CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I believe it's the needs does not justify adding another very space, power, maintenance demanding catapult as 4 catapults only has marginally benefit for alpha strike over 3. In peace time 1 catapult would be enough for daily CAP and 2 would be enough for small scale surge sortie which would means 003 can operates its air wing in non-combat situation with bow parked half full or even completely full. Same during low intensity combat as 2 would do for most of time and if a large sortie is needed from time to time they can launch the entire air wing with 3 catapult almost as good as 4 would do. The only major benefit for 1 more catapult would be during a high intensity warfare against a near peer 4 catapult would offer a considerable advantage (still not that big IMHO) in instant sortie rate for an alpha strike package. Yet if the fight prolongs to more than half day sustained sortie rate would be more important and then the limiting factor would be how fast a returning jet can be readied again.
Most carriers only have 2 catapults, even the next gen French carrier only has 2 catapults and 2 elevators. US is the only country so far to put 4 catapults on their carriers. So 3 is a good design compromise.
It can offer logistic compatibility was far more numerous chinese cruisers and destroyers
No Chinese surface combatants use gas turbines of the type and scale that would be needed for a carrier of this size.
There will be no commonality available.
More importantly, CV-16/17 already use steam turbines. Future CVNs will also use steam turbines as part of their propulsion package.
It makes no sense for 003 (even assuming multiple such ships are built), as another aircraft carrier, to adopt a wholly different type of propulsion that has no commonality with either CV-16/17, or future CVNs.
The use of gas turbines in the QEs makes sense for the RN. They do not plan on building anymore carriers for many decades, beyond their two QE class they have. Whatever type of propulsion they choose for them do not have to consider commonalities of technology base and logistics with the rest of their carrier fleet because they will not have any other carriers to begin with.
The PLAN do not have that luxury
Because a 5% increase in length doesn't mean a 5% increase in tonnage.
Four catapults provide redundancy, but not necessarily higher launch rates compared to three catapults, all else being equal.
That said, not all else is equal in real life operations.
I wouldn't be surprised -- in fact tbh I expect it -- if the eventual CVN has four catapults rather than three.
As for "why" 003 has three catapults rather than four -- imo, aside from the topic of power generation and storing etc, there is also the matter of deck space.
If we look at the way in which the catapults and launch positions/JBDs on US carriers (e.g.: Ford, Nimitz etc) are arranged, the two waist catapults have their "end positions" well to the port side and a little bit aft of the bow/port launch position to provide sufficient clearance.
As far as 003 is concerned, adding in another waist catapult (likely it would have to be a "starboard" waist catapult, given the configuration of the current waist catapult) would provide insufficient clearance from the bow/port catapult.
Part of this is just because of the bow flight deck configuration and geometry.
However, the easiest solution to this, would be if the bow flight deck was another 10-15m longer, which would allow the bow catapults/launch positions/JBDs to correspondingly move "forwards" by another 10-15m relative to the waist catapults launch positions (which would remain fixed), as well as allowing the bow JBDs to be forward relative to the bow aircraft elevator which in turn enables both of the bow catapults/launch positions/JBDs to correspondingly be "tilted" slightly to the starboard side (which cannot be done at this stage because to the starboard of the starboard/bow JBD is the bow aircraft elevator. All that in turn will enable the addition of an additional starboard waist catapult with sufficient clearance.
This comparison of 003's general configuration and that of Ford is pretty illustrative, and the aforementioned changes I described for 003 (lengthening the bow flight deck by 10-15m, repositioning of the bow catapults/JBDs to the starboard a bit in front of the bow aircraft elevator, and subsequent addition of a starboard waist catapult) would basically result it looking like the flight deck and catapult configuration of Ford/Nimitz.
I have a few questions about them, is there any relationship between deck space and displacement?
The deck space of 003 is close to the Ford, so is their displacement also close?
Actually, depending on
actually, look up hydrodynamic hull speed.
Depending on whether the ship’s previous top speed was its hydrodynamic hull speed, it is paradoxically very possible for that same ship to become capable of slighter higher top speed with same engine power if you keep the same, beam, draft, and accept a slight increase in displacement to add a few percent to its length.
It is a trade off between increasing frictional drag of a longer resulting from greater wetted area, and the effect of a longer hull increasing the speed at which the wave drag increases exponentially.
actually, look up hydrodynamic hull speed.
Depending on whether the ship’s previous top speed was its hydrodynamic hull speed, it is paradoxically very possible for that same ship to become capable of slighter higher top speed with same engine power if you keep the same, beam, draft, and accept a slight increase in displacement to add a few percent to its length.
It is a trade off between increasing frictional drag of a longer resulting from greater wetted area, and the effect of a longer hull increasing the speed at which the wave drag increases exponentially.