CV-17 Shandong (002 carrier) Thread I ...News, Views and operations

[Blackstone]

If the third Chinese carrier really turn out to be <75,000 tons, then I believe that would be because she is still heavily based on kuznetsov design, even if she dispensed with the ski jump and has catapults.

My guess is CV02's heavily influenced by what Chinese ship builders and engineers learned from the bow to stern tear down of the Australian CV, HMAS Melbourne (R21), and the placement of catapults requires going away from Kuznetsov-class designs.

 

[Intrepid]

Propulsion of CV-17 CG (中国首艘国产航母日前下水，将要开展舾装工作。除了武器和电子设备外，航母最重要的部件应该就是动力系统了。（来源：魔牛小队 超级大本营CDF）

View attachment 38443
View attachment 38444
View attachment 38445
View attachment 38446
View attachment 38447
View attachment 38448

The machine rooms are arranged very far back. I think it's pure fantasy.

 

[Richard Santos]

Propulsion of CV-17 CG (中国首艘国产航母日前下水，将要开展舾装工作。除了武器和电子设备外，航母最重要的部件应该就是动力系统了。（来源：魔牛小队 超级大本营CDF）

View attachment 38443
View attachment 38444
View attachment 38445
View attachment 38446
View attachment 38447
View attachment 38448

The engineering space looks way too long to me.

 

[Richard Santos]

My guess is CV02's heavily influenced by what Chinese ship builders and engineers learned from the bow to stern tear down of the Australian CV, HMAS Melbourne (R21), and the placement of catapults requires going away from Kuznetsov-class designs.

I don't think it requires any fundamental change to the basic Kuznetsov design to install catapults. I would not be too surprised if CV-17 is fitted for, but not with, catapults.

I also don't think the 65 year old Melbourne really has much to offer the Chinese beyond what they could come up with themselves in 2017 using the current state of their industrial technology in general and what they can learn from the public domain information on catapult specific developments in the last 65 years.

 

[Richard Santos]

Doubters, naysayers, and haters will continue to hate and invent excuses no matter what China does. Why? Because this great ancient country is coming back as a super power in every way, therefore frightens them. They fear that everything that they believe and hold dear in their institutions will be diminish and become irrelevant.

Just as you would argue now that any suggestion that the 3rd Chinese carrier might still largely be based on the kuznetsov design is naysaying and reflection of western fears; if it does indeed turn out that the 3rd Chinese carrier is in fact largely based on the kuznetsov design, I have no doubt we will hear from you didactic pronouncements about how hewing close to the kuznetsov design actually proves the ineffable greatness of china and the decline of the west.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Just as you would argue now that any suggestion that the 3rd Chinese carrier might still largely be based on the kuznetsov design is naysaying and reflection of western fears; if it does indeed turn out that the 3rd Chinese carrier is in fact largely based on the kuznetsov design, I have no doubt we will hear from you didactic pronouncements about how hewing close to the kuznetsov design actually proves the ineffable greatness of china and the decline of the west.

Specific discussion aside, I have to admit your written communication skills are quite eloquent. Lol

 

[Intrepid]

I don't think it requires any fundamental change to the basic Kuznetsov design to install catapults. I would not be too surprised if CV-17 is fitted for, but not with, catapults.

Even Varyag was already prepared for the installation of catapults was read here somewhere in the forum. Kuznetsov not.

 

[snake65]

I don't think it requires any fundamental change to the basic Kuznetsov design to install catapults. I would not be too surprised if CV-17 is fitted for, but not with, catapults.

I also don't think the 65 year old Melbourne really has much to offer the Chinese beyond what they could come up with themselves in 2017 using the current state of their industrial technology in general and what they can learn from the public domain information on catapult specific developments in the last 65 years.

I would rather consider that 002 may be influenced by Ulyanovsk design. Especially keeping in mind that Ukraine was eager to sell anything they had in their possession - CV, missile technology, gas turbines, carrier aircraft, hovercraft, etc. Of course, you can always argue that Ulyanovsk is based on Kuznecov design

 

[Equation]

Just as you would argue now that any suggestion that the 3rd Chinese carrier might still largely be based on the kuznetsov design is naysaying and reflection of western fears; if it does indeed turn out that the 3rd Chinese carrier is in fact largely based on the kuznetsov design, I have no doubt we will hear from you didactic pronouncements about how hewing close to the kuznetsov design actually proves the ineffable greatness of china and the decline of the west.

And we can all be sure to see those western naysayers are antipathetic to the changing of the world with China leading it. Why do you think there's so much garbage news about China everyday?

 

[antiterror13]

My guess is CV02's heavily influenced by what Chinese ship builders and engineers learned from the bow to stern tear down of the Australian CV, HMAS Melbourne (R21), and the placement of catapults requires going away from Kuznetsov-class designs.

I would be extremely surprised if China couldn't come up better than HMAS Melbourne, which is built in 1943, almost 75 years ago .. a bit insulting really