CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Intrepid]

The operational needs and the reliability of each element changed over time - and with it the number, size and location on the flight deck. This does not only apply to catapults and aircraft lifts.

 

[Blitzo]

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.

I'm not sure if you're saying a 13m difference should have a larger difference in displacement or a smaller one.

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.

Clearly the Forrestal class had a number of flaws and we see the revisions in classes subsequent to it.

But I believe that of the flaws that it had, the relationship between the bow/port catapult launch position was not simply a result of poor design but also a function of the reduced flight deck width of the Forrestal class that was in turn a constraint of its overall displacement.

 

[Iron Man]

I'm not sure if you're saying a 13m difference should have a larger difference in displacement or a smaller one.




Clearly the Forrestal class had a number of flaws and we see the revisions in classes subsequent to it.

But I believe that of the flaws that it had, the relationship between the bow/port catapult launch position was not simply a result of poor design but also a function of the reduced flight deck width of the Forrestal class that was in turn a constraint of its overall displacement.

Again, you have a very difficult case to make with such a small displacement difference and yet such a large flight deck difference. Perhaps you just didn't think of the Kitty Hawk when you wrote that post. Which is ok, since you're neither omniscient nor infallible.

 

[SampanViking]

To me, the mission is everything, which is also my main interest in this new Carrier.
The two existing Carriers both seem more in line with the Russian Heavy Aviation Cruiser concept rather than the NATO strike Carrier concept and these two ships seem perfect for operations in the East and (especially) South China Seas, providing Organic Air Cover and Extra Air Capacity for Navy Groups and the forces operating on/out of the South Seas Island Bases.
This is not surprising as this is where the "front line" currently lies.

I am therefore very interested to see what kind of Carrier the 002 turns out to be, as this will help determine the nature of the mission and where the Chinese Leadership assume that the Front Line will be, by the time it comes into service.

 

[taxiya]

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...

I know you don't want to continue this discussion, so please ignore me if you want to. But I must get you attention that your logic is wrong. "Not demonstrating/showing" = "No evidence of existence" =/= "Not able/Can not produce". The same kind of mistakes have been made by numerous people, what was said by many people about J-20, EM cat, EM gun etc. etc. before their revelation are good and fresh examples.

 

[Mirabo]

I know you don't want to continue this discussion, so please ignore me if you want to. But I must get you attention that your logic is wrong. "Not demonstrating/showing" = "No evidence of existence" =/= "Not able/Can not produce". The same kind of mistakes have been made by numerous people, what was said by many people about J-20, EM cat, EM gun etc. etc. before their revelation are good and fresh examples.

You're right, I really don't want to continue this discussion because I see no problem with my logic. You just have to go back a few posts to see what my original point was before it became so distorted with straw mans and other unnecessary interjections that pushed so far from the original topic.

I never said they couldn't. I just said we don't know if they can.

That being said, the point that Chinese boilers are inadequate isn't just my personal belief, but has also been brought up by big shrimps. The quality of Chinese boilers is a perfectly valid concern, and it's foolish to just dismiss it just because "they have a highly developed power plant industry."

How many Chinese warships aside from the 001 and 002 use steam turbines? How many Chinese-built civilian ships use steam turbines? The real answer is about 15 to 20. That's the approximate number of LNG carriers China has built, the only civilian ships to use steam turbines in the modern age. Other military ships all use diesel, gas, or both.

If you consider this fact, the PLAN has next to zero experience developing this type of powerplant, so I don't think they have a "highly developed" industry at all with regards to steam propulsion. If they did, they wouldn't have had to derive the 002's powerplant from the Kuznetsov's ancient relic of a design.

Sorry, but I'm sick and tired of people putting words in my mouth. Read the bloody thread, people.

 

[taxiya]

You're right, I really don't want to continue this discussion because I see no problem with my logic. You just have to go back a few posts to see what my original point was before it became so distorted with straw mans and other unnecessary interjections that pushed so far from the original topic.



Sorry, but I'm sick and tired of people putting words in my mouth. Read the bloody thread, people.

Indeed, when a subject went so long, it becomes distorted from original meaning. I was only reading "The PLAN can't have a big carrier because they don't have large powerplants." when quoting you. To my non-native understanding of English, it means more closer to "they can not" rather than your original meaning "we don't know if they can".

Apologize for not reading your first post. Maybe the best practice (for all of us) in this kind of situation is stop at the first moment of sensing it has turned to something neither sides can prove anything.

 

[Sczepan]

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

View attachment 47468

and one Dock seems to become longer (lenghten)

 

[Blitzo]

Again, you have a very difficult case to make with such a small displacement difference and yet such a large flight deck difference. Perhaps you just didn't think of the Kitty Hawk when you wrote that post. Which is ok, since you're neither omniscient nor infallible.

I actually did think of the Kitty Hawk naturally (his post that I replied to did mention it after all), and I did an image search to see if I could find a good pic of F-14 launching from the bow/port cat but no dice. But I took it as assumed that the Kitty Hawk class was capable of launching of launching F-14 and other aircraft from that position.

 

[Intrepid]

... and I did an image search to see if I could find a good pic of F-14 launching from the bow/port cat but no dice. But I took it as assumed that the Kitty Hawk class was capable of launching of launching F-14 and other aircraft from that position.

Small aircraft could be launched, the jet blast deflector ends exactly at the foul line of the landing area. But if you mirror the safe shot line of the port catapult from right to left, it's on the runway.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(Aircraft lift # 1 was moved outward a bit to make room for the Jet Blast Defelector)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!