CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I think it is possible to make such upgrade.

Like Ulyanovsk, if Liaoning and Shandong only use EMAL to lunch KJ-600 and heavy-loaded J-15 for strike mission, the EMAL may not need high sortie rate. They can slowly power up the super capacitor or the fly wheel for electricity storage, it can still work, though not as good as Fujian, still better than nothing.

It surely is possible.

However, as we do not have any concrete information on the power output of the powerplants onboard Liaoning and Shandong, so the best I could do is just fondling on best guesses.

Speaking of which, I think it would be better for me to just do some measuring on Google Maps. Do note that the values are, at most, approximation.

Firstly, the Fujian.

The length of the EMALS catapult from the front end to the edge of the JBD is around 125 meters.

If we install the same EMALS catapult onto the waist of Shandong, then it would be as following:

Notice that even if we put the front end of the same EMALS catapult right at the edge of the waist deck, the rear end of the EMALS catapult (with or without the JBD) would still interfere with the front arresting cable system.

Refer to the picture in my previous post #8411. Notice how the waist catapult on Fujian does not intersect with the arresting gear system.

Unless the PLAN managed to find a way to shorten the length of the EMALS catapult system significantly, it would be a no go for a waist EMALS catapult on both Liaoning and Shandong.

So, the EMALS catapult system is an exclusivity for the flat-deckers, unfortunately. Sorry, ski-jumpers.

I agree Liaoning is probably out of discussion, it is just an experimental CV, China does not even recognize it as CV back in 2012. But for Shandong, if China has planed to upgrade it with EMAL when designing it, it will be feasible. It was not news that Ski jump is inferior to EMAL back in 2006. China should have considered it.

By the looks of it, it isn't really feasible, for similar above reasons.

Furthermore, in the eyes of the PLAN, both Liaoning and Shandong are experimental. The real deal starts with Fujian.

Shandong will need a mid-life retrofit sooner than later, adding one EMAL is probably cheaper than building a brand new CV.

Don't worry, China isn't Russia.

Today's China has plenty of money to throw around for the PLA and related military R&D institutions and universities, backed by a sizeable military budget, which itself is backed by the 2nd largest nominal GDP in the world (or largest if you refer to PPP terms).

Plus, China's current military budget is just 1.7% of its nominal GDP. Looking at the current US' 3.7% and the Reagan's era of 5-6%, I can confidently say that China's stomach for her military budget is far from being full.

 

[taxiya]

What's the bottleneck that causes this? So when you have 35 planes, 3 cats or 4 cats still yield the same sortie rate, the bottleneck is in plane handling on deck?

From my understanding of the paper, you are right.

A perfect queue is a straight line between customers and the the cashier like this.
Cn ... C2 C1 -> Cashier
The time from Cashier finished serving one customer to the time next being serviced is just one step of walk to the counter.

On a flight deck. The queue behind the catapult is like:
C2 -> C1 -> Cashier
C3, C10 ... Cn
C5, C9
Only C2 is standing right behind the flame deflector. All other aircrafts can be standing anywhere.
The time for C2 is one step as perfect time. The rest will take various time to be served.

So although the catapult only takes say a minute to launch C2. The time for others are much longer. As you can see that T_launch is actually from 6 minutes to 12 minutes in Nimitz case. The usage ratio for 4 cat is below 50%. That means the cats are actually waiting for the aircraft to arrive to launch point.

T_launch is the time from aircraft being fuelled and loaded to the time in air.

In Nimitz' case, the 4th cat only makes time shorter for aircraft parked closer to it. This only reduces average usage of cat, but does not increase the rate of launching, because it is still cat waiting. Therefor in PLAN's view, the 4th cat makes no difference.

 

[KangarooPriest]

Speaking of Yak-44s and running cats on Liaoning/Shandong, it might be worth noting that the Yak-44 was also designed to operate off the ramps of the 2 Kuzs. I still can't get my head around how that would have worked. No idea if the KJ-600 could do the same.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Speaking of Yak-44s and running cats on Liaoning/Shandong, it might be worth noting that the Yak-44 was also designed to operate off the ramps of the 2 Kuzs. I still can't get my head around how that would have worked. No idea if the KJ-600 could do the same.

Has the Yak-44 actually flew off Kuznetsov's ski jump? I know that the Yak-44 has actually been on her deck, but nothing more than that.

 

[taxiya]

I think it is possible to make such upgrade.

Like Ulyanovsk, if Liaoning and Shandong only use EMAL to lunch KJ-600 and heavy-loaded J-15 for strike mission, the EMAL may not need high sortie rate. They can slowly power up the super capacitor or the fly wheel for electricity storage, it can still work, though not as good as Fujian, still better than nothing.

I agree Liaoning is probably out of discussion, it is just an experimental CV, China does not even recognize it as CV back in 2012. But for Shandong, if China has planed to upgrade it with EMAL when designing it, it will be feasible. It was not news that Ski jump is inferior to EMAL back in 2006. China should have considered it.

Shandong will need a mid-life retrofit sooner than later, adding one EMAL is probably cheaper than building a brand new CV.

Shandong retrofitting EM launcher is a work equal to building new ship. It doesn't worth it.

EM launcher's electricity is an extra power demand that is not in Shandong. The power is a big addition. Making such change involves very big internal restructuring, adding new generators, probably cutting open multiple decks. On top of that, you need to cut off the ski ramp. What is left not changed to the hull?

Shandong is essentially a indigenously built Liaoning, as far as the hull restructuring concerns, there is no advantage of it being retrofitted than Liaoning.

 

[KangarooPriest]

Has the Yak-44 actually flew off Kuznetsov's ski jump? I know that the Yak-44 has actually been on her deck, but nothing more than that.

Not that I know of. I assume the project was cancelled before it got to that stage.

 

[Intrepid]

Has the Yak-44 actually flew off Kuznetsov's ski jump? I know that the Yak-44 has actually been on her deck, but nothing more than that.

A mock up had been brought to the Kuznetsov's deck for setting rehearsals. It never flew.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Temstar]

It surely is possible.

However, as we do not have any concrete information on the power output of the powerplants onboard Liaoning and Shandong, so the best I could do is just fondling on best guesses.

Speaking of which, I think it would be better for me to just do some measuring on Google Maps. Do note that the values are, at most, approximation.

Firstly, the Fujian.
View attachment 91394
The length of the EMALS catapult from the front end to the edge of the JBD is around 125 meters.

If we install the same EMALS catapult onto the waist of Shandong, then it would be as following:
View attachment 91395
Notice that even if we put the front end of the same EMALS catapult right at the edge of the waist deck, the rear end of the EMALS catapult (with or without the JBD) would still interfere with the front arresting cable system.

Refer to the picture in my previous post #8411. Notice how the waist catapult on Fujian does not intersect with the arresting gear system.

Unless the PLAN managed to find a way to shorten the length of the EMALS catapult system significantly, it would be a no go for a waist EMALS catapult on both Liaoning and Shandong.

So, the EMALS catapult system is an exclusivity for the flat-deckers, unfortunately. Sorry, ski-jumpers.


By the looks of it, it isn't really feasible, for similar above reasons.

Furthermore, in the eyes of the PLAN, both Liaoning and Shandong are experimental. The real deal starts with Fujian.


Don't worry, China isn't Russia.

Today's China has plenty of money to throw around for the PLA and related military R&D institutions and universities, backed by a sizeable military budget, which itself is backed by the 2nd largest nominal GDP in the world (or largest if you refer to PPP terms).

Plus, China's current military budget is just 1.7% of its nominal GDP. Looking at the current US' 3.7% and the Reagan's era of 5-6%, I can confidently say that China's stomach for her military budget is far from being full.

Fair enough I'm convinced it's a bad idea, that 20k ton makes a big difference. It's surprising then you can fit CATOBAR carrier into something the size of Charles De Gaulle then.

Another thing Shilao and Xi brought up was J-15T. Assuming all three carriers will get J-15T would they all get the exact same aircraft or would the STOBAR carriers get a slightly different version without the beefed up nose gear. In their view that extra 100-200kg you save with a slim landing gear isn't worth the trouble and PLAN would probably just procure the same for all three. With all J-15T first going onto Fujian, then as J-35 becomes available it replaces some of the aircraft on Fujian and they will then get handed down onto Liaoning and Shandong.

 

[Helius]

Fair enough I'm convinced it's a bad idea, that 20k ton makes a big difference. It's surprising then you can fit CATOBAR carrier into something the size of Charles De Gaulle then.

Another thing Shilao and Xi brought up was J-15T. Assuming all three carriers will get J-15T would they all get the exact same aircraft or would the STOBAR carriers get a slightly different version without the beefed up nose gear. In their view that extra 100-200kg you save with a slim landing gear isn't worth the trouble and PLAN would probably just procure the same for all three. With all J-15T first going onto Fujian, then as J-35 becomes available it replaces some of the aircraft on Fujian and they will then get handed down onto Liaoning and Shandong.

The CDG is a much smaller CVN in every respect - shorter, narrower and at 42,000 tonnes, decidedly smaller than 16 and 17, let alone 003.

The PANG on the other hand, with a projected displacement of 75,000 tonnes, will be a closer comparison to 003. It'll be at least 5,000 tonnes lighter still, but like the CDG it will also be nuclear-powered and employ EMALS (2 catapults) sourced from the US.

 

[ironborn]

Why can't E-2/KJ-600 class take off from a skip jump with jet assists take off system ? Is it not enough power for those planes ? Or is it just not worth it since ship has to carry so much disposal jet packs?