I agree with Bltizo, it doesn't sound credible at all, but if you can link us to the source we can try to verify it for you. I'd like to know which insider was spewing this sort of "information."
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I agree with Bltizo, it doesn't sound credible at all, but if you can link us to the source we can try to verify it for you. I'd like to know which insider was spewing this sort of "information."
1st of all, wecome aboard SD!
We hope uyou hacve a great time here nd look forward to your sharing.
Make sure you read the
SD Forum Rules of Behavior
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/sinodefence-forum-rules-of-behavior.t6745/
As yto your question...as others have stated. Such a build in terms of displacement is highly unlikely.
The Chinese are going to maximize the learning and benefit that oithers have spent decades developing, learning and perfecting where ever they can.
I expect 003 will be a little larger that the 002, that it will be CATOBAR, that it may well em[;loy EMALS. and that the displacement will be somewhere around 100,000 tons.
Lethe
Captain
I think it is unlikely that China will seek to build a vessel >100k tons. It is even questionable as to whether the United States needs 100k ton carriers, or whether Ford's size is simply a function of institutional inertia.
Recall that Nimitz and other follow-on vessels were sized to carry much larger air wings than they currently do and to engage in robust power projection. The Chinese emphasis will be much more devoted to sea control with a secondary role in power projection.
Further, while the studies show that larger carriers are more effective at maintaining high sortie rates, the importance of maintaining those high sortie rates has declined with the advent and proliferation of PGMs and will continue to do so. Endurance and persistence of airborne assets has to a larger extent replaced the prior emphasis on sortie rates.
Nonetheless we would not expect carriers to shrink much (if at all) going forward due to the limited cost savings of doing so. Other considerations that may tend to shape size considerations include transit canals and available propulsion options (i.e. if you can build a 100k ton carrier that requires an entirely new machinery fit vs. an 80k ton carrier that requires only modest modification from existing propulsion options with savings in logistics, training, etc.).
Recall that Nimitz and other follow-on vessels were sized to carry much larger air wings than they currently do and to engage in robust power projection. The Chinese emphasis will be much more devoted to sea control with a secondary role in power projection.
Further, while the studies show that larger carriers are more effective at maintaining high sortie rates, the importance of maintaining those high sortie rates has declined with the advent and proliferation of PGMs and will continue to do so. Endurance and persistence of airborne assets has to a larger extent replaced the prior emphasis on sortie rates.
Nonetheless we would not expect carriers to shrink much (if at all) going forward due to the limited cost savings of doing so. Other considerations that may tend to shape size considerations include transit canals and available propulsion options (i.e. if you can build a 100k ton carrier that requires an entirely new machinery fit vs. an 80k ton carrier that requires only modest modification from existing propulsion options with savings in logistics, training, etc.).
Last edited:
Thank you for your welcome! Sorry if I shifted the discussion to dubious veracity information. I asked because I was also dubious. Such a dispacement seems too much ambitious in light of the cautios, progressive approach of the PLAN to new buildings but the comment quoted a post found on POP3 blog and, considering the credibility of the source, I think that, if this post exist, the information would be worthy of attention. I'm trying to find this post to confirm the information but since I don't speak Chinese and automatic traduction is very approximate, the thing is proving quite difficult. Below there's the topic on PakistanDefence I was talking about, the second comment on the page.
The important detail here is It would be pretty extraordinary for a nuclear powered carrier to weigh 40k tons more at full load than at standard displacement. Standard displacement is a measure originally conceived for the Washington naval treaty in 1921. It includes the ship's structural, weight of armament, crew, provision, but without the weight of fuel and feed water. it is not clear how weight of fuel is excluded in a nuclear carrier. But it is nonetheless inconceivable that weight of all fuel and feed water, including all aviation fuel, would amount to 40,000 tons.
So this innocuous looking detail of a 40k ton difference between alleged standard displacement and fullload displacement indicate the story is crap.
He said OVER 100k ton standard and not 140k ton full but between 120 and 140k ton full. So it may be well 110k ton standard and 130k full, that seems pretty reasonable. I'm far from sure about this story but it seems to be far from unbelievable. I remember an interwiev to the USN CNO about Ford Class: he said they can't get a bigger one for economic and infrastructural reasons, so why China can't built a carrier 15-20000 ton bigger that of the US? Also we don't know China's reactor technology and we don't know if China's next generation carrier fighter will be a F-18/F-35 class aircraft or will remain in the range of dimension of the present J-15. So if you want a carrier comparable to Ford but you have bigger fighters and bigger reactors, you have to built a bigger carrier. But who knows...
Intrepid
Major
And for the fan-boys: bigger doesn't mean better.
For the fanbois it does.
Fzgfzy has some fresh information regarding the Type 002:
~70,000 tons (likely standard displacement, which would mean 80,000+ tons full load), three catapults and two elevators. There's some speculation saying this is a sign that construction on the 002 is underway.
He also has another surprise for us:
~35,000-ton Landing Helicopter Dock with aft elevator. Make of this what you will...
EDIT: Forgot the
~70,000 tons (likely standard displacement, which would mean 80,000+ tons full load), three catapults and two elevators. There's some speculation saying this is a sign that construction on the 002 is underway.
He also has another surprise for us:
~35,000-ton Landing Helicopter Dock with aft elevator. Make of this what you will...
EDIT: Forgot the