CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
I am still puzzled by why the 003 is apparently a singleton. building a single unique carrier does not appear to me to make sense, unless she is seen as a safer backup to the next nuclear carrier.
I think more likely she will have a sister. China has 2 yards capable of and now experienced in building carriers. So I think a second 003 will be built more or less concurrently with 004 if China does indeed intend to build an 004 immediately after the first 003.
 
Last edited:

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
General Characteristics, Nimitz class
Builder:
Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Virginia
Date Deployed: May 3, 1975 (USS Nimitz)
Unit Cost: About $8.5 billion in constant year FY 12 dollars
Propulsion: Two nuclear reactors, four shafts
Length: 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Beam: 134 feet (40.84 meters); Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Displacement: Approximately 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
USN does not agree with USN. :oops:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Shilao and gang talked about their experience watching growth of PLA since they were kids. Xi recalls asking his parents why China doesn't have a carrier and his parents told him "one day Jiangnan Shipyard will build us one". Shilao recalls when 112 Harbin (052 lead ship) was launched in the 90s he went up to someone in PLAN to ask for their thought and he answered "what is this crap?!" and complained about lack of VLS and CIWS just like military fans.

Coming around to today, they said those jokes you are seeing today: the one where someone photoshopped Fujian to have a ramp or Shandong making fun of Fujian's flat cheat, those jokes are only funny because Fujian exists. If you ask kids today who grew up in a world where J-20 is flying overhead and Liaoning and Shandong are out at sea what they think of J-35 and Fujian they would just shrug and say well, that's normal isn't it?

They finished with this poem about the rapidly escalating tastes of PLA watchers:

当初航母盼成狗,如今滑跃还嫌丑。
电磁弹射来服役,又嫌不是核动力。
航母装上反应堆,再盼聚变显神威。
聚变动力不能飞,军迷还是不敢吹。
聚变终于来碰面,张口又要歼星舰。

It’s a modification of a poem by Yankeesama, which was shorter and concluded differently.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Shilao and gang talked about their experience watching growth of PLA since they were kids. Xi recalls asking his parents why China doesn't have a carrier and his parents told him "one day Jiangnan Shipyard will build us one". Shilao recalls when 112 Harbin (052 lead ship) was launched in the 90s he went up to someone in PLAN to ask for their thought and he answered "what is this crap?!" and complained about lack of VLS and CIWS just like military fans.

Coming around to today, they said those jokes you are seeing today: the one where someone photoshopped Fujian to have a ramp or Shandong making fun of Fujian's flat cheat, those jokes are only funny because Fujian exists. If you ask kids today who grew up in a world where J-20 is flying overhead and Liaoning and Shandong are out at sea what they think of J-35 and Fujian they would just shrug and say well, that's normal isn't it?

They finished with this poem about the rapidly escalating tastes of PLA watchers:

当初航母盼成狗,如今滑跃还嫌丑。
电磁弹射来服役,又嫌不是核动力。
航母装上反应堆,再盼聚变显神威。
聚变动力不能飞,军迷还是不敢吹。
聚变终于来碰面,张口又要歼星舰。
So he doesn't miss the dual 37mm AA mountings? Honestly I thought they had a certain retro appeal after a while.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
I would not put much credence on implications deduced from a few percent differences in the displacement figures put out by different navies Unless you know exactly how each displacement is calculated, and how frequently and under what circumstances the displacement figures are actually attained in real service.

For example, it Is not unknown for some warships to begin sortie at a certain displacement, but really would not want to fight at that displacement because to achieve the range needed for the mission, the fuel load aboard the ship at the beginning of the sortie must be stowed in such a way that puts the ship out of trim and compromises the ship’s damage stability.

so if one navy quotes the ship’s maximum displacement as the displacement in the scenario above, while another quotes the ship’s maximum displacement as the displacement assumed when calculating the ship’s combat stability, how do these two compare?
 
Last edited:
Top