Libya, etc] and of course, their sizes still naturally keep the charming appearances for most viewers :D:P


Following is an excerpt from the Type 055 DDG thread:

"CHINA’S TYPE 055 DESTROYER: FROM BLUEPRINT TO REALITY" originally appeared at southfront.org in February, 2017 as just posted by @cirr today :coffee:

"... The United States Navy has embarked upon a very different path, and is already paying a heavy price for deciding to not only field a number of totally new vessel designs, but at the same time abandoning proven technologies for unproven ones. The Freedom and Independence LCS programs, the first in class Gerald FordCVN, and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer project are all glaring examples. [LCS: Littoral Combat Ship]

Both class of LCS have experienced major engineering casualties since they were commissioned. Initial investigations have pointed to a combination of faulty engineering systems and inadequate engineering management processes. A major goal of the LCS program was to reduce vessel crews by automating as many processes as possible, and to gain flexibility through a modular design that allowed the platforms to be made mission specific by swapping warfare modules. For example, an LCS could be fitted with an ASW module to focus on anti-submarine duties one year, and then have the module removed and replaced with an AAW module the next, so that it could be shifted to air-defense duties as requirements changed. The benefits of this modularity have largely not been realized to date. For example, the LCS has failed to meet its intended ASW capabilities, even though the first vessels were commissioned in 2008 (Freedom LCS-1) and 2010 (Independence LCS-2).

The DDG-1000 Zumwalt was originally planned as the first of 32 vessels; however, the U.S. Navy later settled for only 3 vessels, as cost overruns and the failure of the design to meet mission requirements became evident. What resulted from the ambitious program are a $4 billion USD cost per vessel, advanced deck guns that are too expensive to use as intended (with an estimated cost per round of $800,000 USD), and an Advanced Induction Motor (AIM) propulsion system that left the Zumwalt dead in the water on its maiden trip through the Panama Canal on November 22, 2016. The DDG-1000 class are not Aegis vessels, have limited AAW capabilities due to their smaller missile payload, and lack any Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capability. They cannot integrate and coordinate AAW or BMD defense like all other Aegis class vessels. This is a major weakness, compared to all other Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class surface combatants, that can work together seamlessly using shared Aegis-based systems.

The most expensive naval vessel ever constructed, the Gerald R. Ford CVN-78, has already cost U.S. tax payers a cool $13 billion USD, yet the Navy Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) has no idea when it will be able to officially take delivery of the vessel. Major defects in the main turbine generators (MITs), and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) that has yet to be deemed operational, have only added costs to a program that has already experienced cost overruns approaching $3 billion USD. The adoption of multiple unproven technologies in the key areas of propulsion, and aircraft launch and recovery systems, was a foreseeable mistake..."
I think last part clearly states and gives the major lesson to all defence industries to not use technology on heavy projects unless they are first tested in small scale.
 
.
19
Thanks for your interesting insights!

What's your opinion from the COST factors of going on the smaller, less complex aircraft carriers such as Type 001A even Type 002 vs. the highly complex Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier?
10 gerard r. fort class battle 10 type 003 combine with 10 type 001a who will win
 
.
Look at the tiny dry-dock used for the construction of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier at Rosyth Dockyard. I don't think the width matters much. The dry-dock simply needs to be long enough for the overall length of the carrier. The Kuznetsov-class is 305 meters long. The Queen Elizabeth-class is 280 meters.

dVXkity.jpg

L7AIyMa.jpg


The massive dry-dock at Dalian is probably overkill for the 001A. A smaller dry-dock would have sufficed.

Ll2eCog.jpg

X6Zg1Oj.jpg


Now I am certain that smaller shipyards (with smaller dry-docks) all over China can build the 001A. Most importantly, less experienced shipyards won't have to worry about a complex nuclear propulsion system and catapults.
 
.
During WW2, fifty Casablanca-class carriers were laid down, launched and commissioned within the space of less than two years - 3 November 1942 through to 8 July 1944.

Where did the crew members and air wing come from I wonder?
You can't be comparing aircraft carriers from WW2 with pre jet era aircraft to sophisticated modern 21st century aircraft carriers man, two different beasts there. I know you may say that modern aircraft carriers, like most things in that tech range are alot more automated hence requiring less people but that only increases the training needed.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom