CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[weig2000]

I suppose maybe because China's National Day is around the corner, people in China are in general in good spirit. Or maybe it's because the spokesman of the Chinese MOD just entertained a question from the press yesterday regarding the status of supposed China's CATOBAR carrier (he essentially gave a non-denial answer, saying that relevant R&D are underway). In any case, big shrimps fzgfzy and pop3, separately but almost simultaneously, came out with new posts about their (updated) views of 002.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, he reviewed his prediction given earlier this year and gave his updated view based on the latest and greatest he heard from various sources:

1. 002 is conventional powered, steamed catapulted, not nuclear powered or EMALS. No change in view.
2. Tonnage between 60 - 70k, his view 68k. He refused to clarify whether it regular, standard or full displacement. Single-axis power 50,000 hp. No change in view.
3. Island size reduced by 1/4 to 1/3, compared to Liaoning. Prviously he thought it would reduce by 40%
4. Three steamed catapults, this is quite a change in view. Previously he leaned toward two, said the change of opinion was due to certain breakthrough related to power plant and propulsion system.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, in a relatively short post, he gave his latest prediction (not much change from previous one):

1. Tonnage 70kt, maybe 68kt. pop3 has been consistent, he usually talks about standard displacement.
2. 50,000 hp single-axis, so 200,000 hp total.
   
3. Conventional power, steamed catapult
4. Catapult J-15

Based the above converging views, 002 is shaping up to a conventional CATOBAR, standard displacement 68 kt with a power plant rated at 200,000 hp. Full displacement likely in the range of 75-80kt. Close to Kitty Hawk, but not quite, primarily due to power plant constraint.

Take them with any size of grain of salt if you will, but I think all signs indicate that 002 is moving to the block and construction start is soon if not already.

 

[Jeff Head]

Based the above converging views, 002 is shaping up to a conventional CATOBAR, standard displacement 68 kt with a power plant rated at 200,000 hp. Full displacement likely in the range of 75-80kt. Close to Kitty Hawk, but not quite, primarily due to power plant constraint.

Well, we did not have to go elsewhere to get these estimates, but it is nice to have some big shrimps punctuate what several of us here on SD have been surmising for 2-3 years now.

002=CATAOBAR, conventional power, steam cats, full load at 80K.

I believe the PLAN will build two of them.

This will buy the PLAN time to:

1) Get very versed in CATOBAR operations.
2) Give them time to perfect carrier nuclear power and EMALs to their liking.
3) Double the size of their carrier fleet.
4) Prepare them to move forward with nuclear CATOBAR carriers with EMALs.

 

[abc123]

I suppose maybe because China's National Day is around the corner, people in China are in general in good spirit. Or maybe it's because the spokesman of the Chinese MOD just entertained a question from the press yesterday regarding the status of supposed China's CATOBAR carrier (he essentially gave a non-denial answer, saying that relevant R&D are underway). In any case, big shrimps fzgfzy and pop3, separately but almost simultaneously, came out with new posts about their (updated) views of 002.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, he reviewed his prediction given earlier this year and gave his updated view based on the latest and greatest he heard from various sources:

1. 002 is conventional powered, steamed catapulted, not nuclear powered or EMALS. No change in view.
2. Tonnage between 60 - 70k, his view 68k. He refused to clarify whether it regular, standard or full displacement. Single-axis power 50,000 hp. No change in view.
3. Island size reduced by 1/4 to 1/3, compared to Liaoning. Prviously he thought it would reduce by 40%
4. Three steamed catapults, this is quite a change in view. Previously he leaned toward two, said the change of opinion was due to certain breakthrough related to power plant and propulsion system.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, in a relatively short post, he gave his latest prediction (not much change from previous one):

1. Tonnage 70kt, maybe 68kt. pop3 has been consistent, he usually talks about standard displacement.
2. 50,000 hp single-axis, so 200,000 hp total.
   
3. Conventional power, steamed catapult
4. Catapult J-15

Based the above converging views, 002 is shaping up to a conventional CATOBAR, standard displacement 68 kt with a power plant rated at 200,000 hp. Full displacement likely in the range of 75-80kt. Close to Kitty Hawk, but not quite, primarily due to power plant constraint.

Take them with any size of grain of salt if you will, but I think all signs indicate that 002 is moving to the block and construction start is soon if not already.

So, basicly, a CATOBAR version of Liaoning/001?

Very conventional and careful approach, but it was expected.

 

[Intrepid]

Based the above converging views, 002 is shaping up to a conventional CATOBAR, standard displacement 68 kt with a power plant rated at 200,000 hp. Full displacement likely in the range of 75-80kt. Close to Kitty Hawk, but not quite, primarily due to power plant constraint.

Interessting, what the limiting factor seems to be.

 

[Intrepid]

So, basicly, a CATOBAR version of Liaoning/001?

Very conventional and careful approach, but it was expected.

4 * 50000 is the same powerplant than Liaoning. Same hull also?

 

[Blitzo]

4 * 50000 is the same powerplant than Liaoning. Same hull also?

Doubtful, if standard displacement is 68000-70000 tons; Liaoning and 001A's full displacement is even lower than that! So 002's full displacement very well could be about 80,000 tons.

So, we have to ask ourselves, how is it possible that a ship with a full displacement that is potentially 80,000 tons achieve the performance of a ship whose full displacement is below 65,000 tons (for Liaoning and 001A), whereas all three technically have same output as each other?


Well... I was confused at first, until I looked up the performance for Kitty Hawk class and Nimitz class.

Kitty Hawk class has a full displacement of slightly over 80,000 tons, and a total shaft horsepower output of 280,000.
Nimitz class has a full displacement of about 100,000 tons, and a total shaft horsepower output of 260,000.

So Nimitz class, despite being a larger ship by about 20,000 tons compared to Kitty Hawk class, actually has a LOWER shaft horse power output than Kitty Hawk class! Even the older Forrestal class had a shp output of 280,000!
what the heck, right? And it's not like we've ever heard that Nimitz class has a lower speed than Kitty Hawk class!

So based on the above, I think there are a few possible reasons for why 002 could achieve the performance required of it using the same shp output as Liaoning/001A, despite potentially being a larger ship by about 15,000 tons.
Larger (and more importantly, longer) hull shape, increased efficiency of boilers, increased efficiency of steam turbines, I think are all potentially plausible reasons for how 002 can get away with using the same shp output as Liaoning/001A.

After all, if Nimitz class can achieve sufficient performance with the USN's requirements despite having a slightly lower shp output than the Kitty Hawk class, while also being a larger ship by about 20,000 tons, then I think the idea of 002 achieving sufficient performance for the Chinese Navy's requirements using the same shp as 001A/Liaoning, while being a larger ship by about 15,000 tons, is hardly implausible.

 

[delft]

Doubtful, if standard displacement is 68000-70000 tons; Liaoning and 001A's full displacement is even lower than that! So 002's full displacement very well could be about 80,000 tons.

So, we have to ask ourselves, how is it possible that a ship with a full displacement that is potentially 80,000 tons achieve the performance of a ship whose full displacement is below 65,000 tons (for Liaoning and 001A), whereas all three technically have same output as each other?


Well... I was confused at first, until I looked up the performance for Kitty Hawk class and Nimitz class.

Kitty Hawk class has a full displacement of slightly over 80,000 tons, and a total shaft horsepower output of 280,000.
Nimitz class has a full displacement of about 100,000 tons, and a total shaft horsepower output of 260,000.

So Nimitz class, despite being a larger ship by about 20,000 tons compared to Kitty Hawk class, actually has a LOWER shaft horse power output than Kitty Hawk class! Even the older Forrestal class had a shp output of 280,000!
what the heck, right? And it's not like we've ever heard that Nimitz class has a lower speed than Kitty Hawk class!

So based on the above, I think there are a few possible reasons for why 002 could achieve the performance required of it using the same shp output as Liaoning/001A, despite potentially being a larger ship by about 15,000 tons.
Larger (and more importantly, longer) hull shape, increased efficiency of boilers, increased efficiency of steam turbines, I think are all potentially plausible reasons for how 002 can get away with using the same shp output as Liaoning/001A.

After all, if Nimitz class can achieve sufficient performance with the USN's requirements despite having a slightly lower shp output than the Kitty Hawk class, while also being a larger ship by about 20,000 tons, then I think the idea of 002 achieving sufficient performance for the Chinese Navy's requirements using the same shp as 001A/Liaoning, while being a larger ship by about 15,000 tons, is hardly implausible.

The efficiency of boilers and turbines are irrelevant because the shaft horse power is given. Those better efficiencies just reduce the fuel burn rate for that power. The length of the ship is relevant because that influences her wave drag but that also depends on the speed required. I learned these things half a century ago but am too sleepy to google for the methods to calculate what the advantage must be.

 

[Blitzo]

The efficiency of boilers and turbines are irrelevant because the shaft horse power is given. Those better efficiencies just reduce the fuel burn rate for that power. The length of the ship is relevant because that influences her wave drag but that also depends on the speed required. I learned these things half a century ago but am too sleepy to google for the methods to calculate what the advantage must be.

Yes, I was wondering maybe if transmission efficiency could be a factor (if that's a thing at all) -- but overall I think the biggest factor here would be hull geometry and length in particular.

I would also be interested in how the acceleration of say, 001A/Liaoning compared to 002, as well as Kitty Hawk class vs Nimitz class, would vary between the smaller ships vs the larger ships.

 

[Lethe]

Quick shp/tonnage ratios using data from Wikipedia:

Vikramaditya: 45400/180000 = 3.96 shp/t
Foch/Clemenceau: 32780/126000 = 3.84 shp/t
Ulyanovsk: 75000/280000 = 3.73 shp/t
Kitty Hawk: 81780t/280000= 3.42 shp/t
Enterprise: 93284/280000 = 3.00 shp/t
Kuznetsov/Liaoning: 67500/200000 = 2.96 shp/t
Centaur/Viraat: 28700/76000 = 2.92 shp/t
Vikrant (2020): 40,000/110000 = 2.75 shp/t
Nimitz: 100020t/260000 = 2.60 shp/t
CV-002: 80000/200,000 = 2.50 shp/t
Majestic/Vikrant: 19500/40000 = 2.05 shp/t
Charles de Gaulle: 42,500/81802 = 1.93 shp/t
Queen Elizabeth: 70600/107282 = 1.52 shp/t

No doubt there are inaccuracies in the data or my use of it, but hopefully it should be useful enough for a quick comparison.

 

[Intrepid]

hi @Lethe, can you add the speed?