CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Deino]

Russia's building LHDs, not LHAs.

Can we leave out the Russian Navy and LHDs or LAHs from this thread?

 

[Orthan]

After a second look they are indeed there since some time and also they look more like movable halls/shelters, albeit smaller than the ones, which hide the carrier.

The modules are suposedly under those white shelters, not the yellow circle you created in that photo. Also this last photo show that they have still not taken the modules to the drydock with the big crane to be assembled.

 

[banjex]

Can we leave out the Russian Navy and LHDs or LAHs from this thread?

@Austin Powers

 

[Orthan]

The modules are suposedly under those white shelters, not the yellow circle you created in that photo. Also this last photo show that they have still not taken the modules to the drydock with the big crane to be assembled.

Have anyone confirmed that those are the modules of the carrier? the photos that we have in this forum arent conclusive.

 

[by78]

A very grainy update, you can just about make out the modules ahead of dry dock #4.

 

[Deino]

A very grainy update, you can just about make out the modules ahead of dry dock #4.

But only with a a lot of imagination!

 

[Tyler]

China steps up shipbuilding with two more aircraft carriers under construction towards 2035 navy goal

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is from the SCMP "expert" so likely not accurate.

 

[by78]

This is from the SCMP "expert" so likely not accurate.

Then why did you post it if it's likely inaccurate?

 

[Tyler]

Then why did you post it if it's likely inaccurate?

According to many experts here, the author from SCMP is not accurate. I don't want to get criticized for posting something from SCMP. So you just use your own judgement when you read something from that SCMP "expert".

 

[by78]

According to many experts here, the author from SCMP is not accurate. I don't want to get criticized for posting something from SCMP. So you just use your own judgement when you read something from that SCMP "expert".

That doesn't make sense to me. If you had deemed the article inaccurate, and you expected to be criticized if you posted it, then why did you post it?