CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"What exactly is this ship in the south? I think there are several possibilities:

1. A deeply upgraded variant of the 003, whose relationship to the 003 is similar to that between the 054B and 054A. The 003's final design was likely finalized around 2018, making it at least 7 years old now. During the 14th Five-Year Plan period, there would have been enough time to address the 003's weaknesses and develop a significantly improved variant.

2. A minor upgrade variant of the 003, whose relationship to the 003 is like that between the 054A and the 054AG (100mm gun version). This would be the safest and quickest solution, but the actual gains might be smaller compared to a deeply upgraded 003, making it less cost-effective overall.

3. A newly designed large conventional-powered CV, whose relationship to the 003 is akin to that between the Kitty Hawk/Kennedy class and the Midway class. Such a project could indeed exist, and some supporting evidence (not the "carrier mockup building") has emerged. However, the implementation challenges are significant, so this remains to be seen.

4. The second hull of the northern CVN—i.e., the new CVN project being split between northern and southern shipyards for hulls 1 and 2, respectively. This possibility isn't zero, but there’s no corroborating evidence yet, so it seems unlikely.

5. A new-type DDH/LHA. Such vessels typically wouldn’t require Jiangnan Shipyard to build them—Hudong could handle it—so this is the least likely scenario.

In short, unless there’s definitive, authoritative, and pointed information confirming it, we shouldn’t label the southern ship as '003A' just yet. At least hold off on conclusions for now. Of course, if you’ve already received explicit information from the PLAN and the 701 Institute, that’s another matter."

Someone commented that CETC once released a CG image of the improved 003, with an additional elevator and the jet blast deflector no longer interfering with the runway.
 

kane72

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"这艘在南方的船到底是什么?我认为有几种可能:

1.深度升级的003变体,其与003的关系类似于054B和054A之间的关系。003的最终设计可能在2018年左右完成,现在至少有7年的历史了。在第十四个五年计划期间,将有足够的时间来解决003的弱点并开发一个显著改进的变体。

2.003的一个小升级变体,它与003的关系类似于054A和054AG(100毫米火炮版本)之间的关系。这将是最安全和最快速的解决方案,但实际收益可能比深度升级的003要小,使其整体成本效益较低。

3.新设计的大型常规动力CV,其与003的关系类似于Kitty Hawk/Kennedy级与Midway级之间的关系。这样的项目可能确实存在,并且已经出现了一些支持证据(不是“载体模型构建”)。但是,实施方面的挑战很大,因此这还有待观察。

4.北CVN的第二个船体----即新的CVN项目由北和南两个造船厂分别负责船体1和2。这种可能性不是零,但目前还没有确凿的证据,所以看起来不太可能。

5.新型DDH/LHA。这种船一般不需要江南造船厂建造--湖东可以处理--所以这是最不可能的情况。

总之,除非有明确的、权威的、有针对性的信息来证实,否则我们现在还不应该把南航船标为003A。至少现在先不要下结论。当然,如果你已经从PLAN和701研究所那里得到了明确的信息,那就另当别论了。”

有人评论说,CETC曾经发布了一张改进003的CG图像,增加了一部电梯,喷流偏转器不再干扰跑道。
img-1750854512470dfa2786cee10feccc92214fdb8be690505c71000b1e911550cdd4e452c25cfc8.jpg
 

AndrewJ

Junior Member
Registered Member
This must be a really old CG because it looks like the old renders of fujians island, the bow shape looks wrong, and there is a complete lack of J-35s on deck. So I don’t think this shows us any information of CV-19

This image is aged over 6 years. It's clipped from CETC 14 Institute's PR poster for 2019 National College Entrance Exam (NCEE). From which, CV-19 has the same name as 2019.

Meanwhile, 2025 NCEE is already finished earlier this month. So it's too old to judge anything from this. Even CV-18 is not fully centain then.

I don't believe CV-19's radar design is comfirmed in 2019. Also, radar design doesn't have too much with vessel design, especially size & propulsion.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2019-poster.jpeg
 
Last edited:

lcloo

Major
If the Fujian can only carry 40 aircraft, it would only be a bit better than the USN Forrestal-class from over half a century ago.
The USN Forrestal-class can carry between 84 to 92 aircraft of various types on the flight deck and inside the hangar. Similarly, Fujian can carry more than 40 aircraft on both decks.

It very hard to compare unless you use the same aircraft and put them on both ships. How many Flankers can be carried onboard USS Forrestal?

For a better comparison would be how many square feet of space is available and usable on flight decks of both ship and how many in the hangars.
 

Inque

New Member
Registered Member
Are you comparing the aircrafts of today to those half a century ago, too?
I'm just making sure the 003 is up with the times. I haven't seen a solid estimate for how many aircraft it can carry other than the old estimate of 40.
The USN Forrestal-class can carry between 84 to 92 aircraft of various types on the flight deck and inside the hangar. Similarly, Fujian can carry more than 40 aircraft on both decks.

It very hard to compare unless you use the same aircraft and put them on both ships. How many Flankers can be carried onboard USS Forrestal?

For a better comparison would be how many square feet of space is available and usable on flight decks of both ship and how many in the hangars.
It's 316 meters long, so smaller than USN carriers.
 

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm just making sure the 003 is up with the times. I haven't seen a solid estimate for how many aircraft it can carry other than the old estimate of 40.

The "old" estimate of 40 was never "solid" to begin with.

The correct estimate is "we don't know" especially considering we don't know what the make up of its airwing would be, which will influence the footprint/deckspace they take up.


The problem with your previous post and your current post now is:
1. You think that being "up with the times" is reflective of "airwing size"
2. You have, either unknowingly or deliberately conveyed the idea that a modern aircraft is equal in effectiveness or capability to an aircraft of "over half a century ago"
3. You've omitted to consider ship size, deck space, hangar size, and aircraft size/footprint in your overall assessment of what constitutes a reasonable "airwing size"
 
Top