PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
cn_habs

cn_habs

Junior Member
LesAdieux said:
institute 601, the once big brother, keeps losing to institute 611. many people thought the J-31 had a good chance to be navalized, 601 blows it again?
Click to expand...

So J-21 isn't the bird that was first spotted on the highway? Do we have any idea of what it looks like?
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
paintgun said:
complicated enough that USN remains the only navy has all the experience in building, doing strategic planning, tactical planning, training and capability to use it to the fullest of its potential.
Click to expand...

Complication has little to do with it. Aircraft carrier exists since WWII, and China today is way ahead of the technology level of WWII. The real reason is money, and the USN remains the only navy that is rich enough to do all those things you described.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
LesAdieux said:
well into the 1990s, China was still building aircrafts originally designed by the Soviet in the 1950s, today China is building the J-20.

how "immensely complicated" is a CVN that america could build one in the 1950s?
Click to expand...

USS Enterprise keel was laid down in 1958; and yes, we're that far ahead of China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
LesAdieux said:
J-20 is a big bird, it need big "nestle", CVN with electromagnetic calt, or Forrestal class, we will see.

I think to ask the PLAN to build a Forrestal CV is just like ask the PLAAF to build the F-4, I think the Forrestal is probably a little bit older than the F-4, isn't it?
Click to expand...

what in the world are you talking about LOL?
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Engineer said:
Complication has little to do with it. Aircraft carrier exists since WWII, and China today is way ahead of the technology level of WWII. The real reason is money, and the USN remains the only navy that is rich enough to do all those things you described.
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact the aircraft carrier was invented before WWI, in 1912. The first was HMS Argus, commissioned on 16 September 1918.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Engineer said:
Gas turbine requires large intake ducts and exhausts. When you have eight of them, you can forget about having any useful space.
Click to expand...

The power needed to propel a ship depends on speed and the displacement but, more then on displacement, on the length of the hull. We are suggesting four QC-280 GT's for the 12k cruiser and 8 of the same gas turbines for a 60k aircraft carrier so the size of the air intakes and engine exhaust will still be modest.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
kroko said:
Care to elaborate why do you think so?

Dont get your hopes too high. China doesnt appear to have much alternative to steam power for its first domestic carrier.
Click to expand...

you are probably right.

Now, there has been talks of a new integrate electric propulsion to be used for Type 055. While I'm not sure that is necessarily going to happen, the broad message is that there is real movement in naval propulsion, so I think something other than steam turbine is well within their capabilities.
 
T

The Financier

New Member
Registered Member
Thoughts? :)

h ttp://i.imgur.com/6y9Rj0S.jpg

h ttp://i.imgur.com/QDARgyP.jpg

(Remove space from the HTML link to view)
(Thanks to Chinesetiger1986 on CDF)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top