JayBird
Junior Member
Agree with you on everything else but not so sure about 35-40 J-15. That sounds too many for the 5% increase in size.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Agree with you on everything else but not so sure about 35-40 J-15. That sounds too many for the 5% increase in size.
thunderchief
Senior Member
Well, considering the size of INS Vikrant and its planned 30-40 Mig-29 K, I think it would be possible to have around 40 Flankers in 60 000 t carrier . Forestall-class had similar displacement and carried a lot more .
JayBird
Junior Member
But Flankers are much bigger than Mig-29K in size.
Yes, and a Kuznetsov sized carrier is much larger than the Vikrant.
But I don't think the Vikrant will be able to carry 40 Mig-29Ks, and I don't think a Kuznetsov sized carrier can carry 40 flankers either, at least not for a normal balanced airwing.
JayBird
Junior Member
We know 001A will be able to carry at least a few more flankers with the modification and supposedly 5% increase in size. But we don't know exactly how many more she could carry right now. I thought maybe around 30-32 flankers will be more realistic. But I hope I'm wrong and she can in fact carry more than that.
We can't tell for sure if this ship is civilian or military.
So here is what we can see so far.
We can see six transverse bulkheads.
Between 4 and 5 is two longitudinal bulkheads. 1 to 4 is lower than 5 and 6.
In 6, we can see a shape of what would act like a double hull, a series of small tight compartments.
Here we can see the hull moving up to bulkhead 3.
We can clearly see a double hull, as room is more limited nearer to bow. Instead of a series of small compartments, here it changes to actual double hull.
At the bottom of bulkhead 1, we can see double bottom.
It goes all the way back entire length till bulkhead 3. So we can say at least double bottom is there in the bow section.
Here construction moves up pretty close to bulkhead 1, and one more deck up.
If this is a civilian ship, all these shore generators and whatever they are lining up on the side of the deck say this ship is something special.
This is bulk carrier bulkhead.
Container cell guides.
Liquid carrier.
So here is what we can see so far.
We can see six transverse bulkheads.
Between 4 and 5 is two longitudinal bulkheads. 1 to 4 is lower than 5 and 6.
In 6, we can see a shape of what would act like a double hull, a series of small tight compartments.
Here we can see the hull moving up to bulkhead 3.
We can clearly see a double hull, as room is more limited nearer to bow. Instead of a series of small compartments, here it changes to actual double hull.
At the bottom of bulkhead 1, we can see double bottom.
It goes all the way back entire length till bulkhead 3. So we can say at least double bottom is there in the bow section.
Here construction moves up pretty close to bulkhead 1, and one more deck up.
If this is a civilian ship, all these shore generators and whatever they are lining up on the side of the deck say this ship is something special.
This is bulk carrier bulkhead.
Container cell guides.
Liquid carrier.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The strong tapering (both along the vertical and horizontal planes) would suggest a warship to me, civilian bulk carriers tend to have a much squarer profile, since they care much more able internal, useable volume than speed or agility.
Its also interesting that they seem to be doing most of the building in drydock, out in the open, rather than assemble it in modules and just connect them in dry dock.
That would suggest to me that whatever they are building is new, where they are not yet comfortable applying full modular construction techniques to it, and also that whatever this is, it is very high profile, as building the whole thing in drydock is going to take considerably more valuable drydock time (and hence money), compared to building the modules in sheds and only assembling the finished ship in drydock before launch.
At his point, I think its either an LHD or carrier, maybe a wildcard possibility being the first 055. But I think, especially with the latest bulkheads own, marking the overall profile of the ship, we are looking at something military here at least.
Its also interesting that they seem to be doing most of the building in drydock, out in the open, rather than assemble it in modules and just connect them in dry dock.
That would suggest to me that whatever they are building is new, where they are not yet comfortable applying full modular construction techniques to it, and also that whatever this is, it is very high profile, as building the whole thing in drydock is going to take considerably more valuable drydock time (and hence money), compared to building the modules in sheds and only assembling the finished ship in drydock before launch.
At his point, I think its either an LHD or carrier, maybe a wildcard possibility being the first 055. But I think, especially with the latest bulkheads own, marking the overall profile of the ship, we are looking at something military here at least.
I think it's definitely far too big to be an 055. It could potentially be an LHD, but we've never had any rumours of DL building LHDs. And of course the rumours all point to it being 001A, but that's neither here nor there.
As for modular construction, I'm not sure if modern modular construction necessarily means a ship of any size is built in a modular way from the base up.
CVF was built with large distinctive modules that was basically a cross section of the entire ship's hull from the keel up, but the CVN-78 was built with a sort of keel laid down and smaller modules added on top later, which I think is similar to what we are seeing/may see for the suspected carrier at DL. The time lapse video of CVN-78's construction a few pages back is an informative watch.
I think CVF was built with large modules from different shipyards and assembled at Rosyth out of necessity -- I think Newport and DL either had shipyards large enough to build each module on site, or maybe the construction process just didn't necessitate CVF style modules.
- Status