PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
What does that mean? Larger in dimensions? Displacements? Both?

Has a waist catapult been definitively ruled out on CV001A?
Click to expand...
I think we can definitely rule it out in terms of how the vessel is launched.

What they do five years from now is another thing.

I personally expect that the Liaoning and 001A will both remain dedicated STOBAR carriers for most, if not all, of their service life.
 
MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
Blackstone said:
What does that mean? Larger in dimensions? Displacements? Both?

Has a waist catapult been definitively ruled out on CV001A?
Click to expand...
Well definitely won't make it for the current CV-17(?) building schedule, as the land-based model (steam cat? EM cat?) still haven't go live testing, and not to mention the lack of cat-ready fighter model...ski-jump take off and catapult launch takeoff are 2 different animals.

Would it be included as part of the future overhaul? Well that possibility can't be ruled out, but such re-work will take the ship out of the battle order for quite some time...now, Liaoning was completed in 2011, its first 10-year watershed will be 2021(?), given we're now in 2016, there's 5 more years to finalise the catapult module, if not also the aircraft models that'd be benefited from CATOBAR design.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
damitch300 said:
Does modern steel and better building technique (a.k.a modular) lighten up the ship comparing with liaoning?
Click to expand...

Good question...I guess the obvious is if depends on if they use the same metals as Liaoning did :) . Liaoning was forged 30 years ago and there have been some improvements in marine steel since then.There is a good chance 0001A may use newer steel like HY100 etc although generally speaking marine alloys used in naval shipbuilding has been pretty much consistent for the last few decades.

Newer USN and many of other naval vessels use primarily HSLA 100 which is a low alloy high tensile steel with very good weldebility. HSLA replaces HY 100 before it. As a sidenote NAVSEA certified HSLA 100 in the late 80s and CVN 74 USS Stennis is the first CVN to use this new low alloy steel. USS Ford uses the even stronger HSLA 115 steel in a big part of her construction.

If alluminium is used to replace steel in some parts then there will be some weight savings as well. Other weight savings will come in the form of subsystems made with some some composites on them as well as the elimination of other clunky system replaced by smaller update ones made with lighter materials. If 0001A has some automated system replacing legacy ones in Liaoning, there may be some weight savings there.

The biggest benefit of modern shipbuilding techniques including better welding, modular construction, fabrication etc addresses the efficiency of the build, cuts waste and in some areas improve on the seakeeping abilities of the vessel although weight savings is always on the forethought.

New class of future warships will certainly have more composite materials in them including the hull but I don't think 0001A will be one of those. They are also much more expensive so like most things it will most likely start with a class of small vessels first and not a carrier ... laws of diminishing returns and all that.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
MwRYum said:
Well definitely won't make it for the current CV-17(?) building schedule, as the land-based model (steam cat? EM cat?) still haven't go live testing
Click to expand...

From what I've read, I think both steam and EM cat demonstrators had already undergone live testing in recent years, but now they are building additional ones at the land based testing facility to actually launch fighter aircraft for the competition to see which one they'll fit on 002.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
One thing I know..IF CV-17/18 has catapults they had better install them now and not later. It would take a major refit to install either steam or EMALS catapults.

The USN refit 15 Essex and Ticonderoga(long hull Essex class). The average refit took two years. The refit included but was not limited to the removal of hydraulic cats and the installation of steam cats.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
bd popeye said:
One thing I know..IF CV-17/18 has catapults they had better install them now and not later. It would take a major refit to install either steam or EMALS catapults.

The USN refit 15 Essex and Ticonderoga(long hull Essex class). The average refit took two years. The refit included but was not limited to the removal of hydraulic cats and the installation of steam cats.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
That's why I said it won't be on CV-17 building schedule, because even if the design has reserve space for the module, there's simply not enough time to finalise the candidate > build the module > install it onto CV-17, unless they're willing to let the hull loiter in the drydock for the duration and delay the launch date all the way to 2018/19 (or more), whereas by the current hull construction progress we can safely estimate the launch date at around 1st half of 2017.

However, if to incorporate into the 002 design, there's still enough time, eventhough it's still rather tight.

In any case, until there's a visual confirmation of any CATOBAR aircraft, I won't hold my breath.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top