00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[proelite]

The takeoff spot is the key; it doesn't matter that most of the rest of the cat is inside the landing strip. You can have a fully prepped F-18 sitting there waiting for another fighter to land, and as soon as that fighter clears the landing strip, the waiting fighter can launch.

This saves less than two minutes of taxing time or in-the-air hold time when a carrier cycle can be multiple hours.

Fujian is large enough that all 3 take-off spots do not have to impinge on the foul line, yet 2 do. According to your argument, since Fujian is not designed this way, simultaneous launch and recovery are overrated.

How do you justify the design choices on Fujian?

 

[Iron Man]

This saves less than two minutes of taxing time or in-the-air hold time when a carrier cycle can be multiple hours.

Fujian is large enough that all 3 take-off spots do not have to impinge on the foul line, yet 2 do. According to your argument, since Fujian is not designed this way, simultaneous launch and recovery are overrated.

How do you justify the design choices on Fujian?

I did not make any argument that a carrier not designed for simultaneous launch and recovery therefore makes the entire concept "overrated". That is both a non sequitur and not anything I ever claimed. Some carriers are just not big enough for this concept to work. The CdG, Vikrant, Kuznetsov are all too small to have a layout that enables simultaneous launch and recovery. Does that somehow weirdly mean they are all making some kind of statement about the utility of such a concept?

The problem in Fujian's particular case is that its EM cats are much longer than the cats on either the Nimitz or the Ford, which definitively limits the ability of its cat 2 to be positioned off the landing strip and its cat 3 to be positioned off the port side foul line. Only cat 1 can be placed off the landing strip and foul lines.

 

[proelite]

The problem in Fujian's particular case is that its EM cats are much longer than the cats on either the Nimitz or the Ford, which definitively limits the ability of its cat 2 to be positioned off the landing strip and its cat 3 to be positioned off the port side foul line. Only cat 1 can be placed off the landing strip and foul lines.

The starboard forward elevator could have been moved back to make room for cat 1 (labeled as cat 2 in the picture) to be angled more towards the starboard. This would allow cat 2 to be angled more toward the Starboard and moved off the foul line.

Cat 3 takeoff and blast deflector needed to be shifted 10 feet to the port side to mimic the setup on the Ford.

 

[Blitzo]

You like to pull the "consensus" card alot, typically without citing others. Which other people are included in this so-called consensus??

The people consistently involved in PLA watching and in competent mil watching in general whose opinions are actually worthwhile.

That said, this isn't me trying to dissuade genuine discussion. Your position and question itself is not unreasonable, but there are certain stages where "we don't know the nuances/details, so both positions are equal" is not useful to the discourse.

 

[Iron Man]

The starboard forward elevator could have been moved back to make room for cat 1 (labeled as cat 2 in the picture) to be angled more towards the starboard. This would allow cat 2 to be angled more toward the Starboard and moved off the foul line.

Cat 3 takeoff and blast deflector needed to be shifted 10 feet to the port side to mimic the setup on the Ford.

Cat 1 can no longer be moved any substantially more starboard than it already is. Look at the bow. Cat 1 is already almost parallel with the starboard edge of the bow and has a very narrow runway for the wheels of the fighters launching from this position. You could maybe move the launch position a further 1 or 2m further starboard, but this in no way is sufficient to move the cat 2 blast deflector off the foul line.

Cat 3 cannot be significantly further shifted to the port side. You can already tell this is the case because like the Ford class the 003 has its cat 3 blast deflector slightly situated outboard on a deck edge extension. That is something you have to go out of your way to design into the flight deck, and leads me to believe that cat 3 may in fact be usable for simultaneous launch and recovery operations (as long as it's not launching a KJ-600).

The people consistently involved in PLA watching and in competent mil watching in general whose opinions are actually worthwhile.

That said, this isn't me trying to dissuade genuine discussion. Your position and question itself is not unreasonable, but there are certain stages where "we don't know the nuances/details, so both positions are equal" is not useful to the discourse.

I don't accept that your position has any real support (or at least more support) given the plain fact of the matter of the flight deck layout on both the Nimitz and the Ford plainly designed for simultaneous launch and recovery which is there for all to see, while your "consensus" is more of an ephemeral accord between an unknown number of blank faces on the internet who can claim to be whatever they want. Perhaps you would like to introduce us to some of these people.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't accept that your position has any real support (or at least more support) given the plain fact of the matter of the flight deck layout on both the Nimitz and the Ford plainly designed for simultaneous launch and recovery which is there for all to see, while your "consensus" is more of an ephemeral accord between an unknown number of blank faces on the internet who can claim to be whatever they want. Perhaps you would like to introduce us to some of these people.

That's fine, I am not here to convince you.

I write the above for any readers or lurkers of the forum instead who might believe that the positions are of equal standing simply due to an inability to concretely resolve a nuance.

 

[Iron Man]

I write the above for any readers or lurkers of the forum instead who might believe that the positions are of equal standing simply due to an inability to concretely resolve a nuance.

Oh, I agree with this statement, though not in the way you would prefer. I'll take a photo of the Nimitz/Ford flight deck over rando internet claim any day.

 

[Wrought]

Oh, I agree with this statement, though not in the way you would prefer. I'll take a photo of the Nimitz/Ford flight deck over rando internet claim any day.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but your position here seems both needlessly and foolishly antagonistic given Blitzo's long-established record in this space. Credibility is gained through a consistent history of proven assessments over time. He has it; you don't.

And to be frank, your record of photo interpretation is not the best since you recently tried to claim the 054B carried YJ-12s in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's not the sort of record which confers credibility.

 

[Iron Man]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but your position here seems both needlessly and foolishly antagonistic given Blitzo's long-established record in this space. Credibility is gained through a consistent history of proven assessments over time. He has it; you don't.

And to be frank, your record of photo interpretation is not the best since you recently tried to claim the 054B carried YJ-12s in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's not the sort of record which confers credibility.

Leave it to you to so easily fall victim to the fallacy of the appeal to authority. I won't bother someone like you with the details of flight deck layouts and such.

 

[Wrought]

Leave it to you to so easily fall victim to the fallacy of the appeal to authority. I won't bother someone like you with the details of flight deck layouts and such.

Trying to point at logical fallacies doesn't make you any less wrong, but it does make you look both pretentious and pathetic—the fallacy fallacy in action. And yes, please don't bother me with any more of your nonsense.