CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[lcloo]

How different between CV16 and CV17, compare with HMS QE and HMS Prince of Wales, with regrad to their future obsolete functionalities, other than HMS QE's F-35B.

Going forward in next 30 years, development of PLAN Aviation planes might include 6th Gen (Chinese 5th Gen) jet, combat/Strike drones with STOL/VTOL capabilities, giving new upgrade in effectiveness to CV16 and CV17. The main strike capability of aircraft carrier lies in the capability of its air assets rather than the other way around.

Retiring both CV16 and CV17 before the end of their useful lives just because they are not CATOBAR is not a wise decision.

 

[Blitzo]

How different between CV16 and CV17, compare with HMS QE and HMS Prince of Wales, with regrad to their future obsolete functionalities, other than HMS QE's F-35B.

Going forward in next 30 years, development of PLAN Aviation planes might include 6th Gen (Chinese 5th Gen) jet, combat/Strike drones with STOL/VTOL capabilities, giving new upgrade in effectiveness to CV16 and CV17. The main strike capability of aircraft carrier lies in the capability of its air assets rather than the other way around.

Retiring both CV16 and CV17 before the end of their useful lives just because they are not CATOBAR is not a wise decision.

CV-16/17 can certainly have their useful lives extended if new aircraft are developed that are compatible with their ski jumps.
In particular, in the medium term, I am thinking about the carrier based 5th gen fighter -- obviously the J-XY is expected to be catapult compatible and intended for arrested recovery, but if it is also able to be launched from a ski jump (which may not require much additional strengthening) then that will greatly extend the useful lives and the capability of CV-16/17.

Thinking ahead to what a carrier based 6th generation fighter may look like is useful, yes.
But one also has to think about how many aircraft carriers the PLAN intends to operate -- by the mid 2030s, it may well be that the PLAN have bought enough carriers that meets their force requirements while having produced a significant number of CATOBAR carriers from hot production lines, leaving CV-16/17 as the remaining STOBAR carriers in service.
By then, the question to ask will be whether the personnel and operating costs that are allocated for CV-16/17, may be better used to retire them early and buy two CATOBARs to replace them, given how much more capable CATOBARs would be while having perhaps only a marginally higher personnel requirement and operating cost.


Regardless of whether CV-16/17 are retired "early" and replaced by new build CATOBARs (once the PLAN approaches their required number of aircraft carriers) -- I very much doubt they will be refit with catapults. The nature of the modification, the shipyard and dock time, the costs involved.... it's not worth it.
That is to say -- regardless of when the PLAN retires CV-16/17, I expect them to have ski jumps, and no catapults.

 

[Tyler]

Another way to get catapults onto CV16 and CV17 is just to install them on the angled deck. You don't even have to get rid of the ski jump. Even just 1 catapult will help a lot.

Just build a couple of type 076 with catapult. That will do the job more easily.

 

[Intrepid]

Just build a couple of type 076 with catapult. That will do the job more easily.

The ships of the type 076 lack the J-15. Drones and J-15 on one single carrier is intended.

 

[nlalyst]

I also wanted to know. I saw an article talking about FEP too. To this day I don't know the particularities of each system, such as IEP, FEP, IFEP, IPS and IPES.

There were no indications that it would have IFEP (integrated full electric propulsion), like the QE2 class.

Based on rumors disseminated by other forum members, PLAN is developing a MVDC ship electric architecture, and its operating voltage is expected to fall withing the 3kV-10kV range. It is as of yet unclear how mature this technology is.

From an engineering viewpoint, even the upper range of 10kV may not be sufficient to route 200MW+ of power that the Type 003 may be generating. For example, the QE2 employs a 11kV grid to distribute roughly 120MW of power. The Ford class carriers employ an even higher voltage grid to distribute an undisclosed level of electric power, but estimated slightly above QE2 total produced power.

It might be possible to get by with lower voltage and a less integrated grid architecture. The 1920s US electric propulsion aircraft carriers of Lexington class, generated roughly 150MW of electric power. They used 4 parallel turbo generators providing 5000V DC current at 4620 amps (rated at 35MW), each on its own separate line to the electric motors.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Just build a couple of type 076 with catapult. That will do the job more easily.

(1)We don't really know that 076 can and can not. It's too early for that.
(2)Comparing 240m-ish straight aircraft deck with angled 300m-ish straight deck is simply unfair.
Capacity won't be comparable in any case.

CV-16/17 can certainly have their useful lives extended if new aircraft are developed that are compatible with their ski jumps.
In particular, in the medium term, I am thinking about the carrier based 5th gen fighter -- obviously the J-XY is expected to be catapult compatible and intended for arrested recovery, but if it is also able to be launched from a ski jump (which may not require much additional strengthening) then that will greatly extend the useful lives and the capability of CV-16/17.

Tbh, I am almost sure that the requirement for compatibility with the first two decks is featured very prominently for J-XY.
Especially since its presumed weight class makes it very much achievable.

If anything, I wouldn't be surprised to see J-15 family moving out from first two carriers entirely when J-XY will become available.
35t-class aircraft simply makes much more sense on EMALS.

 

[Intrepid]

The Soviet's cancel super carrier had limited catapult on the angle deck. The theory was that stobar was more reliable for getting their fighters for their doctrine of warfare.

The Soviets feared that the steam from the catapults could make the flightdeck unusable in arctic conditions.

 

[Sofa Historian]

The Soviets feared that the steam from the catapults could make the flightdeck unusable in arctic conditions.

Thats only half of the truth. Its true that this argument was used by decision makers in the military against steam catapults.I am not aware who started that myth. But the argument of iceing is unfounded as the engineers of the catapult manufacture "Proletarsky Zavod" reported.
Before flight operations the alloy pistons of the S-1 steam catapult had to slowly be pre-heated to 200°C. That would result in 60-70°C heating of the flightdeck directly over the it. Needless to say that ice wont last long in this conditions.

 

[Deino]

Hey guys … can you discuss this all in a separate thread? For the Type 003 you are IMO a bit too far off.

 

[Intrepid]

If I understood correctly, it was generally about the formation of ice on the deck and superstructures due to the damp clouds of catapult steam.

An example of ice build-up:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!