CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Sczepan]

So, what do you think the lack of "type" in the second picture means?

Do you think it means that CV-17 is actually 001A.... despite no renditions of that designation existing at all, and us having multiple official placards using the 002 designation, and no one in the grapevine calling it 001A at all for years now and everyone calling it 002?

Or, do you think that regardless of whether it is "type" or not, CV-17 should still be correctly identified as 002, and that 001A is an obsolete and incorrect term that should no longer be used?

The answer is -- we don't know.

construction number (001) and penannt number (16)

should be right, also construction number (002) and penant number (17). And additionell construction number (003) to the next one, build near shanghai.

"Class" or "type" was not used in the last years as I know. So may be we got more information in the future.

 

[steve_rolfe]

I would like to call it construction number (001) and penannt number (16). The construction number never changes, the penannt number can be changed.

Exactly......good answer, the word "construction" sums up the situation precisely, and we can be sure that the Chinese will call their next Carrier 004, regardless of whether its a sister ship to the 003, or a new design. If everyone sticks to the numbering convention that the Chinese actually call their Carriers then people won't get confused.

 

[defenceman]

Hi why the pennant number starts with 16 is it somewhat related to like block1 with six need to be build
and can it be the reason that 17 is somewhat like been called 001 as being built entirely by China as compared to CV16 which been partially build by another country
if possible to answer by someone with more knowledge on the matter
thank you

 

[Suetham]

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.

I understand.

If the Type 003 needs +200 MW, what would be the ship's propulsion type?

I would bet on something like co-generation of energy between gas turbines and the 20 MW turbo-generator to power the embedded systems. If it is a gas turbine, it would probably be an output power around 40 MW or close to that, like the 36 MW of the MT30, which would give something around 160 MW if 4 gas turbines are used. With a co-generation of energy like the 20 MW turbo-generators, we would have enough energy generation to feed the systems.

If I were to guess something about how architecture will be, I would bet on IPES. This is the direction the US is taking to embark on future fighters. An IPES is more advanced than an IPS, with an energy storage unit capable of reducing the impact of energy demand from power generation systems, reducing the impact of energy demand on account of the storage system means that the generation Type 003's power output will be lower, this allows for lower rated wattages of power-generating systems.

If the Type 003 is really an electric ship, it means that the integrated grid system is able to control the energy demand of the onboard systems, switching between the high demand systems at that time to the low energy demand onboard systems at that time. , all of this strengthens power quality and reduces the ship's energy demand.

Looking at what the Type 003 is becoming and systems that are only available on nuclear-powered ships, I consider the very high possibility of these types of technologies being on the new Chinese aircraft carrier.

Is anything along these lines confirmed for the Type 003?

I was just informed that the Type 003 will not come with gas turbines, but will likely come with a more powerful steam turbine.

 

[Helius]

Exactly......good answer, the word "construction" sums up the situation precisely, and we can be sure that the Chinese will call their next Carrier 004, regardless of whether its a sister ship to the 003, or a new design. If everyone sticks to the numbering convention that the Chinese actually call their Carriers then people won't get confused.

It's only confusing if you make it that way for yourself. There's nothing inherently wrong for people to call a ship by a specific type, or a serial number, in much the same way NATO designations for Russian equipment are different to what the actual Russian designations are e.g. Typhoon-class vs Akula-class. Some prefer one over the other, but it doesn't make either more right or more wrong.

Some people find it easier to associate the carrier with a 'Type', as this is how the PLAN has traditionally classified their boats, even though there currently lacks an official classification for 002 and indeed 003. For you to insist on calling it one way over the other, particularly where there isn't even an official clarification on the matter from the actual Chinese military, would only serve to invite even more unnecessary confusion, and debate.

 

[steve_rolfe]

It's only confusing if you make it that way for yourself. There's nothing inherently wrong for people to call a ship by a specific type, or a serial number, in much the same way NATO designations for Russian equipment are different to what the actual Russian designations are e.g. Typhoon-class vs Akula-class. Some prefer one over the other, but it doesn't make either more right or more wrong.

Some people find it easier to associate the carrier with a 'Type', as this is how the PLAN has traditionally classified their boats, even though there currently lacks an official classification for 002 and indeed 003. For you to insist on calling it one way over the other, particularly where there isn't even an official clarification on the matter from the actual Chinese military, would only serve to invite even more unnecessary confusion, and debate.

I was glued to my seat reading your post, if not i would of walked away ..........you seemed to of missed the point, but anyway you are really just confirming what i and the majority of people here think, and understand to what the numbers of the Chinese Carriers mean, and for others the confusion only exists in their heads as they are over complicating matters by trying to designate these numbers into Carrier sub classes that even the Chinese Navy, has not officially given to them. All will become clear when further Carriers are built.

 

[Helius]

you seemed to of missed the point...

Honestly, there's not much of a point for one to miss anyway, as there's no point in "correcting" people when it comes to how these carriers are/should be/ought to be called, just like I said.

...the confusion only exists in their heads as they are over complicating matters by trying to designate these numbers into Carrier sub classes...

However people want to designate them is their way of making sense of what information is available to them, you and me. Why would that be confusing to them? For you to think on their behalf that it's confusing and overly complicated, it'd be because...

you make it that way for yourself.

...by making it needlessly absolute and pedantic, and perpetuating it when, like you said -

even the Chinese Navy, has not officially given to them.

Which is what I'd already said anyway.

All will become clear when further Carriers are built.

It depends. For as long as the PLAN doesn't confer a proper 'Type' designation beyond their serial and pennant numbers, they could build 10 carriers that number sequentially from 001 to 010, and people would just as likely to take it to mean 10 'Types/classes' of carriers as simply boat 1 to boat 10, like you seemingly purport to advocate.

The point which you seem to have missed, is neither is wrong or right for the reason abovementioned. Someone calls the boat a 'Type', so what? Has the PLAN confirmed it? No. Have they denied it then? No.

Next time someone raises the matter, might I suggest a simple "We don't know. Personally I prefer 'Carrier No. XXX'. Although it could just as well be 'Type XXX'"?

 

[lcloo]

All these to and fro arguement on class and type is like the proverb, the blinds touched and describe the look of elephant, while the beast just keep silent. I rather just wait for the new ship's launch and see what PLAN will described it as it is. 瞎子摸象。

 

[Intrepid]

... and can it be the reason that 17 is somewhat like been called 001 as being built entirely by China as compared to CV16 which been partially build by another country ...

Penannt number 17 ist called construction number 002.

 

[blindsight]

I recon 型 is more equivalent to 'class'.
Type is also used for land vehicles like type 99, but the chinese word here is 式, and the West don't seem to have a word for it, preferring to refer it directly eg M1 Abrams.

型 is more like "spec", which means you would copy & paste that thing into series production. In terms of CVs, if PLA never mention 型, that could imply it'll be a one-off thing. Since you won't have any more ship with the similar spec, it doesn't make any sense to add 型。