An imagined safe shot line on the port side of the port bow cat position that protrudes onto the landing strip does not preclude wide aircraft (such as E-2s and C-2s) from sitting at that position while landing ops are conducted. The natural solution is to keep the wings (or even just the portside wing) folded while a landing is taking place, or to launch E-2s or C-2s from only the starboard bow cat position during simultaneous landing and takeoff ops. The fact is that the USN no longer operates any "small" aircraft. All you have now are F-18s, E-2s, and C-2s, soon to be joined by F-35s.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Intrepid
Major
The wingspan of an F-18 E/F is 13,63 m, the wingspan of an E-2 is 24,56 m. That is a little difference. And I never heard about aircraft that can fold the left wing only.
Did I not just mention the difference between E-2/C-2 and F-18s? The F-18E/F isn't exactly a "small" fighter either; it's larger than the Rafale, the Mig-29K, and the F-35; in other words it's larger than any extant naval fighter except the Su-33/J-15, and it will be larger than the J-31 as well. Also, quibbling about left wing folding vs both wings folding is rather petty, since the point can be made with either.
But this "Front Line" is very much a moving target, and of course also, where the Chinese leadership think it will be. That said, I agree with you that the first task is to protect China and it's submarines (nuclear deterrent), and that the first two carriers will mainly be tasked with this.
After this, it depends on how much pressure there is, rather than the specific design of the carrier. After all, project 003, with catapults, possibly stealth fighters, etc, will simply be able to do the job better, whether it is protecting the mainland and the nuclear deterrent, or something else. Whether 003 and even 004 are given this task or some other depends on the pressure exerted by a certain other country.
But yes, I think that after this, it's protection of SLOC's, to Europe and maybe even more, to Africa. Either way, the Indian Ocean, which is why 4, 6 or more catapult carriers will be needed.
Last edited:
Thanks Red Moon - you actually caught me thinking aloud - which is always dangerous.
What I am really thinking is that I some seem to have some very unrealistic expectations as to what the next couple of Carriers are going to be like.
I am very aware that Western Navies have had Naval Aviation for nearly 100 years and have evolved capability based on experience gained know how. This is what you need to Operate a Super Strike Carrier effectively, with a wide variety of aircraft and a high intensity operations. There is no short cut.
China then has just started on its learning curve and has come in with ships that give them the basics.CV16 was a jigsaw puzzle and test bed with CV17 to prove that they understood and can replicate the lessons learned. CV18 is therefore, in my expectation, simply the next incremental step. While I would expect an enhanced power plant, Cats and no Ski Jump, I anticipate the ship itself to be basically the same in layout and tonnage as the previous two.
Its probably one of the few things in Modern Warfare Technology that is not Rocket Science. I think we have a very effective blueprint for the PLAN development method from looking at the main Surface Combatants.
When the modernisation program started, the benchmark ship was the Destroyer and they took quite a bit of time to get the concept/design/capability right and which was scalable across all classes of the fleet.
As soon as they had something they liked in 052, production went mad, first with the 054 Frigates, then 056 light Frigates, the 052D's and now of course the Heavy Destroyer class of 055.
I see exactly the same process at work with the Carrier Aviation program and expect to see a similar outcome in due course.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Well I agree with most except the size . I will guess it will be bigger than the previous 2 Since they sharpen their design skill with CV17 and learn how to built Carrier from scratch
Hu Wengming himself said that they now have young and competent design team that can design almost any class of Carrier.
As you said the function of CV16, CV17 is fleet and submarine protection. But Type 002 is more offensive and sea lane keeping And for that you need larger air fleet A squadron is not enough
You need at least 40 fighters with different variant
The comparison with type 52 is a bit faulty as type 52 was design in 90's when China based industry in electronic and sensor is not mature enough. It take them a long time to progress from type 51 Shengzhen which is the test bed for both the hull and sensor technology of future destroyer
So comparing type 52 development and Carrier is not exactly the same. Anyway this news has been posted before. but this the first real proof that they are working toward CVN. both US and Russian built nuclear powered Icebreaker in 50's and 60's as precursor to Nuclear carrier. I believe they already has 100 MW small nuclear reactor for along time I think they will built 2 unit power system instead of lashing 8 small submarine reactor
Icebreaker technology linked to China’s future nuclear carrier
A nuclear reactor employed on a big icebreaker might be replicated and mounted on a mid-sized carrier
By ASIA TIMES STAFF JUNE 25, 2018 4:13 PM (UTC+8)
Russian nuclear Icebreaker
China National Nuclear Corp has put out to tender a contract for the nation’s first nuclear-powered icebreaker, according to Chinese newspaper reports.
The state-owned civil and military nuclear conglomerate has expressed interest in building a nuclear-powered icebreaker and has commenced a bidding process to outsource design, construction and maintenance works. Industry experts believe that the ambitious undertaking will lead to the formation of a consortium comprised of both private entities and other SOEs such as the shipbuilding juggernaut China Shipbuilding Industry Corp.
Russia is currently the only nation that maintains a fleet of nuclear icebreakers. They aid shipping along the Northern Sea Route in the Arctic waterways north of Siberia.
China’s new-found interest in a nuclear-powered icebreaker is a little baffling, since the nation’s northern territorial waters seldom ice up, even during harsh arctic winters.
The Beijing-based tabloid Global Times thinks it has the answer to the mystery: the interest in a nuclear icebreaker is no whim, as China has its eye on its plans for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. A lot could be learned from the process of mounting a compact reactor in a non-military vessel.
The [proposed icebreaker’s] nuclear power unit can be replicated and applied to a carrier once updated, so it can be seen as a preparation, Chinese military observer Song Zhongping told the Global Times.
Another conceptual rendering of the future Chinese nuclear carrier. Photo: Weibo
Analysts say China will likely take a leaf from Russia’s book in designing and building such nuclear icebreakers and judging from the specifications of the gigantic Russian vessels in service – its 50 Let Pobedy has a displacement of more than 25,000 tons – China will be “halfway to” building a mid-sized nuclear carrier once its similarly powered icebreaker is up and running.
China can also leverage hard-earned experience gained from building and operating a growing armada of nuclear submarines. Ever since the 1970s, when the Chinese Navy launched its first prototype submarine, the Han-class Type 091, it has achieved considerable breakthroughs in powertrains and in reactor miniaturization.
Earlier this year, Chinese papers also revealed novel conceptual designs by CSIC for “floating mini nuclear reactors” that can sail to the South China Sea and satisfy the growing energy needs of the many atolls and artificial islands.
Hu Wengming himself said that they now have young and competent design team that can design almost any class of Carrier.
As you said the function of CV16, CV17 is fleet and submarine protection. But Type 002 is more offensive and sea lane keeping And for that you need larger air fleet A squadron is not enough
You need at least 40 fighters with different variant
The comparison with type 52 is a bit faulty as type 52 was design in 90's when China based industry in electronic and sensor is not mature enough. It take them a long time to progress from type 51 Shengzhen which is the test bed for both the hull and sensor technology of future destroyer
So comparing type 52 development and Carrier is not exactly the same. Anyway this news has been posted before. but this the first real proof that they are working toward CVN. both US and Russian built nuclear powered Icebreaker in 50's and 60's as precursor to Nuclear carrier. I believe they already has 100 MW small nuclear reactor for along time I think they will built 2 unit power system instead of lashing 8 small submarine reactor
Icebreaker technology linked to China’s future nuclear carrier
A nuclear reactor employed on a big icebreaker might be replicated and mounted on a mid-sized carrier
By ASIA TIMES STAFF JUNE 25, 2018 4:13 PM (UTC+8)
Russian nuclear Icebreaker
China National Nuclear Corp has put out to tender a contract for the nation’s first nuclear-powered icebreaker, according to Chinese newspaper reports.
The state-owned civil and military nuclear conglomerate has expressed interest in building a nuclear-powered icebreaker and has commenced a bidding process to outsource design, construction and maintenance works. Industry experts believe that the ambitious undertaking will lead to the formation of a consortium comprised of both private entities and other SOEs such as the shipbuilding juggernaut China Shipbuilding Industry Corp.
Russia is currently the only nation that maintains a fleet of nuclear icebreakers. They aid shipping along the Northern Sea Route in the Arctic waterways north of Siberia.
China’s new-found interest in a nuclear-powered icebreaker is a little baffling, since the nation’s northern territorial waters seldom ice up, even during harsh arctic winters.
The Beijing-based tabloid Global Times thinks it has the answer to the mystery: the interest in a nuclear icebreaker is no whim, as China has its eye on its plans for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. A lot could be learned from the process of mounting a compact reactor in a non-military vessel.
The [proposed icebreaker’s] nuclear power unit can be replicated and applied to a carrier once updated, so it can be seen as a preparation, Chinese military observer Song Zhongping told the Global Times.
Another conceptual rendering of the future Chinese nuclear carrier. Photo: Weibo
Analysts say China will likely take a leaf from Russia’s book in designing and building such nuclear icebreakers and judging from the specifications of the gigantic Russian vessels in service – its 50 Let Pobedy has a displacement of more than 25,000 tons – China will be “halfway to” building a mid-sized nuclear carrier once its similarly powered icebreaker is up and running.
China can also leverage hard-earned experience gained from building and operating a growing armada of nuclear submarines. Ever since the 1970s, when the Chinese Navy launched its first prototype submarine, the Han-class Type 091, it has achieved considerable breakthroughs in powertrains and in reactor miniaturization.
Earlier this year, Chinese papers also revealed novel conceptual designs by CSIC for “floating mini nuclear reactors” that can sail to the South China Sea and satisfy the growing energy needs of the many atolls and artificial islands.
Last edited:
Intrepid
Major
If the Chinese first test nuclear technology on an icebreaker for subsequent use on aircraft carriers, we will not see a nuclear-powered Chinese aircraft carrier for the next 15 years.
In the meantime, they may construct hulls near simultaneously, besides their 1st CVN may have a hybrid propulsion i.e. conventional & nuclear.