CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Hub]

Would a reasonable estimate of sortie generation be 75% of catapults of nimitz x 80% efficiency per catapult (assuming an initial level of inefficiency as not decades of experience like the US) = 60% sortie generation rate of a nimitz carrier?

IMO, that would be perfectly acceptable for 003 with room to improve in 004 and Close enough

View attachment 74703
View attachment 74702

Would a reasonable estimate of sortie generation be 75% of catapults of nimitz x 80% efficiency per catapult (assuming an initial level of inefficiency as not decades of experience like the US) = 60% sortie generation rate of a nimitz carrier?

IMO, that would be perfectly acceptable for 003 with room to improve in 004 and beyond.

According to the report of US Navy, typically just use 2-3 catapults during operation. So the difference of 3 or 4 not so important to the sortie generation rate. But 1 more catapult in the middle, provides more redundancy and could improve the sortie generation rate a little. I would measure the factor of influence as 90%.

And a fully functional EMALS should be more efficient than the steam one, From a cautious perspective, it is tentatively set to be the same. Finally, the sortie generation rate should be 90%+ of Nimitz class.

 

[aubzman]

There are two open hatches(?) near the stern of the ship with air handlers pipes coming out of them. Are they weapons elevators?

 

[Intrepid]

There are two open hatches(?) near the stern of the ship with air handlers pipes coming out of them. Are they weapons elevators?

We don't know yet but I think so. That would also mark the end of the hangar deck.

 

[Paulo R Siqueira]

Vector art(coreldraw) about the photo

 

[asif iqbal]

I can see 36 x J15 on deck

it can easily take 48 x J15

good deck space it’s been thought out

 

[no_name]

We don't know yet but I think so. That would also mark the end of the hangar deck.

So hangar length would be from at least that point to next to the start point of the front two catapults.

 

[Richard Santos]

We don't know yet but I think so. That would also mark the end of the hangar deck.

the aft end of the flight deck would seem a rather dangerous place to put weapon elevators. I suspect the majority of serious accidents onboard a carrier might result from a poor landing hitting the aft end of the deck hard.

 

[Intrepid]

the aft end of the flight deck would seem a rather dangerous place to put weapon elevators. I suspect the majority of serious accidents onboard a carrier might result from a poor landing hitting the aft end of the deck hard.

I do not understand what the danger is if the planes are armed on the quarterdeck in such a situation:

 

[KevinG]

I can see 36 x J15 on deck

it can easily take 48 x J15

good deck space it’s been thought out

Besides the deck area increase, canceling the ski jump also frees a lot of parking space for jets on the deck

 

[Richard Santos]

I do not understand what the danger is if the planes are armed on the quarterdeck in such a situation:
View attachment 74737

in this situation planes are not landing, but if planes were landing, the rear of the flight deck is probably a place most likely to see any violent accident with fires and explosions. Sees one would not want put a access into the magazines there if one could help it.