CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Intrepid]

The runway length (the longer, the faster the aircraft can approach) and the runway width (the wider, the larger the aircraft can be) are important.

The number of catapults is also important.

And what is important is the size of the parking area, subdivided according to variable area (which is also used for take-offs and landings) and fixed area (where parked equipment does not interfere with take-off or landing).

Then the capacity of the ammunition system is also important, how quickly external loads can be brought back into the magazines and delivered from the magazines. An aircraft carrier does not have to be heavier than 100,000 tons, then it is better to build a larger number of ships.

An aircraft carrier formation ideally consists of three ships: two carriers are ready for flight operations day and night and one is being supplied and the crew is resting.

 

[Mulong]

the new picture

 

[Richard Santos]

BTW,

Significant and slightly are subjective. Many view American 100'000t supercarriers as products of era w/o challenge in a carrier domain.
For example, if we rule out peacetime usage, will those thousands of tons make for a qualitatively different unit?

We aren't talking battleships here, in strategic calculus, all 3(75 and 90 conventionals, 100 nuclear) will be in the supercarrier category and will be counted as such. If, however, lesser units can ultimately give you more hulls in a calculus - that counts for something.

Just for an additional measurement point - nuclear(i.e. noticeably less weight-efficient) Ulyanovsk, in spite of full Soviet array of missile weapons, was intended to carry up to 64 fixed-wing a/c, including 60 heavy fighters(Su-33/S-37, read - J-15) and 4 AEWs. At 80'000t.

It can be reasonably expected that conventional 003 will be able to provide more.

slightly and significantly in this case is not quite so subjective because they can be measured against each other, not just some mental notion of is slight abd what is significant.. Will a fleet of 75000 ton carrier of the same total lifetime cost be as effective as fleet of 90,000 ton carriers? My hunch is it is not.

Yes, the 75,000 ton Forrestal class was considered the first of super carriers. But when the forestall was built, most (not all) of the aircraft it would have carried were significantly smaller, lighter and less powerful than the J-15. Subsequently the Forrestal’s were considered the least satisfactory of post war US carriers due to crowded deck, and inadequate see keeping. Every subsequent design evolution of US carriers had gotten larger. Several effort to rein in individual carrier cost by returning to more moderate, 65000 ton sized carriers in favor of more carrier hulls were rejected.

The soviet Ulyanovsk class is an interesting data point. but keep in mind when the soviets designed her, their experience with large fixed wing carrier deck operation was essentially zero.

 

[SINCHIKI]

Crazy islands lol
The layout of the fourth picture is very interesting
(Image from Baidu Tieba user VVEI)

 

[Richard Santos]

They are not crazy, Each of those island arrangements have something to recommend it, and they have all been tried

 

[by78]

The current fleet is under so much stress, as they are fulfilling their duties. The Taiwan situation needs to be resolved sooner than later.
Western hegemony only fear hard power. Hostile adversaries are intruding into territorial waters claiming freedom of navigation. It is always something that you hoped you had built more when you really needed them.

Stop injecting politics into military threads!


Dear moderators (@Bltizo @Deino @siegecrossbow), user @Tyler is the new username of Peter2018, who is one violation away from a permanent ban before changing his user name to Tyler, likely done to evade a permanent ban. Since the name change, Peter2018/Tyler has continued to engage in political flame-baiting in multiple flagship military threads.

 

[Silkworm]

Liaoning and Shandong are "one-third" aircraft carriers from an operational perspective. They have only a small number of "workhorses" (combat aircraft) on board, no significant number of support aircraft.

003 will be a "two thirds" aircraft carrier with a still reduced number of "workhorses" (combat aircraft) but all supporting components.

Only the aircraft carrier draft after 003 will have its full size and capability. The plans for this have long been drawn, and components have certainly already been ordered or in production. The ability to build and operate such a ship has long existed. But the Chinese are thoughtful and wise and want to have made their own experiences on the way there. The Chinese want to understand why things are the way they are.

Hats off to such a well-structured approach and such a long breath!

I see it as three parts of an education of the highest quality: the goal is not to pass the exam at the end, but to master every single exercise on the way with flying colors.

003 is the second of three parts, not the exam at the end!

If a 001/002 carrier accompanies a 003 carrier, that should mean the operational effectiveness of the CBG is equivalent to one "full carrier".

Beyond the initial benefits of training and experience in the formative years of PLAN carrier aviation, is that the residual utility of continuing to operate the 001/002 carriers?

 

[Intrepid]

There will be a great need for training capacities for the next 30 years. I don't expect Liaoning and Shandong to be released from their role as training ship. Unless 003 takes over this function.

 

[voyager1]

If a 001/002 carrier accompanies a 003 carrier, that should mean the operational effectiveness of the CBG is equivalent to one "full carrier".

Beyond the initial benefits of training and experience in the formative years of PLAN carrier aviation, is that the residual utility of continuing to operate the 001/002 carriers?

Its not as simple as 1/3 + 2/3 = 1. There are too many different variables, capabilities, systems, cooperation between them to be able to compare 2 inferior carriers to 1 "full" carrier. In that way Iran could build 10 carriers of 1/10 capability and then saying they now own 1 "full" carrier

IMO it is not meaningful to have such conversations. Maybe good in theory to have debates but I seriously doubt it works like that in practise

001/002 could go for SCS duties and act as training carriers for the "real" carriers 003, 004 etc

Anyway, back to topic now

 

[Gloire_bb]

hen the forestall was built, most (not all) of the aircraft it would have carried were significantly smaller, lighter and less powerful than the J-15. Subsequently the Forrestal’s were considered the least satisfactory of post war US carriers due to crowded deck, and inadequate see keeping. Every subsequent design evolution of US carriers had gotten larger. Several effort to rein in individual carrier cost by returning to more moderate, 65000 ton sized carriers in favor of more carrier hulls were rejected.

There is no question that a bigger carrier is better.
There is, strictly speaking, no question that a bigger warship is stronger than a smaller one, given both are at a similar tech level. For all its ineffeciency. Bismarck class ultimately probably was stronger than most its 35-40'000t competitors.

The question is if it's worth it, and if we're talking about a balance of power and force expansion.
Shokaku class was much more advanced than any carrier afloat - in some ways, arguably, she was competitive to the Essexes.
Huge Taiho was a step further still.

But when [certain brown substance] hit then fan - IJN proceeded to build Unryus, which in essence were an updated and simplified Hiryu class. Because it is still a true fleet carrier.

Nimitz and Ford classes are very...lavish designs. And I am not sure building the biggest thing possible is feasible, when you speak about two powers, with comparable resources, and a real chance of using them against each other.
This is a situation where designers should always know where to stop.