Ask anything Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
It looks like they will go full speed ahead with their plans.
As far as I understand any information on chinese carriers after the first and maybe only (Type) 003 are unconfirmed. Most things you will read on carriers after the one that is currently under construction at Jiangnan is entirely speculation based on the expectations held by different people regarding progress of chinese naval growth but there is nothing confirmed or close to factual out there right now.
This is not surprising considering even with the (Type) 003 carrier there still exists a lot of ambiguity for example regarding the amount of catapults (3 or 4) and less so but still with regards to displacement and propulsion. And it would be stupid for the chinese military leadership to make detailed construction plans multiple steps ahead of their current carrier when they could not yet incorporate lessons learned from the current one building.
To my knowledge the source is from probably the same suspects that have dubious credibility here which sometimes even struggle with the basic consensus of current developments (i.e. the sources that used to always call the second aircraft carrier the Type 001A carrier despite the designation of (Type) 002 carrier having established itself for a longer period) that make these claims using "sources within the chinese military" essentially being mostly unverifiable and of questionable truthfullness. I would even go as far and say that you can doubt the credibility of anyone claiming to know the specifications or state of a possible fourth and fifth carrier before the third one even launches or we see decisive physical evidence of more carriers being constructed of which there is nothing at this point in time.
Since even such developments are ambigious now speculation of the total carrier inventory the chinese will have at certain dates seems off little use since future developments and more information will shift this number by possibly a lot. Though most would agree that the chinese will probably steadily add more carriers corresponding to the PLANs view of their maritime situation and requirements but this is speculation as well.
TLDR: As far as I know the story of chinese carriers being cancelled/put on hold come from the usual suspects that probably pulled this story, pardon my french, out of their a** once again. Speculation as to the total inventory of the chinese carrier fleet is prone to error due to future developments being still somewhat uncertain, however I speculate that more carriers will enter service at a reasonable but not necessarily quick pace after 003.
Maybe not a container ship, but an FPSO. There was an order for a large one. It explains all the tanks being built around the area.
Here is an example of one. Some of the Petrobras ones are made in China. An FPSO built from the ground up, not from a converted tanker, can easily cost about $1 billion or more. DSIC certainly needs the change.
In the civilian side of DSIC, they are heavily involved in the energy transport industry.
Last edited:
Don't really know where to put this but anyway
My question is, why some warships have a single part dedicated to VLS, when others have two parts? Basically a comparison between Gorshkov and a type 055. Gorshkov has all its VLS on the front where the Type 055 has divided in two parts.
My hypothesis is that it's easier to reload when you have two distinct parts. For example this is the Special Ammunitioning Facility of the Royal Navy with the two similar cranes for VLS reloading. Technically, both can't be used at the same time to reload the ship's VLS as it would be way too hazardous. But if it's somethin' like a Type 055, we would be able to reload it two times faster.
Am I right or just tripping with my imagination?
(I know this is kind of out topic, but I haven't found any where to put it).
My question is, why some warships have a single part dedicated to VLS, when others have two parts? Basically a comparison between Gorshkov and a type 055. Gorshkov has all its VLS on the front where the Type 055 has divided in two parts.
My hypothesis is that it's easier to reload when you have two distinct parts. For example this is the Special Ammunitioning Facility of the Royal Navy with the two similar cranes for VLS reloading. Technically, both can't be used at the same time to reload the ship's VLS as it would be way too hazardous. But if it's somethin' like a Type 055, we would be able to reload it two times faster.
Am I right or just tripping with my imagination?
(I know this is kind of out topic, but I haven't found any where to put it).
You cannot really compare this factor when using a large destroyer vs a frigate as examples.
The most obvious answer is that trying to fit something like a monolithic 100+ VLS cell cluster in a modern surface combatant is somewhat more impractical - or limiting one might say - than splitting the cluster.
There are also other considerations, like survivability or overall allowable depth for the cells.
The most obvious answer is that trying to fit something like a monolithic 100+ VLS cell cluster in a modern surface combatant is somewhat more impractical - or limiting one might say - than splitting the cluster.
There are also other considerations, like survivability or overall allowable depth for the cells.
A Mk41 VLS also has 2 sections.
Part of the reason is the 2second interval between VLS launches.
My understanding was that the question had to do with splitting the arsenal between bow and amidships, not about the compartmentalization of the array/cluster itself. Could be wrong in this.