[shortbread]

It's not just chinese aircrafts, but their ships are proving problematic as well for Pakistan. Theres a reason when it comes to hi tech defense exports, chinese are laggards.

Defective critical components, poor service from Chinese manufacturers give nightmares to Pakistani Navy

https://theprint.in/world/defective-...i-navy/996918/

[ads11]

Originally Posted by shortbread

It's not just chinese aircrafts, but their ships are proving problematic as well for Pakistan. Theres a reason when it comes to hi tech defense exports, chinese are laggards.

https://theprint.in/world/defective-...i-navy/996918/

I'm not privy to regular Pakistani defence blog chatter but a thought occurred to me - do you think there's a body of thought there where they have reason to gripe about iffy kit foistered on them by China in the way say India has reason on occasion to complain about iffy kit from Russia?

It's hard to tell how much might just be biased messaging but broadly speaking it does seem that Chinese defence exports don't have a sterling reputation. I vaguely remember the Emiratis not being best pleased with Chinese drones in their service.

On another note I just came across a Reddit comment that explained something I hadn't considered. Looking at the newly launched Fujian, you can see the on deck sheds to cover the tracks for the catapults - obviously I thought it's to hide them from prying eyes overhead. What I hadn't considered is that they're air conditioned too given how hot it gets in Shanghai and also weather protection from inclement weather. Feel a bit silly now for not having considered that. Thinking back to when the Vikrant was launched, similar sheds in places on its deck now make much more sense.

I wonder how much pomp and circumstance awaits the Vikrant commissioning now.

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by shortbread

It's not just chinese aircrafts, but their ships are proving problematic as well for Pakistan. Theres a reason when it comes to hi tech defense exports, chinese are laggards.



https://theprint.in/world/defective-...i-navy/996918/

The massive ramping up of production capacity by the Chinese is said to historically unprecedented in a time of relative peace. It is but natural, as with any production line of any engineering product anywhere in the world, that there will issues (major or minor) in the beginning. These issues will subside as production line and personnel mature.

The important thing for us to note is that they have such a massive engineering/production capacity in the first place. This gives them a massive advantage over us in terms of filling up gaps caused by attrition during a serious war (whereas we have to depend on unreliable and costly imports for the same). This capability will, almost certainly, be used by the Chinese in support of our other enemy (Pakistan) as well.

The way I see it, if we don't get an efficient domestic MIC up and running within the next 5-10 years, we are in for a world of hurt.

Originally Posted by ads11

I'm not privy to regular Pakistani defence blog chatter but a thought occurred to me - do you think there's a body of thought there where they have reason to gripe about iffy kit foistered on them by China in the way say India has reason on occasion to complain about iffy kit from Russia?

Its good that you are not privy to the happenings on PDF. You might lose a few IQ points by going through their delusional ramblings . On a serious note, there is a clear consensus among the Pakistani defense community that European/American equipment is preferred anyday over Chinese ones. The only reason they are going for Chinese equipment is because they don't have any other choice. The quality of their Chinese equipment can be judged from occasional truth which slips out despite heavy censorship efforts of the forum moderators. Get this, apart from the myriad issues ranging from structural to electrical reported here, their much vaunted JF-17 cannot go supersonic without crashing (something to do with airframe failure or something. I cannot recall exactly what). The first JF-17 crash was caused due to this very reason. From then on, PAF restricted the JFs to subsonic/transonic speeds. This was revealed by a foreign member of Pakistani origin(who had worked with PAC Kamra as a consultant or something) while they were trying to degrade the Tejas (or the Samusa as they like to call it). The meltdown which followed was worth its weight in gold though .

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ads11

The defence twittersphere has been agog today because it looks like the PLAN finally launched their Type 003 carrier, and christened it too (the Fujian).

Truly a landmark moment in the world of naval ship building. This will be the first large carrier built outside USA, UK & USSR (Russia). In fact it is the first warship of any kind of this size built outside the US. 316 metres in length, maybe a displacement of 85,000 to 90,000 tonnes! Some more photos of this impressive ship in the making. @ads11, the slim funnel might mean steam turbines. Too slim for gas turbines! The world has witnessed a naval build up like this only twice before - that of the Imperial German Navy in ~1890 to 1914 and of The Soviet Navy ~1965 to 1985.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The world has witnessed a naval build up like this only twice before - that of the Imperial German Navy in ~1890 to 1914 and of The Soviet Navy ~1965 to 1985.

To add, the first time ever in Chinese history that they had a Navy of any significance at all, except for a short period under Admiral Zheng He - same goes with the Imperial German Navy & Soviet Navy when the build-up in the respective time periods you've mentioned was the only time these countries ever had a significant Navy! Compare that with the rich tradition of shipbuilding by Gujarati Sultanates, Bengal etc. along with formidable navies built by the Cholas in the South that dominated South East Asia.

I'm stating this to tear down two misconceptions:

1) As the Chinese, German and Soviet examples show, you don't have to be a historic maritime power to build a formidable Navy.

2) Even if we were to entertain that excuse, India has always dominated the Indian Ocean, just that this domination wasn't achieved by empires based in Delhi. Navy aside, even civilian infrastructure is lacking with the busiest Indian port - the JNPT, ranking only 35th globally with most of the transshipment into India handled by Dubai or Colombo. Even Vietnam has two ports that are busier than India's busiest. Our esteemed Ministers and Babus seem to forget that India has 7516 kms of coastline (longest in the Indian ocean I believe) while sitting more than 2000 kms away in landlocked Delhi.

Apologies for the digression and rant!

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Truly a landmark moment in the world of naval ship building. This will be the first large carrier built outside USA, UK & USSR (Russia). In fact it is the first warship of any kind of this size built outside the US. 316 metres in length, maybe a displacement of 85,000 to 90,000 tonnes!

Did the Soviets ever truly build anything in this weight and size class? The Kuznetsov is about the same category as the Liaoning and Shandong, whereas the Fujian is in proper super carrier territory.

I've come across plenty who seem to think that the architecture of the Type 003 carrier is based off of an erstwhile Soviet super carrier design that never made it to fruition (probably something like the Shtorm or Ulyanovsk classes)

@ads11, the slim funnel might mean steam turbines. Too slim for gas turbines!

Oh I see, will steam turbines be sufficient to generate the amount of power needed for not just the propulsion but EMALS and then the energy hungry systems like the radar on board? The last massive flat tops with steam power were the 70s era Kitty Hawk class of the USN and that was well before energy hungry electronics like AESA radar.

The world has witnessed a naval build up like this only twice before - that of the Imperial German Navy in ~1890 to 1914 and of The Soviet Navy ~1965 to 1985.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

To add, the first time ever in Chinese history that they had a Navy of any significance at all, except for a short period under Admiral Zheng He - same goes with the Imperial German Navy & Soviet Navy when the build-up in the respective time periods you've mentioned was the only time these countries ever had a significant Navy!

I mean if it wasn't clear that we're in a naval arms race the likes of which hasn't been seen since WW1, then this should be it. Back then it was the RN up against the Imperial German fleet and now you have the USN squaring off against the PLAN. Not to mention the build up occurring in the JMSDF, the ROKN, and the IN. (Other than AUKUS, I don't think the RAN has started to commit to fielding new hulls at great pace as yet but it's surely imminent). And finally to different extents you'll have other ASEAN nations building up as well in the SCS. It seems obvious that whatever conflagration happens will likely be in the SCS, hard not to see it occur elsewhere across the First Island Chain.

While a country needn't have a historic naval tradition to become a naval power (look at the USN - it was only the Great White Fleet onwards and the eroding of the RN's power after WW1 and then the hammer blow of WW2 that they truly achieved Teddy Roosevelt's second-to-none mantra), I guess institutional knowhow is still a powerful factor. It's esoteric and not really quantifiable but I guess there's the powerful esprit the corps that comes from an illustrious tradition. The PLAN lacks that, and let's hope for everyone's sake they never have reason to change that lack of wartime record.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

I've come across plenty who seem to think that the architecture of the Type 003 carrier is based off of an erstwhile Soviet super carrier design that never made it to fruition (probably something like the Shtorm or Ulyanovsk classes)

I believe it's not just a rumour. Consider this old article by the Lowy institute - a prestigious Australian Think-tank. It's likely that the blueprints helped though not to take away from China's milestone achievement especially since the old Soviet design probably never had EMALS. Does it make sense that they went for steam turbines due to a possible soviet-origin of the blueprints?

I mean if it wasn't clear that we're in a naval arms race the likes of which hasn't been seen since WW1, then this should be it. Back then it was the RN up against the Imperial German fleet and now you have the USN squaring off against the PLAN. Not to mention the build up occurring in the JMSDF, the ROKN, and the IN. (Other than AUKUS, I don't think the RAN has started to commit to fielding new hulls at great pace as yet but it's surely imminent). And finally to different extents you'll have other ASEAN nations building up as well in the SCS. It seems obvious that whatever conflagration happens will likely be in the SCS, hard not to see it occur elsewhere across the First Island Chain.

And for some reason, I have the feeling that the IN is basically the equivalent of the French Navy of the WW1 - highly experienced and respected but no match for the Germans atleast in terms of numbers (or the Chinese in present-day).

About the RAN, their build-up is significant in their own right relative to their population size, Australia is a country of a little more than 25 million, even ROK has double their population. Their nine Hunter class frigates will be a gamechanger with the Aussie version expected to nudge 10,000 tons - much bigger than our own upcoming Nilgiri class frigates of which we are acquiring only 7 and even our destroyers. So, the RAN is acquiring more vessels than India which are at the same time larger than their equivalent Indian vessels (though to be fair, we are building our frigates much faster than the Aussies are building theirs and would probably have launched our own next-gen frigates by the time the Aussie get all their Hunter class frigates.). Coming to my favorite naval aircraft - the P8, they've inducted these very quickly and will soon field more aircraft than India making them the second-largest operator - a huge deal when you consider that the other operators are established powers like the RAF and IN.

It's esoteric and not really quantifiable but I guess there's the powerful esprit the corps that comes from an illustrious tradition. The PLAN lacks that, and let's hope for everyone's sake they never have reason to change that lack of wartime record.

Can't say they fully lack a wartime record. I believe their most recent naval engagement was with the Vietnamese over the Johnson South Reef in 1988 - a skirmish that unsurprisingly, the Chinese decisively won. India's last naval engagement was probably in 1971 though that was a full blown war from which India can reap a rich array of experiences, not just a minor Skirmish as with China. At the end of the day, quantity has a quality of its own but remains to be seen if the Chinese society can still handle heavy war attrition like in the Korean war.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I believe it's not just a rumour. Consider this old article by the Lowy institute - a prestigious Australian Think-tank. It's likely that the blueprints helped though not to take away from China's milestone achievement especially since the old Soviet design probably never had EMALS. Does it make sense that they went for steam turbines due to a possible soviet-origin of the blueprints?

Oh no doubt, this is still a big achievement on their part even if they had the skeleton of a former Soviet design to work off of. I can see now that if the steam turbines hold true, it would tally with that Soviet influence. I mean the PLAN iterated with steam turbines on the Type 002, so I guess it makes sense they'd continue along the same lines for the Type 003. However they seem happy to jump ahead (skip steam cats for EMALS) so I wouldn't be surprised if it was some powerplant (it's definitely not nuclear that's all we know for sure right?).

Speaking of the island - potentially silly question incoming but why the bigger exhaust towers for gas turbines compared to steam turbines V.Narayan?

About the RAN, their build-up is significant in their own right...

Ah thanks for that. Wasn't aware of their supersized frigates - I guess they'd need long legs to patrol Australia's equally vast maritime interests.

[V.Narayan]

^^^^^^
Won't go into the size of various carriers discussion as ads11 and dragracer567 have already covered that. As this forum is full of engineers I hope you will excuse this non-engineer as I grope around trying to answer this question on Steam Turbines & Marine Gas Turbines. If I err please remember to forgive is divine.

Ads11 here goes -- A steam turbine as we know by design burns fuel to heat/super heat steam which then runs the turbine till the super heated steam condenses to saturated vapour and then pure water and gets recycled back to the boiler. The volume of air gulped in burnt and spewed out is just what is needed for that heating of the boiler water and combustion is as complete (in modern steam turbines) as possible. Combustion is slow relative to a gas turbine or even an internal combustion piston engine. The air and fuel mixture is allowed time to combust almost fully. What comes out is as close to a mix of water vapour and CO2 as practical. The fuel air mixture heats cooler and cooler stages of water/steam as it works its way through the process transferring its energy along the way and then to the exhaust funnel. The exhaust at the funnel is I believe around 60 to 90 degrees centigrade. If it gets to 100 to 120 degrees water jets to cool it down get triggered.

A gas turbine on the other hand sucks in a prodigious volume of air only a part of which is combusted in the explosive combustion chamber* and what reaches the power extraction gas turbine is a mix of very hot uncombusted air + combusted air moving a great velocity which then exits at several hundred degrees centigrade after only a part of its energy is extracted. And because of the heat this gas exhausts at expanding volumes. Exhaust temperatures are in the 500 to 650 degrees centigrade. The energy is not just in the combustion as in steam turbines but the velocity of the exhaust gas that drives the power turbine. Hence the exhaust funnel of a marine gas turbine and the air intakes are several times bigger than the gas turbine proper. So large infact that removal of a GT for maintenance is done by pulling it out of the exhaust funnel.

Steam Turbines can be made very big in terms of power. Think thermal power stations. Even in WW2 carriers like the Essex class had around 150,000 shp of ST power installed. The the giant intakes (downtakes) and uptakes (exhausts) of a gas turbines pose structural design challenges for ship designers of carriers.

From a war perspective the acceleration, instant start and reliability of a GT (due to its simplicity) makes it worth it.

Not quite a complete answer but it gives you the direction.

* so for a given quantum of thermal energy the air intake of a GT is several times that of a ST.

[ads11]

Thanks as ever for the detailed explanation V.Narayan! That clears up a fair bit.

I guess the whole energy transition mindset has me wincing a bit at the thermal losses via the gas turbine approach - I wonder if that hot exhaust can be harnessed in any way? Surely if it's ejected at those temperatures, it would light up on infrared - that can't be good?

Now you mention it I have seen an image of a marine turbine being lowered down one of those intake-uptake shafts - iirc it was on the BBC docuseries covering the construction of the QE class.

I wonder what sort of power output the Fujian steam turbine must be outputting then to not only push it along but keep the lights on. I know the USN closely guards the dash ability of their supercarriers - regardless it's a pretty open secret that those big ships can move at quite a rapid clip thanks to their nuclear power. I wonder just how limiting the purported steam turbine on the Fujian will be in that regard, especially given it's a much bigger ship than its predecessors.

Coincidentally, on the topic of the Imperial German naval build up, Netflix just threw up a recommendation for me the other day: a French docuseries (has an English dub) called Naval Power. Only seen episode 1 but it covers that pre-WW1 naval build up, including the submarine innovations of the French (I didn't know it was a French naval engineer who pioneered a lot of common features of the WW1 and WW2 era boats).

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

I wonder just how limiting the purported steam turbine on the Fujian will be in that regard, especially given it's a much bigger ship than its predecessors.

Another curiosity that I have is regarding just how reliable these steam turbines actually are. We've seen the boiler issues faced by the Admiral Kuznetsov, the Liaoning and if I'm not mistaken, even our own INS Vikramaditya at various points (though the latter not as crippling as the former two). I wonder if the same will affect the Shandong and Fujian as well, severely limiting their capability to project power on the high seas.

Also, another puzzle in my head is the fact that western navies also operated many steam turbine carriers for most of their history including the Kitty-Hawk class of the US Navy, many of which boast a distinguished war record and controlled the Pacific and the Atlantic back in the day. So, why are the current crop of Russia/Soviet designed/design-based steam-turbine carriers having so many serviceability and maintenance issues especially with regards to the boilers? Is there something wrong with the fundamental design of Russian/Soviet steam turbines used in aircraft carriers? Or is it steam turbines in general? As usual, apologies if I sound ignorant!

It's would be a bit of an irony if the INS Vikrant with its reliable GE gas turbines has longer legs than the Fujian which is about twice as big!

[Gansan]

^^ Even all nuclear powered aircraftcarriers and submarines are steam powered. The nuclear reactor just heats up water to produce steam. Thereafter it is steam power.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Gansan

^^ Even all nuclear powered aircraftcarriers and submarines are steam powered. The nuclear reactor just heats up water to produce steam. Thereafter it is steam power.

I think that might be splitting hairs though - we won't refer to a nuclear power plant as a steam powered plant - the steam is just a procedural element in terms of spinning the turbine, the initial energy output is coming from your nuclear fuel rods or pellets (in modern reactors).

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Another curiosity that I have is regarding just how reliable these steam turbines actually are. We've seen the boiler issues faced by the Admiral Kuznetsov, the Liaoning and if I'm not mistaken, even our own INS Vikramaditya at various points (though the latter not as crippling as the former two). I wonder if the same will affect the Shandong and Fujian as well, severely limiting their capability to project power on the high seas.

I can't remember exactly but was there an issue with the material used for lining the boilers in those carriers? I can't tell why I have a feeling it was something linked to it originally using asbestos - maybe it was one of the costly refit issues when Vikramaditya was being fitted out. I mean the powerplant on the Kuznetsov is essentially a laughing stock given it couldn't go anywhere without an ocean going tug at hand - maybe that has more to do with a lack of Russian shipyard expertise anymore in terms of how to maintain the original design just as much as it being dated.

So, why are the current crop of Russia/Soviet designed/design-based steam-turbine carriers having so many serviceability and maintenance issues especially with regards to the boilers?

I guess if we think about it these aren't modern turbine designs - certainly not on the Kuznetsov class and it's derivatives. I doubt the power plant is fundamentally very different from the core design in either the Vikramaditya (was a major update made?) or the Shandong (pretty sure at best they fine tuned the Liaoning powerplant for this) - probably the equivalent of a facelift in car terms, as such any issues endemic in the original platform will carry over. It's not a technical answer at all but just a thought that it could be based on the age of the designs. Maybe the Fujian won't have any major issues with its powerplant either if the design is fundamentally different enough to avoid whatever issues were affecting the older carriers.

It's would be a bit of an irony if the INS Vikrant with its reliable GE gas turbines has longer legs than the Fujian which is about twice as big!

I guess Fujian ultimately doesn't need long legs, it's role would be to primarily project power within the first island chain. More than that - it's probably going to be a key part of training up the PLAN carrier force on fixed wing operations with cats and traps with all the attendant complications a higher tempo of launch and recovery brings, not to mention the more diverse array of aircraft they can field. Besides, wouldn't surprise me if the Type 004 carrier ends up having nuclear power at the rate the Chinese are progressing.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Another curiosity that I have is regarding just how reliable these steam turbines actually are. We've seen the boiler issues faced by the Admiral Kuznetsov, the Liaoning and if I'm not mistaken, even our own INS Vikramaditya at various points (though the latter not as crippling as the former two).

Also, another puzzle in my head is the fact that western navies also operated many steam turbine carriers for most of their history including the Kitty-Hawk class of the US Navy, many of which boast a distinguished war record and controlled the Pacific and the Atlantic back in the day. So, why are the current crop of Russia/Soviet designed/design-based steam-turbine carriers having so many serviceability and maintenance issues especially with regards to the boilers? Is there something wrong with the fundamental design of Russian/Soviet steam turbines used in aircraft carriers? Or is it steam turbines in general? As usual, apologies if I sound ignorant!

Regular steam turbines such as those fitted to the Brahmaputra class or the sole surviving Godavari class frigates operate at between 400 to 450 degrees centigrade and at 550 psi (pounds per sq inch). These boilers of Yarrow or Babock & Wilcox are immensely reliable and just go on an on and on like the duracell battery advertisement. Normal Soviet era steam turbines too were similarly rugged and reliable though more smokey. One shortfall of a steam turbine powerplant is it needs lead time to start & accelerate. The only way to cope with a sudden signal from the bridge to accelerate is to maintain the steam pressure at higher levels than needed for current speeds & power output = higher fuel consumption.

In the late 1950s when the Soviets experimented with the first gas turbines they developed two routes to maximize power:weight ratio and acceleration - gas turbines and super high pressure rapid acceleration steam turbines. Both routes were pursued as it was then not known what shortfalls a GT will demonstrate in the long run. At that time today's high power output, super reliable, medium speed marine diesels of were not on the scene yet. The only way to have a lot of power at sea was ST or GT. So they developed what they called (IIRC) the TV-12 series of super high pressure rapid acceleration STs with a maximum output of 50,000 shp per shaft - popularly called turbo specialized. How exactly that worked I do not know. These were installed 2 each in the Kresta class cruisers, Moskava class helicopter carriers, Soveremenny class destroyers and 4 each in the Kiev class aircraft carriers (the last of which is the Vikramaditya). Simultaneously they developed the M8E gas turbines (the world's first successful GT to be deployed on an operational warship) for the Kashin destroyers that develop 96,000 shp at 15 degrees centigrade and 72,000 at 34 degrees. That is one issue with GTs - the output drops by 25% in warm ambient temperatures.

The GT route proved to be the better of the two eventually. The high pressure ST's while good for power:weight ratios and acceleration compared to traditional STs proved to be a little more temperamental and that is the root cause to the background noise on Vikramaditya's powerplant. Hope this helps.

[V.Narayan]

INS Vikrant continues its sea trials. Preparing for commissioning in August 2022.

In 1948 the first white paper on long term plans for the nascent Indian Navy were drawn up. Interestingly they were prepared by one Commodore Knott. It included right then that the IN should have 3 light fleet aircraft carriers. Quite visionary as then the IN was a motley force of a few small ships of pre-WW2 vintage. The Royal Navy would have nothing of it and one senior Royal Navy officer went on record that the 'bloody Indians should learn to walk before they can run'.

Photos below of INS Vikrant, reborn, on sea trials prior to commissioning. A national achievement even though the eternal nay sayers might say it took too long. 5 to 7 years up or down isn't too long in the life of nation building so long as you get there.

The IN today has a periodic competition on young officers writing a dissertation on the strategy. The best dissertation wins the Commodore Knott trophy.