That isn't realistic
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
That isn't realistic
What does "Control" of the Third Island Chain actually mean?
It means the Chinese Navy being significantly larger and achieving global maritime supremacy.
Given 2 decades, I reckon this will happen.
But in the meantime, I'm pointing out that Chinese control of the Second Island Chain means China has "won", albeit that "winning" will be a lot more costly than if China already has global maritime supremacy.
I can't remember if they lengthened it between when it was a STOBAR representing CV-16/17, and when it was CATOBAR representing CV-18... I have a feeling that they didn't lengthen it.
If they didn't lengthen it, then it wouldn't be a surprise if they didn't lengthen it for the current/suspected CVN representative conversion either.
edit:
An estimate on GE of eyeballing the flight deck width, based on the extended flight deck width on the starboard side, which looks like it is "in line" with the building near that intersection (circled red).
I am quite comfortably getting 78m, maybe even 79 or 80m, all of which are of course rather large, and puts it in the same flight deck width as Ford. The overall flight deck geometry obviously will determine how much flight deck area it has to work with.
And here's what a Ford looks like next to it, assuming both have the same maximal flight deck width of 78m at their respective widest points, bookended with their bows at the common point.
Edit: also added CV-18, scaled the same way
That aft/rear area with the foundations on the current revised mockup does look reasonably like where a smaller more aft placed island would go, and it also naturally would imply that there is a substantial part of the aft hull and flight deck which is not structurally represented on the mockup (reasonable)
Speaking of which:
Big Bun CG on Weibo did the following progression illustrations on the carrier mockup structure at Wuhan's Huangjiahu, with the blue lines denoting the estimated outline of China's future CVN laid on top of the satellite photographs in the (from top to bottom) before, beginning and current stages of construction/expansion work.
The outline of the expected island superstructure mockup base's, based on the dimensions given in the tender offer, is indicated in the 3rd illustration.
The 4th illustration is a Gerald Ford CVN for comparison, with the base of her island superstructure similarly outlined.
Posted by Shenhua on Weibo.
Last edited:
from where u got that info?
@MarKoz81
To add.
Let's say China does build a 150,000 tonne carrier and it comes to 20% more expensive than a 100,000 tonne carrier.
If they only load an extra 20% more aircraft, you have the same cost ratio per aircraft.
The effect of losing a carrier only increases the cost by 20%
That larger carrier would also be able to carry a lot of more aviation fuel and conduct sustained operations, amongst other benefits.
But they now have the option of increasing aircraft numbers from an extra 20% to 80% if required, or going with a larger airframe if this is optimal.
-----------------
As for requirements, we can see the Chinese Air Force conducting simulated strikes with about 50 aircraft in the Taiwan Area, with roughly half providing air cover and the other half strike. Plus support elements.
Presumably this is the optimal configuration for an airstrike, given current technology and doctrine.
This kind of matches with deploying an entire airwing on a US carrier.
So in a simplistic blue-water naval battle, it is a competition between how many such airstrikes you can generate. And if a 150,000 tonne carrier can generate 80-100% more, that implies a Chinese carrier being able to generate a 50 aircraft airstrike, then 60 minutes later, another 50 aircraft. That doesn't give the defending carrier enough time to recover and relaunch its defending airwing
---
Alternatively, suppose carrier aircraft no longer conduct strike?
Strike comes from land-based missiles or ASBMs launched from ships and submarines.
With this doctrine, you want as many aircraft as possible (and ideally with a longer range which implies a larger aircraft) to establish air superiority and then track the opposing carriers. Additional aircraft which can't be immediately used are simply kept towards the rear until needed.
Such doctrine would benefit from as many aircraft in the air as possible
Last edited:
I'd guess that the size of future PLA CVs depend on the land features that limit them. For example drydock size, maintenance dock size and Malacca passage limit.
I don't buy that Ford size represents the highest limit of carrier size, it's stated nowhere by either USN or PLAN theorists to be like that. The only reason it is the highest limit of size for US is because they're limited by Panama passage limit.
I don't buy that Ford size represents the highest limit of carrier size, it's stated nowhere by either USN or PLAN theorists to be like that. The only reason it is the highest limit of size for US is because they're limited by Panama passage limit.
Yankee in boardcast. 004 is conventional power and it may be the sister ship of 003. 005 Nuclear super carrier is given to the North.
Last edited:
proelite
Junior Member
Gas or steam turbine?
Modern US aircraft carriers do not fit through the Panama Canal. The last type that made the transit, at least to my awareness had been the Essex class. The Iowa class BBs were the last major warships built specifically to fit through the existing locks.