Haven't seen you post in a while buddy. Good to see that you're still around.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Haven't seen you post in a while buddy. Good to see that you're still around.
In that case I guess 120 m to 130 m deflector to bow edge is a given.
Intrepid
Major
I think no. It will be some module of the foredeck, but not the forward end of the flight deck. I expect the forward end of the flight deck to be a bit wider.
Since electromagnetic catapult should be able to specifically modulate the forces it applies to the aircraft during every meter of travel, it should be able to accelerate an aircraft more uniformly, and thus launch the aircraft at same speed over shorter distances than a steam catapult could without exceeding the maximum force the steam catapult exerts on the aircraft during the catapult run.
So if the Chinese carrier uses electromagnetic catapults then it should be able to achieve the same performance with a shorter catapult run than steam catapults on any existing carrier.
So if the Chinese carrier uses electromagnetic catapults then it should be able to achieve the same performance with a shorter catapult run than steam catapults on any existing carrier.
All that may be true, but the end result may still not be a shorter catapult run.
As we see on Ford carrier, its EMALS features identically long catapult run (deflector to edge of bow) as steam catapults on Nimitz. So whatever extra power is there in the design was not used to make the catapult shorter but was likely used in other ways. Perhaps diluting that extra power over the same span so the wear and tear on the catapult itself is less. Or the wear and tear on the planes is less.
Or simply all that power is kept in reserve for future proofing, if and when heavier planes appear.
On another note, IF those two deflector looking spots on 003 are indeed the locations of the future deflectors, and IF Chinese EM catapults are 10 meters shorter than Nimitz/Ford ones, then we'll be looking at overall likely length of the whole carrier at just 305 or so meters. Is that plausible, given the currently visible hull outline and size?
Intrepid
Major
10 extra meters on the forecastle deck is one or two aircraft more parked after landing.
Here's a speculative deck layout/dimensions, but based on the idea that the two spots observed are indeed deflector locations. Also applied is the assumed 129 m long deflector to edge of deck length (to mimick Ford's), as well as overall 315 m length, which is in my opinion roughly what we might get in the end, given the currently observed waterline length, from the images.
When using J15, it is very hard to find room for significantly more planes than with 001/002 carriers. There might be room for roughly 16 on deck, when all 3 catapults are working. I've kept one elevator free for various other needs.
We observed the hangar space before and it doesn't seem to be much wider than one on 002. Which was roomy enough for 12 or so J15. While 003 hangar may be longer, given that it also has to house KJ600 (Which are larger than Z18 AEW helos) I'm doubtful the 003 hangar will be able to house more than 14 or 15 J15 sized fighters.
This particular layout pretty much maxes out at around 30 J15 sized fighters. I may've been too conservative, but even if I have and even if 003 is a bit larger, the overall difference can't be great. I am pretty certain that 003 will not, even in the most dense, alpha strike configuration, carry more than 36 J15 sized fighters.
When using J15, it is very hard to find room for significantly more planes than with 001/002 carriers. There might be room for roughly 16 on deck, when all 3 catapults are working. I've kept one elevator free for various other needs.
We observed the hangar space before and it doesn't seem to be much wider than one on 002. Which was roomy enough for 12 or so J15. While 003 hangar may be longer, given that it also has to house KJ600 (Which are larger than Z18 AEW helos) I'm doubtful the 003 hangar will be able to house more than 14 or 15 J15 sized fighters.
This particular layout pretty much maxes out at around 30 J15 sized fighters. I may've been too conservative, but even if I have and even if 003 is a bit larger, the overall difference can't be great. I am pretty certain that 003 will not, even in the most dense, alpha strike configuration, carry more than 36 J15 sized fighters.
Attachments
-
003 carrier deck v11.jpg
How does these number compare to Ford, Nimitz, and Kitty Hawk?
The US seems to be set at around 50 or so combat planes for their carriers, they've trained with those figures for decades now. 44-48 Super/Hornets/F35s and 5 or so more Growlers.
There IS room to operate more said planes on Ford/Nimitz but the USN is not training with such numbers. Allegedly, they've come to the conclusion that fewer planes and more room to move then around and park them equals just as many sorties generated as with more planes, due to greater efficiency of the sortie cycles.
I would expect the PLAN to come to a similar conclusion, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if the final J15 count for 003 is closer to 30 than to 36 planes. Also, the basic unit may be changed to a pair, instead of 4 planes within a squadron. Just as USAF's basic unit has 4 planes, but USN's basic unit is a pair.
There IS room to operate more said planes on Ford/Nimitz but the USN is not training with such numbers. Allegedly, they've come to the conclusion that fewer planes and more room to move then around and park them equals just as many sorties generated as with more planes, due to greater efficiency of the sortie cycles.
I would expect the PLAN to come to a similar conclusion, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if the final J15 count for 003 is closer to 30 than to 36 planes. Also, the basic unit may be changed to a pair, instead of 4 planes within a squadron. Just as USAF's basic unit has 4 planes, but USN's basic unit is a pair.