CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Yes, the Fujian took 3-4 days to travel up to Qingdao, versus simply flying the carrier-based aircraft to be embarked down there in a few hours on the same day, but it would still be a long flight + the possible use of multiple tankers to extend range to get down to there, assuming they weren't using drop tanks.

They'd also likely land at the airbase they're going to once they got down there first, rather than straight to the carrier, just to take off again later to embark onto the Fujian. In contrast, assuming it is up there in Qingdao to embark more aircraft for training if that's where the bulk of the aircraft currently are, then it seems to me it would be a lot easier and logical to just have carrier-based aircraft from the nearest airbase embark on the Fujian in the Yellow/Bohai Sea, which in terms of distance from whatever PLANAF airbase near Qingdao to the carrier, would probably just be a 20-40 minute flight? That's just my two cents.

A ferry flight across the country is very doable for aircraft of the class we are talking about.

Even if for some reason they wanted to be more cautious with fuel, there are plentiful air bases across the country where they can land and refuel if they didn't want to use tankers.

More importantly, such a transfer would not have the carrier's entire airwing be embarked on a single go -- not only is it very optimistic to even believe the carrier and crew are ready to accommodate the airwing, but even if they were ready there is no reason why such a transfer could not occur over a week or two instead (4-6 aircraft making the journey per day).

All of those options are much simpler than literally moving the entire carrier (with its thousand plus crew, not to mention handing over escort duties between theater commands) up north.

The issue is less about time and more about net movement of personnel, tonnage and resources expended.

The only reason it could make some sense is if the carrier itself needed to be in the region for some reason such as exercises or integration with other assets that couldn't be done down south.

 

[Phead128]

"Fujian is Kuznetsov-based" is really not saying much insight as form follow function, and converging designs perfected over decades.

That being said, Fujian is such a radical revolutionary upgrade that saying it's Kuznetsov-based is as informative as saying Ford-class is Nimitz-based due to similar configuration and layout. Note, Nimitz to Ford-class transition is an even less evolutionary upgrade than Kuznetsov to Fujian, which is a light-year leap in all-aspects , even though the general layout is "similar". What is not broken, does not need fixing. You lose a lot of nuance by saying F-22 is merely a stealth optimized Wright brothers aircraft design because they both have wings and fly, it is not a great insight.

 

[para80]

I dont think Fujian is revolutionary. Yes it has an EM cat, yes it is a CATOBAR. But PLAN doesnt do revolutionary for their key capabilities, generally speaking, and there is enough structural similarity in the Fujian hull to suggest they took the Kuz/Shandong baseline and worked it into a CATOBAR requirement.

That's not at all a naughty thing to say. One reason PLAN so far has been doing comparably well at both rapidly modernizing and expanding on scale has been the fact that their approach is highly (highly) conservative where they can afford to be, and integrating more radical new ideas where its considered safe (see the steam vs EM on Fujian).

It goes without saying a notional nuclear powered Type 004 (less notional now, I guess) will depart more drastically from the STOBAR-footprint.

 

[Blitzo]

I dont think Fujian is revolutionary. Yes it has an EM cat, yes it is a CATOBAR. But PLAN doesnt do revolutionary for their key capabilities, generally speaking, and there is enough structural similarity in the Fujian hull to suggest they took the Kuz/Shandong baseline and worked it into a CATOBAR requirement.

That's not at all a naughty thing to say. One reason PLAN so far has been doing comparably well at both rapidly modernizing and expanding on scale has been the fact that their approach is highly (highly) conservative where they can afford to be, and integrating more radical new ideas where its considered safe (see the steam vs EM on Fujian).

It goes without saying a notional nuclear powered Type 004 (less notional now, I guess) will depart more drastically from the STOBAR-footprint.

To be fair, "radical revolutionary" in this case isn't said in isolation, but rather part of the overall phrase "radical revolutionary upgrade" in context of its relationship with the baseline Kuznetsov class it is derived from.

As far as the difference in all the important bits and bobs of a carrier (flight deck geometry, island size, and of course flight deck aviation specific facilities namely catapults), as far as upgrades go it is fairly radical and revolutionary compared to the original Kuznetsovs.
The comparison of Nimitz -> Ford, compared to Kuznetsov -> Fujian is an instructive one. I actually agree with the notion that the change from Kuznetsov to Fujian is much my drastic than that of the change from Nimitz class to Ford class (not that it's a competition to see which two related classes have more drastic changes; I take it just helps to illustrate things).


Now, that doesn't mean the Fujian hull ultimately doesn't trace its lineage to the Kuznetsovs -- but I would treat it like saying the 052D ultimately can in some way trace its lineage back to the original pair of 052s.
I.e.: it's technically and understandably true, but it is also so far removed in configuration of key subsystems and components (not to mention capability) of their category of vessel, that it is similarly "radical and revolutionary" as far as upgrades go.

 

[Phead128]

It goes without saying a notional nuclear powered Type 004 (less notional now, I guess) will depart more drastically from the STOBAR-footprint.

It's completely arbitrary that adding nuclear propulsion qualifies as "drastic deviation" from Kutnetsov footprint, whereas literally removing STOBAR Ski-jump and converting to EMCAT CATOBAR does not.

With such subjectiveness, even Type 004 can be considered Kutnetsov based because it has similar grey color hull and floats on water.

 

[Tomboy]

It's completely arbitrary that adding nuclear propulsion qualifies as "drastic deviation" from Kutnetsov footprint, whereas literally removing STOBAR Ski-jump and converting to CATOBAR is not.

With such subjective interpretation, even Type 004 can be considered Kutnetsov based because it has grey color hull and floats.

That's because the hull itself is actually a departure from the first three carriers.
Yellow is the general cross section of previous Chinese carriers including Kuznetsov and 003 and red is 004.

 

[Phead128]

That's because the hull itself is actually a departure from the first three carriers. View attachment 166625
Yellow is the general cross section of previous Chinese carriers including Kuznetsov and red is 004.

That's it? And removing a Ski-jump ramp is less evolutionary than making the hull slightly more square shaped?

 

[GiantPanda]

I dont think Fujian is revolutionary. Yes it has an EM cat, yes it is a CATOBAR. But PLAN doesnt do revolutionary for their key capabilities, generally speaking, and there is enough structural similarity in the Fujian hull to suggest they took the Kuz/Shandong baseline and worked it into a CATOBAR requirement.

That's not at all a naughty thing to say. One reason PLAN so far has been doing comparably well at both rapidly modernizing and expanding on scale has been the fact that their approach is highly (highly) conservative where they can afford to be, and integrating more radical new ideas where its considered safe (see the steam vs EM on Fujian).

It goes without saying a notional nuclear powered Type 004 (less notional now, I guess) will depart more drastically from the STOBAR-footprint.

I don't think you can get more revolutionary in naval aviation than to go from STOBAR to EM CATOBAR.

You are structurally altering the vessel by not only removing the ramp but inlaying the catapults and its power systems.

The distance between a ramp and catapults is far greater than already having catapults and changing the propulsion system from oil boilers to nuke heated ones.

 

[Tomboy]

That's it? And removing a Ski-jump ramp is less evolutionary than making the hull slightly more square shaped?

Because one is literally a new hull and one is still partly based on a old one. In terms of hydrodynamics, yes 004 is a huge departure from previous designs. It also comes with a tapered tail. Remember we are mainly talking about hull design amd hydrodynamic here not the overall capability of the carrier. You are confusing the two.

 

[Phead128]

Because one is literally a new hull and one is still partly based on a old one. In terms of hydrodynamics, yes 004 is a huge departure from previous designs. It also comes with a tapered tail. Remember we are mainly talking about hull design amd hydrodynamic here not the overall capability of the carrier. You are confusing the two.

Fujian as others have mentioned has an hydrodynamically optimized hull design compared to Kutnetsov.

Fujian also has overall changes to structure (no Ski jumps, EMCATs, no AShBM pods, etc.) to marks a huge departure from Kutnetsov.

Type 004 inherits similar CATOBAR layout and design from Fujian, so it's not a true clean sheet design. It's partially based on Fujian design, as an evolution from Fujian.