New PLAN Carrier - Type 001A

[TopHatter]

China may launch Type 001A carrier on Mao's birthday: report

China is ready to launch its first domestically built aircraft carrier, known as the Type 001A, on Dec. 26 to mark the 122th birthday of Mao Zedong, according to Hong Kong newspaper Ming Pao on Sept. 24.

President Xi Jinping reportedly visited the Dalian Shipyard to inspect the progress of work on the carrier in August. The shipyard had previously overseen the retrofitting of the Varyag, China's first aircraft carrier purchased as a hulk from Ukraine and finally commissioned in 2012 as the Liaoning.

Noting that it took only two years and eight months for the US to complete the USS John C Stennis, its seventh Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, Ming Pao predicted that China will be able to complete the construction of the Type 001A in a similar time. The John C Stennis was commissioned in 1995.

Moreover, unlike the John C Stennis, the Type 001A is only a conventionally powered carrier rather than a nuclear-powered carrier and is much smaller than the supercarriers of the US Navy.

Ming Pao also pointed out that China has a tradition of launching new warships at the end of a year to celebrate Chairman Mao's birthday. In 1970, it was the day that China launched its first nuclear-powered submarine, the Changzhen-I. Three out of China's four Han-class Type 091 submarines were also launched on Dec. 26.

July 1 and Aug. 1, the anniversaries of the founding of the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army respectively are likewise two dates that warships or other types of military hardware are commissioned, the paper said.

However, while the new carrier may be launched on Dec. 26, it will probably take another two to three years for the Type 001A carrier to enter service, Mign Pao said, suggesting Oct. 1, 2019 — the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China — as a possible date. Link





___________

It'll be interesting to see if this actually comes to pass according to their comparison with the John C Stennis.

Speaking of, looks like they couldn't resist photochopping a Nimitz-class into their promotional materials (again)

[surfgun]

It looks to have sonar, so they will get to hear those finely crafted catapults firing off.
Plus I love the angle of those forward cats! They could make things interesting!

[Skywatcher]

The Type 001A is most likely to still have a ski-jump, and may not have cats. We'll see, of course.

[Monash]

I'm sure their Navy will sweat out all the 'kinks' in their designs in due course. But it will take decades before they can match the operational experience and sheer weight of tonnage of the US. in fact by the time they achieve parity carriers may be on their 'way out ' such is the pace of deveplopment in hypersonics, drones and all the other tech that is going to have an impact on long range power projection. Not saying its inevitable/highly likely mind you but it would be a real bummer for them to develop the carrier equivlant of the Yamato class BB only to have it rendered obsolete even as it slides down the ramp with the champain still frothing on the bow.

[SteveDaPirate]

It sounds like the Type 001A is patterned after the Liaoning, which isn't too shocking. One interesting design quirk is that they are apparently planning to add a single waist catapult. The J-15 will still launch using the ski jump but the single catapult will be there to assist AEW aircraft that couldn't otherwise get off the deck.

One limitation of the design is that the J-15 can't launch with more than 12 tons of fuel and ordnance using the ski jump at the end of the Liaoning. This leaves only 2 tons for ordnance with a full fuel load.

[TopHatter]

China Can't Build Lethal Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers

China may have started construction on its second aircraft carrier according to new satellite imagery. The images—which were obtained by the British defense trade journal IHS Jane’s from Airbus Defence and Space—shows that a new ship is under construction in the same dry dock that was used to refurbish the former Soviet carrier Varyag during its conversion into China’s Liaoning. This would be China’s first indigenous flattop—if it were indeed a carrier.

The Jane’s analysis indicates that the ship might be between 558ft and 885ft long with a beam greater than 98ft. That’s a little small for a conventional aircraft carrier—and the Jane’s analysts note that they can’t conclusively say the new ship is a carrier. Indeed, the Kuzetsov-class—which Liaoning is based on—is roughly 1,000ft long and has a beam of 236ft. But that length—assuming the Jane’s analysts are correct—would be about the same as India’s Vikramaditya, which is based on the Soviet Kiev-class carrier or the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. The beam, however, is somewhat narrow—most carriers are much wider—which means this could be an amphibious assault ship or something else entirely.

It should be no surprise that Beijing might be building new carriers. Indeed, the Pentagon’s 2015 annual report to Congress on Chinese military power states: “China also continues to pursue an indigenous aircraft carrier program and could build multiple aircraft carriers over the next 15 years.” Indeed, Taiwanese and Hong Kong media have reported that China could launch its first indigenous carrier —the Type 001A—on Dec. 26 to mark the 122th anniversary of Mao Zedong’s birthday. Chinese papers have also previously reported that an indigenous carrier is being built in Dalian.

While China might be building a new flattop, the vessel is likely to be much smaller than the U.S. Navy’s 100,000-ton Nimitz or Ford-class nuclear-powered carriers. The Chinese vessels will probably be smaller, conventionally-powered either by steam or diesel propulsion and probably will not have electromagnetic catapults.

The reason is simple—China does not have the experience in designing and building large military vessels the size of a carrier or amphibious assault ship. It lacks the requisite expertise in designing and building the propulsion systems for such a vessel. Further, China is lagging behind on metallurgy for the vessel’s hull. As for catapults—it took the U.S. Navy years to perfect steam catapults and the jury is still out on Ford’s Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). Stealing technology can get Chinese engineers only so far—practical experience makes a difference.

China simply does not currently have the technology to build nuclear-powered carriers. Right now, the Chinese are struggling to build modern nuclear reactors for their submarine fleet. Indeed, Chinese nuclear submarines are comparable to 1970s vintage Soviet designs. China is nowhere near ready to scale up those designs to be suitable for a carrier.

Truth be told, Beijing seems to be aware of its shortcomings. Beijing-based Chinese naval expert Li Jie acknowledged the problem to the South China Morning Post late last year. “Compared with submarines, a carrier is much bigger,” Li told the Chinese daily. “It will take time for our nuclear engineers to develop a safe and powerful engine capable of driving a huge platform of more than 100,000 tonnes.”

It is conceivable that China might attempt to follow in the footsteps of the recently retired USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which used eight submarine reactors. The United States didn’t have the technology to build reactors suitable for an aircraft carrier when Enterprise was built. Instead the Navy opted for eight smaller reactors, but at the cost of a lot of space. The later Nimitz-class has two large reactors instead.

Meanwhile, China is still well behind the United States and Russia in terms of metallurgy and propulsion technologies. Chinese shipyards have had past issues with poor metallurgy for their earlier naval vessels—but China will probably solve the problem eventually. The Indians, who traditionally imported high-strength steel from Russia, have developed their own indigenous alloys. The Chinese will, no doubt, accomplish that same goal in time.

In terms of propulsion, the Chinese are still well behind the curve but it is one area where they can probably leverage experience with commercial maritime propulsion technologies. But they probably do not have the wherewithal to build propulsion systems that can support a carrier the size of a Nimitz—a smaller ship is thus a more likely prospect. “But as Marine gas turbines, like diesel design, have not been a bright spot in Chinese industry,” as Gabe Collins and Lt Cmdr. Michael Grubb note in a Naval War College study. “Their development has been severely hindered by the slow place of indigenous jet engine development, which is symptomatic of larger issues within the Chinese aerospace industry as a whole.”

As for catapults—the U.S. Navy has had a hard enough time with the EMALS—it is highly dubious that China could master the technology this quickly even if it stole the entirety of Naval Air Systems Command’s data on the program. Stealing technology is easier than truly understanding it from the ground up. It is probably why China has trouble building hardware such as jet engines and gas turbines. Nonetheless, some Chinese officials assert their carrier will have an electromagnetic catapult. Steam catapults are a more likely prospect, but can still be tricky. The smart money is on a pure ski-jump design.

Collins and Grubb accurately sum up the Chinese carrier question in this statement: “The production of [ultralarge crude oil carriers] demonstrates the ability of Chinese shipyards to build hulls of aircraft-carrier size and strength, but their ability to integrate the complex matrix of aircraft, catapults, arresting gear, weapons systems, and large propulsion plants required for an operational aircraft carrier remains in doubt.” Link
__________________

The title is a bit of a giggle..."Lethal" nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

I also question their assertion that Enterprise carried small reactors due to lack of technology...I'd read that was something that Rickover crammed down the throats of the Navy, insisting that each boiler on a conventional design should be replaced on a one-for-one basis in the new CVN-65 class. Can anybody confirm or deny?

[SteveDaPirate]

While the Chinese may lack the tech to build a nuclear carrier, I actually suspect a conventionally powered carrier would suit their operational doctrine better anyway. China is mostly interested in projecting military power in their immediate neighborhood.

The US doesn't build nuclear carriers to patrol the Gulf of Mexico, we build them because they are regularly sent to the other side of the world for long periods of time. China's carriers will most likely spend the majority of their time patrolling the seas off the coast of China, in which case diesel or turbine engines are just fine.

[Skywatcher]

Majumbar (sp) made a critical error confusing the beam with the width of the flight deck.

[desertswo]

China Can't Build Lethal Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers

China may have started construction on its second aircraft carrier according to new satellite imagery. The images—which were obtained by the British defense trade journal IHS Jane’s from Airbus Defence and Space—shows that a new ship is under construction in the same dry dock that was used to refurbish the former Soviet carrier Varyag during its conversion into China’s Liaoning. This would be China’s first indigenous flattop—if it were indeed a carrier.

The Jane’s analysis indicates that the ship might be between 558ft and 885ft long with a beam greater than 98ft. That’s a little small for a conventional aircraft carrier—and the Jane’s analysts note that they can’t conclusively say the new ship is a carrier. Indeed, the Kuzetsov-class—which Liaoning is based on—is roughly 1,000ft long and has a beam of 236ft. But that length—assuming the Jane’s analysts are correct—would be about the same as India’s Vikramaditya, which is based on the Soviet Kiev-class carrier or the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. The beam, however, is somewhat narrow—most carriers are much wider—which means this could be an amphibious assault ship or something else entirely.

It should be no surprise that Beijing might be building new carriers. Indeed, the Pentagon’s 2015 annual report to Congress on Chinese military power states: “China also continues to pursue an indigenous aircraft carrier program and could build multiple aircraft carriers over the next 15 years.” Indeed, Taiwanese and Hong Kong media have reported that China could launch its first indigenous carrier —the Type 001A—on Dec. 26 to mark the 122th anniversary of Mao Zedong’s birthday. Chinese papers have also previously reported that an indigenous carrier is being built in Dalian.

While China might be building a new flattop, the vessel is likely to be much smaller than the U.S. Navy’s 100,000-ton Nimitz or Ford-class nuclear-powered carriers. The Chinese vessels will probably be smaller, conventionally-powered either by steam or diesel propulsion and probably will not have electromagnetic catapults.

The reason is simple—China does not have the experience in designing and building large military vessels the size of a carrier or amphibious assault ship. It lacks the requisite expertise in designing and building the propulsion systems for such a vessel. Further, China is lagging behind on metallurgy for the vessel’s hull. As for catapults—it took the U.S. Navy years to perfect steam catapults and the jury is still out on Ford’s Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). Stealing technology can get Chinese engineers only so far—practical experience makes a difference.

China simply does not currently have the technology to build nuclear-powered carriers. Right now, the Chinese are struggling to build modern nuclear reactors for their submarine fleet. Indeed, Chinese nuclear submarines are comparable to 1970s vintage Soviet designs. China is nowhere near ready to scale up those designs to be suitable for a carrier.

Truth be told, Beijing seems to be aware of its shortcomings. Beijing-based Chinese naval expert Li Jie acknowledged the problem to the South China Morning Post late last year. “Compared with submarines, a carrier is much bigger,” Li told the Chinese daily. “It will take time for our nuclear engineers to develop a safe and powerful engine capable of driving a huge platform of more than 100,000 tonnes.”

It is conceivable that China might attempt to follow in the footsteps of the recently retired USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which used eight submarine reactors. The United States didn’t have the technology to build reactors suitable for an aircraft carrier when Enterprise was built. Instead the Navy opted for eight smaller reactors, but at the cost of a lot of space. The later Nimitz-class has two large reactors instead.

Meanwhile, China is still well behind the United States and Russia in terms of metallurgy and propulsion technologies. Chinese shipyards have had past issues with poor metallurgy for their earlier naval vessels—but China will probably solve the problem eventually. The Indians, who traditionally imported high-strength steel from Russia, have developed their own indigenous alloys. The Chinese will, no doubt, accomplish that same goal in time.

In terms of propulsion, the Chinese are still well behind the curve but it is one area where they can probably leverage experience with commercial maritime propulsion technologies. But they probably do not have the wherewithal to build propulsion systems that can support a carrier the size of a Nimitz—a smaller ship is thus a more likely prospect. “But as Marine gas turbines, like diesel design, have not been a bright spot in Chinese industry,” as Gabe Collins and Lt Cmdr. Michael Grubb note in a Naval War College study. “Their development has been severely hindered by the slow place of indigenous jet engine development, which is symptomatic of larger issues within the Chinese aerospace industry as a whole.”

As for catapults—the U.S. Navy has had a hard enough time with the EMALS—it is highly dubious that China could master the technology this quickly even if it stole the entirety of Naval Air Systems Command’s data on the program. Stealing technology is easier than truly understanding it from the ground up. It is probably why China has trouble building hardware such as jet engines and gas turbines. Nonetheless, some Chinese officials assert their carrier will have an electromagnetic catapult. Steam catapults are a more likely prospect, but can still be tricky. The smart money is on a pure ski-jump design.

Collins and Grubb accurately sum up the Chinese carrier question in this statement: “The production of [ultralarge crude oil carriers] demonstrates the ability of Chinese shipyards to build hulls of aircraft-carrier size and strength, but their ability to integrate the complex matrix of aircraft, catapults, arresting gear, weapons systems, and large propulsion plants required for an operational aircraft carrier remains in doubt.” Link
__________________

The title is a bit of a giggle..."Lethal" nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

I also question their assertion that Enterprise carried small reactors due to lack of technology...I'd read that was something that Rickover crammed down the throats of the Navy, insisting that each boiler on a conventional design should be replaced on a one-for-one basis in the new CVN-65 class. Can anybody confirm or deny?

It was more along the lines of Enterprise being a proof of concept ship as well as an active fleet asset. The reactors available and proven in fleet operations were like those installed in the submarines. So rather than stretch the design and production window waiting for a new and unproven reactor design, they went with what they had and did a one for one swap out with the 1200 PSI boilers that powered Forestall and her descendants.

I don't think Rickover had to do much cramming in this instance. Look at the length of time between Enterprise and Nimitz. Had they waited for the new two reactor design to become reality, Enterprise might have slipped several years.