CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[test1979]

A dilemma. Either more points to get planes ready for take off... or a bigger squadron on board.

The Russian design with three departure points is the older one. Navies with modern ski-jump ships operate according to the one-runway principle.

In fact, QE is a special case, the British's deck design completely abandoned the angled deck used for landing, because the F-35B that does not require arresting cable landing is used.
A QE-like deck design cannot be used unless one is willing to accept the performance gap between the f-35b and the f-35c。

 

[ashnole]

The more I read about the QE-class design the more I'm convinced that it is a result of a night of heavy drinking by the designers after England lost a football match.

 

[Intrepid]

The more I read about the QE-class design the more I'm convinced that it is a result of a night of heavy drinking by the designers after England lost a football match.

The British are the masters of aircraft carrier design. I can't imagine they just ditched that ability with their last carrier design.

I think your miserable judgment of British skill is based on your skill level and not the British skill level.

 

[kkwan18]

The British are the masters of aircraft carrier design. I can't imagine they just ditched that ability with their last carrier design.

I think your miserable judgment of British skill is based on your skill level and not the British skill level.

It down to UK defence budget, in another word they cannot afford catobar aircraft carriers, not design.

 

[Intrepid]

It down to UK defence budget, in another word they cannot afford catobar aircraft carriers, not design.

This was also a very effective British design (with catapults):

 

[Helius]

Worth noting: the inability for STOBAR carrier to park aircraft on the ramp like this is one of the major disadvantage of STOBAR. That's also why QE's bow has that funny shape:

View attachment 92611
The split shape allows her to go half half unlike full width ramp and allows her to park aircraft on the flat half.

In fact, QE is a special case, the British's deck design completely abandoned the angled deck used for landing, because the F-35B that does not require arresting cable landing is used.
A QE-like deck design cannot be used unless one is willing to accept the performance gap between the f-35b and the f-35c。

Which is why, at the risk of being pedantic, the QE is actually a STOVL carrier, not a STOBAR.

This puts her in the same technical category as the Italian Cavour, the JP Izumo, and ofc the US Wasp/America-class, and not proper STOBAR carriers like the Kuz, 16, 17 etc.

 

[SAC]

Which is why, at the risk of being pedantic, the QE is actually a STOVL carrier, not a STOBAR.

This puts her in the same technical category as the Italian Cavour, the JP Izumo, and ofc the US Wasp/America-class, and not proper STOBAR carriers like the Kuz, 16, 17 etc.

Absolutely correct Helius wrt the QE-class being STOVL carriers. Yet you will find people who will argue black and blue that they aren't, and it's fairly obvious as to why they do. Perhaps any further discussion on this should be done elsewhere.

 

[by78]

Flyby.

 

[l1tchi]

Flyby.

That small and cute TYPE071

 

[SAC]

This has been mentioned before. No discussion about the QE-class on this thread, or Moderators will get medieval on you!

Perhaps the Aircraft Carriers thread is most appropriate.