CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Hendrik_2000]

Which confirms my point that the PLAN currently does not have a powerplant with boilers providing 35,000 shp per...

The PLAN doesn't have large powerplants because they don't have a 100,000-ton carrier. The PLAN can't have a big carrier because they don't have large powerplants.

Jesus Christ, why are we even having this discussion? Make your mind up...

NO they will produce suitable engine when they decide to built larger carrier as simple as that
I spend a lot of my time in power plant industry.

Most of the boiler are custom made you specify them how big your boiler should be. Each of them are custom made

It is not like gas turbine that you have standardize size You do have standardize size for smaller industrial boiler

 

[Richard Santos]

Boiler is boiler There is no such thing as modern boiler design It is old technology anything modern must be the control and data acquisition thing or better material maybe modern burner design But the basic boiler design doe not change for a long time It is either A Frame or O frame I believe the Varyag design is O frame or tubular design
CV17 is the same size of Liaoning so it make perfect sense to just use the existing design why reinvent the wheel you can make improvement on the burner , burner control, fire management and data center

China DID make improvement on the boiler design you can compare the smoke from Kutznetzov vs Liaoning . Liaoning spew less of smoke compare to Kutnetzov It mean more efficient burning
So I don't understand what you mean by relic design?

Any technology involving proprietary things you haven’t done before is new, it doesn’t matter how old it might be in other people’s history.

It is also new if you’ve done it before but you’ve forgotten.

Diesel electric submarines would be a new technology for the US navy and ship building industry today.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Any technology involving proprietary things you haven’t done before is new, it doesn’t matter how old it might be in other people’s history.

It is also new if you’ve done it before but you’ve forgotten.

Diesel electric submarines would be a new technology for the US navy and ship building industry today.

But basic design of boiler has NOT CHANGE you have steam drum and mud drum connected by evaporator in either A,C,D,O frame then you either have FD or ID and depending on the customer super heater , reheater , Boiler feed heater

 

[A.Man]

April 9, 2018 Jiangnan No. 4 Dry Dock found no carrier 002. No. 3 Dry Dock has a 400 meter container ship

 

[latenlazy]

The boiler shortfall

But basic design of boiler has NOT CHANGE you have steam drum and mud drum connected by evaporator in either A,C,D,O frame then you either have FD or ID and depending on the customer super heater , reheater , Boiler feed heater

Efficiency differences come from the details. Likely a lot of the deficit relates to the materials used in the system.

 

[Intrepid]

NO they will produce suitable engine when they decide to built larger carrier as simple as that

The boilers of Kuznetsov are unreliable, the same boilers of Liaoning performing well. There should be a difference not depending an basic design.

 

[antiterror13]

Because China hasn’t shown the ability to independently design and make large high powered marine gas turbines.

Have you heard of QC280 and R0110 ?

 

[Iron Man]

As for the launch spot encroaching on the runway -- well even in similar sized US carriers of years past, the bow/port launch catapult has often intruded on the landing strip as well when launching certain types of larger aircraft. Considering the size of J-15 as well, it means to have two bow catapults means one of them will partly intrude on the landing strip, to allow for a safe amount of horizontal clearance.
To keep the bow/port launch position from intruding on the landing strip would need a larger flight deck meaning likely a larger carrier overall.

Interesting that you chose the 82,000t Forrestal class for comparison, when the Kitty Hawk at 83,000t fixes this defect and has the starboard-canted port bow cat out of the way of the landing strip that has been a feature of every US carrier since; it has an 86m beam compared to the Forrestal's 73m beam. This is a design choice, not a displacement choice. And since you don't know the exact dimensions of the cat area, you can't automatically assume that a J-15 can't fit without intruding over the lines, especially since the Kitty Hawk was designed to accommodate F-14s which launch with their wings fully extended and in this configuration are FAR wider than J-15s.

 

[Blitzo]

Interesting that you chose the 82,000t Forrestal class for comparison, when the Kitty Hawk at 83,000t fixes this defect and has the starboard-canted port bow cat out of the way of the landing strip that has been a feature of every US carrier since; it has an 86m beam compared to the Forrestal's 73m beam. This is a design choice, not a displacement choice. And since you don't know the exact dimensions of the cat area, you can't automatically assume that a J-15 can't fit without intruding over the lines, especially since the Kitty Hawk was designed to accommodate F-14s which launch with their wings fully extended and in this configuration are FAR wider than J-15s.

I'm a bit iffy as to what the full displacements of Forrestal vs Kitty Hawk classes are. Wikipedia and its citations give some numbers but from different sources and citations, even from similar pages. There are also archive sites which provide other differences. From what I've read, the difference in full displacement range anywhere from 1,000 tons to 4,000 tons.
Is a difference of 1000 to 4000 tons enough to correspond with a difference in flight deck width of 13m and allow the port/bow catapult position to not intrude on the landing strip? Not sure, but the alternative is that when the Navy drew up the requirements they either didn't see it as important to have the port/bow launch position not intrude over the landing strip, or perhaps they did have the space for it and could have accommodated it but for some reason they or the shipbuilder completely dropped the ball and chose not to, thus presenting an unforced design flaw/error in their carrier.


But I expect the Navy to have carefully studied US carrier configurations, and this kind of unforced error is not something I would expect to have emerged out of the design process.

So yes, I think the most likely cause of this design feature is a consequence of the ship's displacement, and I'm going to choose the smaller carrier that fits most consistently with my process.

 

[Iron Man]

I'm a bit iffy as to what the full displacements of Forrestal vs Kitty Hawk classes are. Wikipedia and its citations give some numbers but from different sources and citations, even from similar pages. There are also archive sites which provide other differences. From what I've read, the difference in full displacement range anywhere from 1,000 tons to 4,000 tons.
Is a difference of 1000 to 4000 tons enough to correspond with a difference in flight deck width of 13m and allow the port/bow catapult position to not intrude on the landing strip? Not sure, but the alternative is that when the Navy drew up the requirements they either didn't see it as important to have the port/bow launch position not intrude over the landing strip, or perhaps they did have the space for it and could have accommodated it but for some reason they or the shipbuilder completely dropped the ball and chose not to, thus presenting an unforced design flaw/error in their carrier.


But I expect the Navy to have carefully studied US carrier configurations, and this kind of unforced error is not something I would expect to have emerged out of the design process.

So yes, I think the most likely cause of this design feature is a consequence of the ship's displacement, and I'm going to choose the smaller carrier that fits most consistently with my process.

Nope. Even the upper 4,000t difference sounds like the kind of numbers-stroking that won't result in any kind of convincing argument for displacement being the difference of 13m between the Forrestal's and Kitty Hawk's flight decks. The Forrestals also had an elevator right at the bow end of the landing strip, so they clearly did not consider unobstructed landing ops a priority or they would not have put an elevator there.