CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I dont get how can one claim that 003 hangar is the same as 001 when 003 can carry more planes

Ongoing debate on hangar deck sizes aside - A CATOBAR deck means that more planes can be parked at the flat bow region of the flight deck (i.e. right over either one or both of the bow EMCATs that is/are not in use), in constrast to the ski-jump bow for a STOBAR deck.

 

[Engineer]

Alright, here's the evidence. I know you can view satellite images, but I didn't expect you hadn't even done such a simple measurement.

here is a comparison between the Liaoning and Fujian. Measuring from the outer edges of both elevators, or the distance from the ammo elevator to the stern, reveals a 10m difference between the two ships.
It is generally understood that the ammo elevator marks the starting point of the hangar's forward wall. The space between the two elevators is undoubtedly the hangar. I realize this may take some time to grasp, or maybe a bit of “spatial imagination.”

View attachment 166472

I have been basing my replies on this image all along. It's good that you've finally done the measurement yourself instead of relying on your "imagination". Your estimation of 10 extra meters is still short of 15 meters which is still shorter than 21 meters required for one extra row of J-15s. There is nothing wrong with what I said at all:

 

[Confusionism]

I have been basing my replies on this image all along. It's good that you've finally done the measurement yourself instead of relying on your "imagination". Your estimation of 10 extra meters is still short of 15 meters which is still shorter than 21 meters required for one extra row of J-15s. There is nothing wrong with what I said at all:

No. I have already directly addressed your points, including clarifying to you what the highlighted statement means. Since you didn't read, I will reiterate again: 1) 15 meters increase of overall ship length does not translate to same increase of hangar length, 2) at a proportional increase of 7 meter, the increase still falls short of the 21 meters for accomodating one extra row of J-15, and 3) we have no evidence that there is an increase hangar length.

Our new aircraft carrier now has about 10x42m2 of additional space, yet for some reason, our designers seem unable to use it ...

 

[Engineer]

Our new aircraft carrier now has about 10x42m2 of additional space, yet for some reason, our designers seem unable to use it ...

That's a funny way of saying I am right all along — no extra row of J15s. LOL!

 

[Confusionism]

Our new aircraft carrier now has about 10x42m2 of additional space, yet for some reason, our designers seem unable to use it ...

Every visitor who boards the Fujian aircraft carrier since then has been surprised to discover two volleyball courts with extremely low ceilings added to its hangar...

 

[GiantPanda]

I had no idea that Fujian was a Kuznetsov derivative?! Down to the same hangar dimensions?

First time I hear of it. When can I get some more authoritative info on this?

Me neither. It is a ridiculous idea that a CATOBAR with the flat top and catapults mechanism inlaid would be forced to conform to design with a structural ramp.

 

[Confusionism]

I had no idea that Fujian was a Kuznetsov derivative?! Down to the same hangar dimensions?

First time I hear of it. When can I get some more authoritative info on this?

It is true that the design of the Fujian was largely based on the Kuznetsov's design, but only in terms of the ship's structure and the layout of major compartments—such as the positioning of engines and exhaust ducts, the number of elevators, and even the plan for routing ammo lifts. However, this does not mean that basic details like hangar dimensions couldn't be modified a bit flexibly (in fact, the idea of all parts being scaled proportionally would be far more challenging).

 

[Tomboy]

It is true that the design of the Fujian was largely based on the Kuznetsov's design, but only in terms of the ship's structure and the layout of major compartments—such as the positioning of engines and exhaust ducts, the number of elevators, and even the plan for routing ammo lifts. However, this does not mean that basic details like hangar dimensions couldn't be modified a bit flexibly (in fact, the idea of all parts being scaled proportionally would be far more challenging).

I thought the hydrodynamic design of the hull itself is still essentially a enlarged Kuznetsov as well.

 

[vincent]

Everyone is just pulling stats out of his/her ass. This line of discussion is pointless.

 

[Confusionism]

Everyone is just pulling stats out of his/her ass. This line of discussion is pointless.

Hello? Is there any need to say that?

This is a forum about the PLA Navy. What exactly are you expecting to see here—the design blueprints for the Fujian?

I try my best to conduct rational analysis and synthesis based on publicly available information, and share my perspectives with others. You are free to disagree and challenge my views; if you find them confusing and unwilling to invest time in understanding, you may dismiss them outright. But if you are bored by nerd debates and resort to such empty remarks, you've truly come to the wrong place.

If you truly care about military stuff, for most ordinary people, this is the reality of the world. Most of the time, you won't get simple, clear-cut answers, but you can strive to get as close to them as possible.