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

[Hendrik_2000]

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?

Right like this garbage news from socalled expert. they always say Nuclear power is better than conventional power. Well it depend on radius of operation. I don't think China is interested to park their carrier in Panama or Mexico. The furthest it goes is probably Djibouti. Conventional boiler has higher and better quality steam and higher temperature too. Resulting in smaller turbine.So it is more efficient.Not too mention way much cheaper! No need for nuclear grade component or shielding or backup system,etc. Other than boiler the rest of the system is the same. The only trouble with oil fired boiler is the need for refueling. but with new replenishing ship on hand it is not big deal
I would say QE II with their 4 RR Gas turbine and IEPS is more technologically advanced than nuclear CV

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

May 2 (UPI) -- China's first self-built aircraft carrier is not competitive with more powerful carriers in the U.S. Navy despite the fanfare over its launch last week.

According to the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs, the Type 001A carrier – sometimes referred to as the Shandong – has the power and capability of a typical carrier built in the '50s.

China's Global Times reported the analysis pointed out the launch is a "great leap forward," but on an international level the carrier is lagging behind others in its class.

The Chinese carrier does not use a catapult to boost planes off the runway, and instead of using nuclear power, it is conventionally powered.

Without a catapult, the carrier lacks the ability to attack enemy ships at sea, according to the report.

Now here are some of the comment
Greg Krynen
"Without a catapult, the carrier lacks the ability to attack enemy ships at sea, according to the report." Do you think the report writer is aware the catapult is used to launch aircraft and not flaming tar balls?

 

[manqiangrexue]

Right like this garbage news from socalled expert. they always say Nuclear power is better than conventional power. Well it depend on radius of operation. I don't think China is interested to park their carrier in Panama or Mexico. The furthest it goes is probably Djibouti. Conventional boiler has higher and better quality steam and higher temperature too. Resulting in smaller turbine.So it is more efficient.Not too mention way much cheaper! No need for nuclear grade component or shielding or backup system,etc. Other than boiler the rest of the system is the same. The only trouble with oil fired boiler is the need for refueling. but with new replenishing ship on hand it is not big deal
I would say QE II with their 4 RR Gas turbine and IEPS is more technologically advanced than nuclear CV

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

May 2 (UPI) -- China's first self-built aircraft carrier is not competitive with more powerful carriers in the U.S. Navy despite the fanfare over its launch last week.

According to the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs, the Type 001A carrier – sometimes referred to as the Shandong – has the power and capability of a typical carrier built in the '50s.

China's Global Times reported the analysis pointed out the launch is a "great leap forward," but on an international level the carrier is lagging behind others in its class.

The Chinese carrier does not use a catapult to boost planes off the runway, and instead of using nuclear power, it is conventionally powered.

Without a catapult, the carrier lacks the ability to attack enemy ships at sea, according to the report.

Now here are some of the comment
Greg Krynen
"Without a catapult, the carrier lacks the ability to attack enemy ships at sea, according to the report." Do you think the report writer is aware the catapult is used to launch aircraft and not flaming tar balls?

I think he's saying that without a catapult, the MTOW is insufficient to equip a fighter like a J-15 with both enough internal fuel for a round trip attack run on an enemy ship and to carry large anti-ship missiles in its combat loadout. I'm not saying he's right (especially with the buddy refueling system) but that's probably what he meant rather than saying that catapults are needed to launch anti-ship weapons.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Right like this garbage news from socalled expert. they always say Nuclear power is better than conventional power. Well it depend on radius of operation. I don't think China is interested to park their carrier in Panama or Mexico. The furthest it goes is probably Djibouti. Conventional boiler has higher and better quality steam and higher temperature too. Resulting in smaller turbine.So it is more efficient.Not too mention way much cheaper! No need for nuclear grade component or shielding or backup system,etc. Other than boiler the rest of the system is the same. The only trouble with oil fired boiler is the need for refueling. but with new replenishing ship on hand it is not big deal
I would say QE II with their 4 RR Gas turbine and IEPS is more technologically advanced than nuclear CV

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

May 2 (UPI) -- China's first self-built aircraft carrier is not competitive with more powerful carriers in the U.S. Navy despite the fanfare over its launch last week.

According to the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs, the Type 001A carrier – sometimes referred to as the Shandong – has the power and capability of a typical carrier built in the '50s.

China's Global Times reported the analysis pointed out the launch is a "great leap forward," but on an international level the carrier is lagging behind others in its class.

The Chinese carrier does not use a catapult to boost planes off the runway, and instead of using nuclear power, it is conventionally powered.

Without a catapult, the carrier lacks the ability to attack enemy ships at sea, according to the report.

Now here are some of the comment
Greg Krynen
"Without a catapult, the carrier lacks the ability to attack enemy ships at sea, according to the report." Do you think the report writer is aware the catapult is used to launch aircraft and not flaming tar balls?

That some funny shit right there!!
I swear 3/4 of defense journalists or 'experts' out there couldn't tell the different between a carrier and a wooden sampan.

And people who compare CV16/17 to USN CVNs are uninformed ignoramus at best. Is China going to be building CV 16 class for the next 50 years? NO.. this is just a stepping stone!

 

[kwaigonegin]

I think he's saying that without a catapult, the MTOW is insufficient to equip a fighter like a J-15 with both enough internal fuel for a round trip attack run on an enemy ship and to carry large anti-ship missiles in its combat loadout. I'm not saying he's right (especially with the buddy refueling system) but that's probably what he meant rather than saying that catapults are needed to launch anti-ship weapons.

I think we all know what he is saying but the way he worded is both ominous and comedic at the same time but more importantly some if not many of his readers may assume it as such.

 

[bd popeye]

Listen up gents from an old salt that actually served on a Nimitz class, 2 Kitty Hawk class, USS Midway and USS Hancock.

The operating plant on a nuclear CVN out performs conventional power any day. The number one area is the just don't break down. Oil fired ships are needy and suffer engineering casualties . Nimitz never broke down once or was never late for any evolution.

Another thing that is important when you have steam fire cats.. Nimitz made 400,000 of gallons of fresh water a day. Well more than enough for the crew and anything else aboard the ship. Except for Kennedy all the other ships I served aboard had difficulty keeping up with the demand for fresh water.

Nuff said..

"Without a catapult, the carrier lacks the ability to attack enemy ships at sea, according to the report."

Mr Krynen, you are uninformed.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I think he's saying that without a catapult, the MTOW is insufficient to equip a fighter like a J-15 with both enough internal fuel for a round trip attack run on an enemy ship and to carry large anti-ship missiles in its combat loadout. I'm not saying he's right (especially with the buddy refueling system) but that's probably what he meant rather than saying that catapults are needed to launch anti-ship weapons.

you nailed it here kid! that's all he meant, nice interpretation, and getting to the "nub" of what he was saying, great post, and not just because I agree with you, nice job Bub.
"the buddy refueling will def make a big difference", its just capacity limited, say you wanted to top off a 4 ship, they could prolly do that??

BD or Kwai, do you have any idea how many birds you would put refueling packs on???

 

[dingyibvs]

bd, you guys must've been briefed on the Kuznetsov's capabilities in the past, what's the USN's take on the Su-33's MTOW from the Kuznetsov?

 

[bd popeye]

bd, you guys must've been briefed on the Kuznetsov's capabilities in the past, what's the USN's take on the Su-33's MTOW from the Kuznetsov?

Just slightly. ADM"K" was commissioned in late '90 I think....I retired in Aug. of '91. The main thing I remember about any info we learned about the Soviet CV was that they could not operate aircraft at night ,their water making capability was very poor. And they had difficulty performing unreps at sea. Actually we were to they could not replenish underway but they anchored and took on "beans,bullets and gas".

As far as Russian aircraft MTOW I do not know. I will hazard a guess that without a catapult a CV cannot do this.

As you watch this video check the loads on those aircrfat and keep in mind that ALL aircraft launched from a USN CVN have a "Full Bag" of fuel.

This video is condensed. It probably took 20 minutes to launch those aircraft.

 

[dingyibvs]

20 minutes to launch all of them is an impressive rate indeed. I'd guess that 001/A can't launch with 5(!) large drop tanks as well, though I think it can probably launch with more than many give them credit for.

Just curious, what makes the K unable to replenish underway? That seems like a rather basic and useful function.

 

[Richard Santos]

[

20 minutes to launch all of them is an impressive rate indeed. I'd guess that 001/A can't launch with 5(!) large drop tanks as well, though I think it can probably launch with more than many give them credit for.

Just curious, what makes the K unable to replenish underway? That seems like a rather basic and useful function.

Nothing makes it impossible to add an extensive underway replenishment capability to soviet carriers except underway replenishment had very low priority in soviet naval operation doctrine. As a result the entire soviet navy had only ever commissioned one single fast multi-function fleet replenishment ship suitable for comprehensive replenishing carrier battle group on extended deployment. Right now, the Chinese navy is still only a fraction of the size of the soviet fleet at its peak. But already the underway replenishment capability of the Chinese fleet equal or exceed the best the soviet fleet ever attained.

Soviet naval doctrine did not call for its carriers to stay at sea most of the time and routinely undertake extended deployments to distant locations. Instead soviet carriers and other major surface assets were to stay in port most of the time, and in time of serious threat of war, they were to deploy to relatively nearby seas to serve two functions: 1. offer surface ASW support to soviet ballistic missile submarines in an arctic bastion, and help protect them against American nuclear attack subs trying to penetrate into the Arctic Ocean to hunt down these SSBNs, 2. Provide antisurtace capability, under air cover provided by soviet ground based air power and kuznetsov carriers, to prevent American carrier task forces from attempting to approach and attack soviet shores.

Consequently soviet naval doctrine put little emphasis on keeping the surface fleet at sea in battle readiness for
Month on end. They encvision extended distant deployment only for small portions of the Soviet surface fleet during peacetime for flag showing operations. Hence only one single fleet replenishment ship.