CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[taxiya]

There were rumours that they would do so a couple years ago and then the article said that China had began steel cutting for the type 003 (CVN) last year. If China wants two type 002 I assume they build them before they start on the CVN. Or would they still build a non CVN after they have started on their first CVN?

That is caused by the confusion of 001A or 002 (the new ship in Dalian dock right now). The steel cutting 002 or 003 is a conventional one with catapult. It is only one being or to be built at the moment according to rumors.

The confusion arised because 001A is the designation by internet people like us. It has never been seen officially used by PLAN or the shipyard. There was a meeting in August 2017 on the construction site of the ship with photo shown CV 002.

 

[Jeff Head]

The Chinese carrier doesn’t need to be nuclear powered to be more like the layout and capability of late model nuclear carriers in the USN than earlier fissil fueled CVAs.

And the Type 002 will not be nuclear powered. It will be conventional powered and be like the earlier US carriers...and that is fine and will work out well. The brand new, large British carriers are conventionlly poweed.

The 003 carrier probaby will be nuclear powered and it is my contention that going forward, once the Type 003 is developed, all new Chinese arriers wibb likely be nuclear powred, ultimately replacing Type 001, Type 001A, and Type 002 carriers as they reach their end of life cycles.

 

[Jeff Head]

But please be carefully, since this exactly results n these misunderstandings. Most forums no longer call the new carrier at Dalian 001A but changed that to 002, so by the new designation your list would look like:

001 (CV-16) & 002 (the second one at Dalian) - STOBAR carriers, non-nuclear
003 - CATOBAR carrier, non-nuclear, like US carriers of the 1950s and early 1960s.
004 - CVN, CATOBAR, nuclear powreed, probably smaller than US carriers, but large and powerful nonetheless

So depending what system you use 003 is very much different.

Yes, I understand this...but there is still no official word on it and most westerner forums, even respected ones continue with 001, 001A, 0032, and 003 and will do so until there is a definitive, official Chinese military listing.

I believe it can go either way, and we on this forum for many years listed it as such and I still see Chinese posts from some Chinese officials calling it one way and some calling it another.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... once again can we stay on topic; discussing over and over again the number carrier the USN will have is OFF and by the way I still don't get it why some need to start each post with LOL.

Is such a behaviour really necessary?

Deino

 

[Deino]

Guys ... I really don't get it?

Why again size and number comparisons on future carrier here in this thread??

 

[Figaro]

Yes, I understand this...but there is still no official word on it and most westerner forums, even respected ones continue with 001, 001A, 0032, and 003 and will do so until there is a definitive, official Chinese military listing.

I believe it can go either way, and we on this forum for many years listed it as such and I still see Chinese posts from some Chinese officials calling it one way and some calling it another.

But this designation is also confusing. Most people now refer to the EM CATOBAR carrier as 003 but this forum still states it as 002, creating overlap and confusion (especially for people who post cross-forum). If I recall, @jobjed already posted photographic proof that the official designation is indeed 002 ... why should SDF stick to inaccurate/outdated designations from "westerner forums"? If photographic proof is not "official word", then I really don't know what is. It may take years for verbal acknowledgement of 002 by the Chinese Defense Ministry ... but as for now, the 001A name is quite misleading.

 

[steve_rolfe]

Point is the sooner CV17 is recognised by Chinese military forums as 002 rather than 001A the better, otherwise its just going to cause even more confusion and arguments for future years.

 

[asif iqbal]

Guys just call them CV-16 and CV-17 what’s the issue

I avoid this by just calling them by these numbers

Taxiya photo clearly shows 002 for CV-17 so let’s change the title of the thread

001 = CV-16
002 = CV-17
003 = CV-18

 

[plawolf]

The issue arises when referring to ships in construction that don’t have numbers yet.

 

[Intrepid]

Guys just call them CV-16 and CV-17 what’s the issue

I avoid this by just calling them by these numbers

I call them 1st and 2nd carrier, because "CV-17" isn't confirmed. And "CV-" is US-Navy-style, you can also call it "R-16" (= NATO-style).