CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

N

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
I'd argue the burden of proof is on Richard Santos to substantiate his claim that:
1. Having a shed over the catapult trench = catapult work of any kind of substance is being done, and
2. That having a shed over a catapult trench is an uncommon thing for US carriers when they're under construction, and
3. Even if both 1. and 2. are true, why that would mean 003 has to be launched at a later stage of completion than US carriers, given there's nothing stopping them from initiating some aspects of catapult work while in construction in drydock and to continue it after the ship is launched. ... and lastly,
4. Even assuming 1, 2 and 3 were all true -- if the shipyard really did want to build another major warship in that same drydock sooner rather than later as he speculates in his conclusion, why on earth would they keep 003 in the drydock to do work inside the drydock if that same work could be done after the ship is launched (like catapult installation, fitting out etc). I mean, if drydock time was the focus, then wouldn't it make sense to launch the ship as early as practically possible as soon as all the work requiring drydock time is finished? After all, the fitting out process of the ship is done with the ship afloat, not requiring the ship to be in drydock.


... Of course all of this is another way of saying that his original post didn't really make sense in the first place, and I think Intrepid was already being quite gracious in humouring him.
Click to expand...
I agree with 1,2,3.

As for 4, I read his argument differently. He claimed that keeping a ship in the dry dock for longer would shorten its construction time - this being more than just about the catapults (which are a small % of total work). I am not a naval construction engineer so I don’t have an expert opinion on this.

While this would accelerate the construction of 003, it would potentially impair the construction time of the subsequent ship. But as he said, in times of war it is unlikely there would be time to complete the follow up capital ship anyhow, so it’s a sensible trade-off. At least that’s how I read it.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
nlalyst said:
To really refute him, you need to provide pictorial evidence for every carrier built by the US to conclude that it’s not “usually” the case. And then we would have to agree at what is meant by “usually”: >50%?
Click to expand...
In Chinese we have a very recent saying (last 10 years), 造谣一张嘴，辟谣跑断腿。I will skip the literal translation, it means "it takes a second to make a false claim or lie or rumor, but takes ages to refute them".

Whoever makes a claim is responsible to back it up with fact. Any refute is enough to provide just one counter evidence.

Please don't resort to the "split of hair definition"/"ambiguity of wording" tactic to win an argument.
 
B

banjex

Junior Member
Registered Member
taxiya said:
In Chinese we have a very recent saying (last 10 years), 造谣一张嘴，辟谣跑断腿。I will skip the literal translation, it means "it takes a second to make a false claim or lie or rumor, but takes ages to refute them".

Whoever makes a claim is responsible to back it up with fact. Any refute is enough to provide just one counter evidence.

Please don't resort to the "split of hair definition"/"ambiguity of wording" tactic to win an argument.
Click to expand...
Yes, we have a similar saying in the west:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
nlalyst said:
I agree with 1,2,3.

As for 4, I read his argument differently. He claimed that keeping a ship in the dry dock for longer would shorten its construction time - this being more than just about the catapults (which are a small % of total work). I am not a naval construction engineer so I don’t have an expert opinion on this.

While this would accelerate the construction of 003, it would potentially impair the construction time of the subsequent ship. But as he said, in times of war it is unlikely there would be time to complete the follow up capital ship anyhow, so it’s a sensible trade-off. At least that’s how I read it.
Click to expand...

Actually what he wrote was:
"So the fact the 003 is being kept in the dry dock to perform some of the work that could be done with the hull afloat may suggest the priority is to finish 003 as quickly as possible, and on reusing the same dock for the start of construction of another major warship as early as possible."

The whole premise rests on "reusing the same dock" for another ship asap...
But if that were the case you wouldn't keep the ship in dry dock for longer than absolutely needed, and certainly not if there's work that can be done on the ship for after it's launched instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top