CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[test1979]

Surprisingly, the Fujian is a potential mass-produced model.
玉渊谭天, a Weibo account of CCTV, interviewed the Fujian's development team. After its official commissioning, Tan Tian shared 10 key pieces of information:

1. The Fujian's inevitable deployment areas after commissioning include the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, and the Western Pacific.

2. The biggest difference after commissioning is its combat readiness.

3. For the Liaoning and Shandong, the Western Pacific is considered the open sea, but not for the Fujian.

4. The Fujian's "open sea" defense capabilities need to be developed in the Eastern Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Atlantic Ocean, such as the waters near Guam, Hawaii, or Australia.

5. The Chinese Navy has the right to navigate in the Indian Ocean and other areas, in accordance with international law and practice, and no country has the right to interfere.

6. For the same deployment distance, the Fujian can be deployed for a longer period due to its improved performance. This improvement is substantial.

7. The Fujian's commissioning is only the first step in our routine deployment of aircraft carriers. 8. The "001," "002," and "003" aircraft carriers we mentioned are not serial numbers, but model designations. The Type 003 can be considered a mature "platform." Following our previous practice in warship production, after some optimization and improvements on a mature platform, it enters the "mass production" stage.

9. With the commissioning of the Fujian, electromagnetic catapults and multiple types of carrier-based aircraft have become standard features of aircraft carriers. At the same time, the system of accompanying ships in carrier strike groups is gradually taking shape.

10. Subsequently, as the number of aircraft carriers increases, we can truly achieve a long-term, permanent presence of aircraft carriers at a specific location. At that time, the meaning of a "mobile sea fortress" will be concretely demonstrated.

 

[Helius]

Assorted screenshots from CCTV -

 

[Helius]

 

[Clango]

Surprisingly, the Fujian is a potential mass-produced model.
玉渊谭天, a Weibo account of CCTV, interviewed the Fujian's development team. After its official commissioning, Tan Tian shared 10 key pieces of information:

1. The Fujian's inevitable deployment areas after commissioning include the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, and the Western Pacific.

2. The biggest difference after commissioning is its combat readiness.

3. For the Liaoning and Shandong, the Western Pacific is considered the open sea, but not for the Fujian.

4. The Fujian's "open sea" defense capabilities need to be developed in the Eastern Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Atlantic Ocean, such as the waters near Guam, Hawaii, or Australia.

5. The Chinese Navy has the right to navigate in the Indian Ocean and other areas, in accordance with international law and practice, and no country has the right to interfere.

6. For the same deployment distance, the Fujian can be deployed for a longer period due to its improved performance. This improvement is substantial.

7. The Fujian's commissioning is only the first step in our routine deployment of aircraft carriers. 8. The "001," "002," and "003" aircraft carriers we mentioned are not serial numbers, but model designations. The Type 003 can be considered a mature "platform." Following our previous practice in warship production, after some optimization and improvements on a mature platform, it enters the "mass production" stage.

9. With the commissioning of the Fujian, electromagnetic catapults and multiple types of carrier-based aircraft have become standard features of aircraft carriers. At the same time, the system of accompanying ships in carrier strike groups is gradually taking shape.

10. Subsequently, as the number of aircraft carriers increases, we can truly achieve a long-term, permanent presence of aircraft carriers at a specific location. At that time, the meaning of a "mobile sea fortress" will be concretely demonstrated.

View attachment 164089View attachment 164090

I wonder if they'll switch to nuclear propulsion after the first one, steam seems to be a decision to "go on the safe side" at the time.

 

[sequ]

Catapult launcher slowing. Pay attention to the flags in the back; this is in real time.

The clapping is also in real-time:

No jazzhands for the PLAN

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

A late reply, though a necessary one IMHO.

I imagine that Fujian will use a similar setup. It's a bit smaller than American supercarriers and J-15Ts are bigger than any of the American Navy fighters so it won't be able to accomodate quite as many aircraft. But these supercarriers rarely operate to full capacity anyways so it shouldn't be that much of a limitation. I also wouldn't be surprised if there are some drone units permanently assigned to Fujian once those are certified as combat ready.

Firstly, as explained by @lcloo - There aren't going to be "permanently assigned" aircraft units for the carriers, as the composition of the carrier air wings are dependent on the mission requirements of said carriers (and thus, flexible).

---

Speaking of carrier-capable fixed-wing UAVs - The ones that have considerable probability, reliable information sources (e.g. mentioned/depicted in academic papers), if not official affirmations are as follows:
1. GJ-21 (land-attack/anti-ship);
2. WL-2 (reconnaissance and land-attack);
3. CH-6 (reconnaissance and land-attack); and
4. WZ-10 (ISTAR and EW/ECM).



Alongside this unidentified aircraft model from an academic paper years ago:

---

As we proceed - Given the vast differences in mission profiles for both proper CVs and LHD/As, alongside the fixed number of limited parking spots available on carriers at any given time, it is natural to expect that only the UAVs that are deemed to be capable of providing the most valuable effectiveness in warfighting on the high seas by the PLAN will make it onboard their carriers. The unmanned air wing compositions certainly will vary based on mission-specific requirements, needless to say.

For starters, I'd say that if the mission is air-to-air-focused, then fielding A2A-combat-capable UCAVs would be the better choice. Namely, something like the (nominally designated) UADF-XT (i.e. either the navalized variant of one of the UADFs seen in the 9-3 parade, or those yet to be publicly-seen) would do.

On the other hand, if the mission is anti-ship/land-attack-focused, then something like the GJ-21s would fit the bill better.

Of course, there are also other mission types which would need to be considered, namely:
- AEW
- ISTAR (incl. ELINT and SIGINT)
- EW (incl. ESM and ECCM)
- Maritime patrol (incl. ASW); and
- Aerial refueling.
This will definitely further complicate future carrier air wings' composition arrangement efforts (as everyone would be fighting for the same limited number of aircraft slots on any aircraft carriers). Therefore, a holistic rethink, redevelopment and reformulation of how future carrier air wings would evolve and develop will become an absolute necessity.

Moving forward, if we would like to further expand upon this discussion:
1. What will be the number of flat-decks that is needed/desired?
2. Are there any other types of flat-decks that will be needed? And,
3. How will the composition and operations of both the PLAN's future flat-deck fleets and their respective air wings evolve/develop into?

All of these questions are worthy of follow-ups, as the PLAN steadily marches into the era of multiple flat-decks right now.

---

Last-but-not-least, perhaps we should establish a new thread which is dedicated for carrier-based (if not flat-deck-based, in general) fixed-wing UAVs? Similar to how the land-based Sino-Flankers and J-35As are segregated from the carrier-based J-15 and J-35 across the Air Force and Navy sub-forums.

 

[Salvationist]

I'm not the biggest expert on catapults here but isn't it a bad idea to launch the catapult empty?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I'm not the biggest expert on catapults here but isn't it a bad idea to launch the catapult empty?

No? Why would it be a bad idea?

If anything, a dry run is absolutely necessary to verify the equipment's operability at the initial stages, before moving on to the more demanding loaded runs. This is always done whether the equipment is new-built, coming out of routine maintenance, or upon repair completion.

 

[Salvationist]

No? Why would it be a bad idea?

If anything, a dry run is absolutely necessary to verify the equipment's operability at the initial stages, before moving on to the more demanding loaded runs. This is always done whether the equipment is new-built, coming out of routine maintenance, or upon repair completion.

I'm going off of my also meager knowledge of bows. Where dry firing the bow breaks the whole thing.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I'm going off of my also meager knowledge of bows. Where dry firing the bow breaks the whole thing.

The analogy is off the mark.

Simply equating a bow (or a hand-held catapult) which only launches arrows (or stones) that are at most 10s of grams in weight to a full-sized, full-fledged aircraft catapult system which launches 20-30+ton aircrafts is not the right way to look at it, because these two simply aren't comparable.