Ideal chinese carrier thread

[planeman]

The Falklands is controversial, there is a school of thought that aluminum was just a convienent scapegoat, and not a major factor in the loss of any ships. Bombs/missiles and sympathetic explosions sink ships. I don't have the inclination to find sources but I am sure I've read that. Aluminum ladders, agreed, they should be steal.

LCS-2 is all Alluminum.....

 

[Pointblank]

The Falklands is controversial, there is a school of thought that aluminum was just a convienent scapegoat, and not a major factor in the loss of any ships. Bombs/missiles and sympathetic explosions sink ships. I don't have the inclination to find sources but I am sure I've read that. Aluminum ladders, agreed, they should be steal.

LCS-2 is all Alluminum.....

If only the USN could remember the lesson of aluminum and ships on fire....

 

[bd popeye]

If only the USN could remember the lesson of aluminum and ships on fire....

ffThat's very insulting and off topic. Have you ever served a single day in the USN? If so you would know all the steps and measures that the USN has taken in fire prevention. Most of the USN lessons about aluminum came from the 1987 Iraqi attack on the USS Stark FFG-31.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1) Since the time I served from '71-'91 everyone in the USN is a trained fire fighter. From boot camp seaman recruit to the CNO ADM. Gary Roughead.

2) Navy wide smoking is very limited on board USN ships. On LCS-2 smoking is not permitted at all.

3) Numerous new fire fighting systems have been installed or upgraded throughout the USN fleet.

4) The USN went so far as to outlaw tailored polyester uniforms and coraframs shoes from sea duty to protect sailors from fire. Those items will laminate to your skin when set on fire.

There's plenty more..But I shall leave the subject closed.ff

 

[planeman]

exactly, the lessons seem to be in damage control, not material. Fire hazards should not be trivialised, but equally it's a multi-faceted debate and ship design is a compromise. Take the next-generation RN carriers, they like HMS Ocean already will be built to 'civilian' standards. Imagine how much cheaper the USN carrier program would be if those were built to civilian standards? I know a lot of people will, with varying degrees of objectivity, justify US carrier spending and why the latest CVNs are still around 90,000 tons even though air-wings are shrinking etc etc.


In the 'ideal' carrier equation for PLAN, as I see it, I think there are multiple tiers of carriers with cheaper/lighter carriers like my concept to allow rapid expansion of the fleet. Two cheaper carriers is better than 1 more expensive one IMO.

 

[bd popeye]

Imagine how much cheaper the USN carrier program would be if those were built to civilian standards?

As we all know this will never happen. But as conjecture.. If the USN built CVN to Civvie standards they could build probaly three CVs not CVN's with the $7 billion it cost to float one CVN...

 

[bd popeye]

Check these designs I found at sina.com.cn...

Look at that bridge. Trust me it would be very noisy during flight operations. And those catapults on the starboard(right side) Jeez... The person that designed this flight deck layout has NO IDEA how flight deck operations are conducted. NONE!

AS for this second design? WTH? If an aircraft misses the wires is it suppose to fly through the hangar? Not a good idea. That is a recipe for disaster.

I have no clue what is installed on the stern???

 

[Jeff Head]

Check these designs I found at sina.com.cn...

Look at that bridge. Trust me it would be very noisy during flight operations. And those catapults on the starboard(right side) Jeez... The person that designed this flight deck layout has NO IDEA how flight deck operations are conducted. NONE!

[qimg]http://i45.tinypic.com/i28q5h.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i49.tinypic.com/qpi7w5.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i48.tinypic.com/xm5r7n.jpg[/qimg]

AS for this second design? WTH? If an aircraft misses the wires is it suppose to fly through the hangar? Not a good idea. That is a recipe for disaster.

[qimg]http://i47.tinypic.com/23r22s1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i50.tinypic.com/qxvqr8.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i47.tinypic.com/29o50zk.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i47.tinypic.com/2ll2902.jpg[/qimg]

I have no clue what is installed on the stern???

I don't know what the checkerboard openings are, but the CIWS looks like a PLAN-RAM.

 

[rhino123]

From the look and mindset of many fanboys, I believe the checkerboard opening are some propulsion systems for the ship.

 

[bd popeye]

From the look and mindset of many fanboys, I believe the checkerboard opening are some propulsion systems for the ship.

I was thinking the same thing. But if that is indeed some sort of exhaust said exhaust would at times inhibit flight operations from time to time.

And another thing..why are the fan boys hell bent on placing VLS cells in almost any open space? Check the bow and the second flight deck. Those VLS cells on the flight deck need be feed by a magazine which has to be taking up plenty of room in the hangar deck.

 

[rhino123]

Fanboys are as fanboys do. Most have no knowledge of whatsoever in actual carrier operations and I believe most had no idea how a ship even work. From the CG that they build, I believe that this came from someone with no knowledge on any ships... much less military class vessels. So we would do well to ignore these things.