Ideal chinese carrier thread

[PrOeLiTeZ]

OK since Im not as experienced and well knowledged as some of the veterans in this forum, I wont make and presumptions or assumptions. From the Chinese military discussions forum that Ive been discussing to with mainland China. The Varyag has seem to be halted in its refurbish phase. It is indeed haltered in exterior refurbishment but it doesn't neccessarly mean that the Varyag has stopped all together.

It may seem this from public view but, alot of personals have been seen going onto the dock but aren't visible anyway on the surface of the Varyag. Possible reasons??? Many have thought and are highly pointing the likelyhood of high activity within the Varyag. The re-wiring of the system, engines, electronics, lights, pipes, mechanism, etc...all internal areas. While it seems that Varyag has stopped refurbish stage for the Olympics to avoid possibly political outcries, they moved their reburishment to the interior.

These are opinions or thoughts of me and other mainland Chinese military posters.

In my view it'll be easier to start from the ground up, then to repair a ship of that size. Repairing the ship they got to examine it, inspect how the ship is laid out, materials, problemed areas, methods of repairing, repairing. All this consumes a lot of time......Just a thought from me ^.^

 

[planeman]

more doodling. And some calcs.

At 360m long and 100m wide this would have substantially more deck space than a Nimitz (340m long by 78m wide).

Yet it'd displace only about 50,000 metric ton. The pink box in the top pic, if it had an average depth of 8m (suggesting 9m draught compared to 12m on Nimitz) would displace 43,000t of sea water (1025kg p/m3 if anyone cares).

The hanger is probably a fair bit larger than Nimitz too.

The problem is that the Su-33 has a pretty big footprint even with the wings folded. I think a new fighter aircraft is in order.

BTW, I think Rafale looks very good compared to all other carrier fighters when considering footprint vs capability.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Whilst I certainly agree that it is easier to start with a 'blank page' in carrier design, the Chinese will gain immense experience in carrier design and construction from refitting Varyag, she is where their engineers will learn the practicalities of getting such a large warship ready for service. Better they do it on her than learn the hard way with their firat purpose built design. Similarly, the Russians are doing the same thing with the Vikramaditya, using her refit as a training program for the shipyard workers to prepare them for the future Russian Carrier program (remember all previous Russian carriers were built in the Ukraine, so Russia has lost all that experience). In this respect Varyag already is a training carrier, ie she is training engineers in the dos and don'ts of carrier construction. There will be plenty for them to do below decks away from prying eyes for the next year or two whilst attention is elsewhere.

 

[mxiong]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[Totoro]

Planeman, it seems all that size and storage space in your idea couldn't be put to full use. Huge deck, vast hangar, etc - all in a 50.000 ton carrier. Just how much bfuel, ordenance and other cargo could such a vessel varry? I would think its range would be rather small short... Anyway, how did you get to 50.000 ton displacement and 9 m draft figures?

 

[Scratch]

more doodling. And some calcs.
The hanger is probably a fair bit larger than Nimitz too.

I also wonder were you save 50.000t when the ship is lager then the nimitz ??

Are there cats, there should be right?

BTW, I think Rafale looks very good compared to all other carrier fighters when considering footprint vs capability.

Agree with that, I really like the Rafale M for what it brings to the carrier.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[planeman]

I also wonder were you save 50.000t when the ship is lager then the nimitz ??

I'm no expert, but the general attraction of multi-hulls (this is a trimaran) is that they can have a much larger internal volume for less weight without being unstable. Look at LCS-2 for example. Materials are also a factor.

Anyway, British design with hanger shown

 

[bd popeye]

Nice drawings planeman.

I'm no expert, but the general attraction of multi-hulls (this is a trimaran) is that they can have a much larger internal volume for less weight without being unstable. Look at LCS-2 for example. Materials are also a factor.

I'm not sure I understand. Because you still need space to store the fuel, food, supplies etc..etc.. to operate the carrier. How will there be the same amount of space as a Nimitz class.????

And trust me carriers are pretty stable. Even the USS Hancock CVA-19 which displaced 33,000 tons fully loaded was steady. I think deck stablity is over rated. Only severely heavy weather can cancel USN CV flight operations.

 

[planeman]

I didn't draw the last pics of the British carrier BTW.


Having a bigger flight deck and hanger doesn't necessarily mean you have to operate bigger air wings or for longer. 55,000 tons is not small.

Here's something just for Golly

 

[Gollevainen]

Thanks...what is it?