That is what I was saying such as in "Note, 直流区域变配电分系统/Regional DC Power Distribution System is NOT IEPS".
I don't quite understand the purpose of your post, but I think you know what I was saying.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
I don't quite understand the purpose of your post, but I think you know what I was saying.
China’s future aircraft carrier program ‘depends on security needs’: defense ministry
By
and Guo Yuandan Published: Jun 30, 2022 10:50 PM
China launches the country's third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, in Shanghai on June 17, 2022. Photo: Xinhua
China will take national security needs and the development of equipment technology into consideration for the country's future aircraft carrier program, the Chinese Defense Ministry said on Thursday, after China's 80,000 ton-class, electromagnetic catapults-equipped third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, was launched earlier this month.
Senior Colonel Tan Kefei, a spokesperson of China's Ministry of National Defense, made the remarks at a regular press conference when asked if China will build more large aircraft carriers after the Fujian, and if China is changing its defense policy that is defensive in nature..
Observers believe that China will have more aircraft carriers in the future if these criteria are applied.
It has been made clear at the NATO summit what kind of security situation China will face in the future, as NATO and the US are systematically becoming threats to China, leading to continued degradation of China's surrounding security environment, Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Thursday.
From a technology development point of view, China should aim for world-class equipment that can defend itself and safeguard peace, Song said.
That means China should have more aircraft carriers, Song said. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, but China will not have an arms race in terms of aircraft carriers with the US, as China will develop aircraft carriers at its own proper pace, he said.
China's development and improvement of weapons and equipment are not aimed at any country or specific target, and will not pose a threat to any country and region, as they only serve the purpose of safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests, Tan said.
China will always adhere to a defense policy that is defensive in nature, which is decided by China's nature as a socialist country, its strategic choice of walking a path of peaceful development, and its independent foreign policy of peace, Tan said.
History has proven and will continue to prove that China is a constructor of world peace, a contributor to global development, a protector of international order and a provider of public goods, Tan said.
China launched the Fujian, the country's third aircraft carrier, in Shanghai on June 17. Having a displacement of more than 80,000 tons, the Fujian is the country's first carrier equipped with electromagnetic catapults and arresting devices. It is believed to be significantly more powerful than the country's first two aircraft carriers, the 60,000 ton-class, ski jump ramp-equipped Liaoning and the Shandong.
China's development of the three aircraft carriers is characterized by succession and innovation, as each carrier was developed based on its predecessor with improvements, Chinese military expert Zhang Xuefeng told the Global Times on Thursday.
If China is to build another aircraft carrier any time soon, it would likely be based on the design of the Fujian, Zhang said, noting that new and improved aircraft would also be important.
A 100,000 ton-class, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier like those of the US would be more powerful, but also more expensive, so a choice must be made regarding whether to have more but inexpensive carriers, or have less but expensive ones, Zhang said.
Last night I discussed 004 with my friend and it occurs to me that if 004 or we say the future CV is really nuclear, then it might not be the so-called "Chinese Ford" someone would imagine, but something totally different: CVNX2 or ECBL, which is the objective design of next gen CVN USN proposed before Ford begins construction. It is a 120000-ton class CVN, front-island design, look like this:
Considering china have more than enough shipbuilding capacity, it is quite possible to skip the Ford and reach the final goal in one step.
Considering china have more than enough shipbuilding capacity, it is quite possible to skip the Ford and reach the final goal in one step.
I share your sentiment, and it would not be a surprise if China go straight nuclear for the next huge aircaft carrier.
what is the point of having the island so far front? Isnt it built on the back or middle in order to keep better visibility for the planes on the deck?
subjectively I must say this is a very aesthetically unpleasant design, its almost as ugly as the Queen Elizabeth II carriers.
At this point, its safe to say the PLA follows its own development, so there won't necessarily be a rule of 100 000 ton displacement for the "final" main line aircraft carriers. Just like the main AAW DDGs in the Chinese navy are quite a bit larger than USN Burkes.
Building even larger carriers make sense, since China has the shipbuilding capability and keeping a qualitative edge is useful to deter conflict. Since China would not in the short term militarize to having more than 10 carriers, having each CVN be of somewhat higher quality can make up for the shortfall.
If we look at surface combatants, Russia packs a lot of weapons and sensors to smaller ships while South Korea tends to put relatively fewer weapon systems to larger ships. This can be attributed to the states of each country's shipbuilding and overall defense industries (operationally they are both green water navies). Russia has a very small shipbuilding industry but build its own weapon and sensor systems. South Korea has a large and advanced shipbuilding industry but imports a lot of subsystems. These differences shape their cost-benefits analyses.
The same logic applies to carriers. America has limited shipbuilding capacity. More than Russia for sure, but far less than China's. Therefore, we might think that just like newer Russian ships have higher weapons to tonnage ratios than what's ideal for PLAN, American carriers many have higher aircrafts to tonnage ratio than what's ideal for PLAN. Give China's shipbuilding capacity, additional costs for a larger ship could be relatively minor. And for nuclear carriers, fuel usage isn't a concern either. So using a bigger ship for the same number of aircrafts to reduce the operational complexity might be a worthy trade-off.
Front island have some advantages.
1. Based on operation experience of USNavy, no island separate the front and rear, the dispatching efficiency of a single huge preparation area may be higher;
2. the ship island is farther away from the stern, and it is less likely to form disturbing airflow that interferes with aircraft landing, and it also reduces possible landing accidents.
In less than one generation, and during my time at SDF, I have seen the forum's baseline PLAN expectations grow from having ANY CBG (Liaoning), to almost parity with USN (Fujian vs Nimitz), and now potential attempt qualitative superiority (004 vs Ford).
Never would I have expected even having this discussion in under 15 years.
This is China.
We don't know much about the internal layouts of modern Chinese carriers. There may be considerable machinery, electrical grid, plumbing, cooling, and computer systems that either are put closer together (for fewer points of failure, to reduce the expansiveness of high-energy wiring, and to ease armoring and hardening against cookoffs and runaway failures) or further apart (to ease cooling of important ship systems). The systems we see here are likely found from the compromises and design decisions made by Chinese ship architects who may have chosen to deviate from American carrier designs for any of a dozen reasons. On the topic of island placement, I'd imagine that it was a much smaller concern than in the past thanks to computational guidance that modern planes would be equipped with. With so many guidance systems and interface augmentations, the concern of visibility likely weighs less compared to other concerns that the ship's architects may have. This forwards-placed position, for example, might perhaps have better signal optimization or better airflow optimization as some of the other commentors have suggested.
I wouldn't necessarily think this follows. China's carriers will likely follow alongside their doctrine, and I would guess that the main role of carriers in the Taiwan contingent is to be able to extend the Chinese anti-ship complex further out into the Pacific. With their current land-based missile assets, China enjoys a decisive advantage against any combination over any combination of surface naval assets that American, Japan, and Australia could field in the short term. American fleet carriers can still credibly operate at the boundaries of the Chinese missile umbrella however, and so it is likely that these new carriers are built to further pressure American operational capabilities.
Given that, I see little reason for China to keep building larger and larger carriers. This isn't the age of artillery ships where armor plates and robustly-hardened citadels are necessary for a ship's operational efficacy. A carrier's capabilities are essentially as good as the planes it carries, and so there's not really a need to push for larger carriers unless China wants to start basing strategic bombers or even larger sensor planes on their CVs. PLAN airplanes are roughly analogous to USN airplanes, and so a massive increase to the displacement of these new carriers seems unlikely to me to put it lightly.
Any capabilities that a larger and more robust carrier than the Ford could field, whether it be a shipborne missile generation capabilities or a more robust sensor array or a more extensive counter-reconnaissance suite, could likely be placed inside of destroyer escorts for a fleet that is as capable as before whilst also being much more survivable and flexible. The more capabilities could be given to the destroyers and the frigates, the more flexible a Chinese carrier would be. You really don't want a carrier that needs to sail the 1000+ km journey back to port because the CVN needs more fuel for her planes OR because she needs to have her elevators repaired OR because she needs to have her radar chaffs replaced OR because she needs to have her VLS tubes refilled. Emptying the capabilities off to other vessels might make for a less potent and capable carrier, but it would make for a much more capable and flexible carrier fleet.