But regardless any issues and delays, do we know how long it took from the beginning of installation until this work was finished?
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
But regardless any issues and delays, do we know how long it took from the beginning of installation until this work was finished?
Intrepid
Major
I don't know how long it would have lasted without the various interruptions. I know from my professional environment that such a question about the "net construction time" is very often not even examined and answered within a company.
This article shows the USN Ford was still having issues at least three years after delivery
and is only now getting ready for deployment in 2022
There seems to have been a consistent pattern of problems with new designs in the USN, The Zumwalt cruiser, the Ford class and the littoral combat ship classes. The USN has even had to go to Fincantieri, Italy for the baseline design of its new Constellation class frigate, which actually looks like a fine design.
It was a combination of lack of investment in new US designs for a long time because of "peace dividend" with desire for giant leaps forward in technology which led to the current situation the US Navy is facing. Add to that increased tempo of operations in the US-China Pacific escalation, never quite leaving the Middle East, the US fritters away their existing fleet and you get to the current point.
Given that Europe has decent frigate designs and Japan and South Korea have good destroyer designs I think they will surpass this issue.
The US will need to focus on the capital ships, which their allies simply can't help them with. So getting the Ford carrier program right is important.
China started from a much worse starting point to begin with. And given the huge timescales to build these capital ships it will be difficult to attain parity in those to begin with. Assuming China even wanted such a thing which unlike what some think I believe China never did.
China still seems to be seeking parity with US and its East Pacific allies in terms of ships and little else. The US has one supercarrier always deployed in Japan and another one which occasionally joins it. So I think that is China's minimum requirement. Two supercarriers. Three if you consider that two are typically in San Diego besides the other one in Japan.
Given that Europe has decent frigate designs and Japan and South Korea have good destroyer designs I think they will surpass this issue.
The US will need to focus on the capital ships, which their allies simply can't help them with. So getting the Ford carrier program right is important.
China started from a much worse starting point to begin with. And given the huge timescales to build these capital ships it will be difficult to attain parity in those to begin with. Assuming China even wanted such a thing which unlike what some think I believe China never did.
China still seems to be seeking parity with US and its East Pacific allies in terms of ships and little else. The US has one supercarrier always deployed in Japan and another one which occasionally joins it. So I think that is China's minimum requirement. Two supercarriers. Three if you consider that two are typically in San Diego besides the other one in Japan.
Last edited:
The front lift has been installed.
by78
General
lcloo
Captain
Here is a blown up, quite blur but the colour of the lift is whitish against the dark drydock floor.Huu?? I see NOTHING!
For PLAN to reach parity with USN in CVN numbers, it will be like around 2050, but that's if PLAN wants a global presence.
Regional, they probably need 5 carriers (001, 002, 3x 003/004). If they want to secure shipping routes in Indian Ocean then additional 2x 003/004 will be needed.
Beyond 7 carriers and then PLAN is really pushing global aspiration.
003 carrier looks quiet small compared with other cargo ships under construction.Here you go.
