danielchin
Junior Member
three more pictures of CV-16.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Yes i have posted from long time on the Ford thread EMALS do 91 m long, steam 94.5 m.
But what you say Chinese installations do 106 m " relatively close " for a difference of 15 % ! ?
He makes some interesting remarks. He talks about how the 002 displacement shouldnt exceed 68000t due to the power limitations of the rumored 200000 hp (which is the same as liaoning AFAIK). He also talks about the fact that, for the 002 carrier, the chinese military choose a design is that is derivated from 001A design, rejecting another, totaly new, design. IMO, all this points to a smaller and conservative carrier that people may have thought otherwise. Of course, this is all rumours AFAIK.
What do you think of it?
Yes, I consider that to be relatively close, i.e.: within an acceptable number for the purposes of installation on a carrier's flight deck.
Not like 120m or 150m, which would put it far out of reach of viable installation aboard any realistic carrier of any type.
The only information about 002's characteristics that I think any of us can be "confident", about given the persistence of credible rumours from Chinese BBS, is that 002 will be a CATOBAR carrier, it will be conventionally powered, and it's displacement will be higher than CV-16 and 001A.
Other than that, regarding specific numbers for displacement, or even propulsion numbers, or whether the hull is derived from 001A or not, is all possible but we have no reason to believe for or against at this stage without more consistent rumours from Chinese BBS to back it up.
==
edit:
Looking more at the specific part about the displacment, he seems to say that some sources suggest 002 will be up to 20% larger than 001A (which I've heard thrown around in the past as well), but that he himself thinks 002 may not exceed 68000 tons because of the rumours about the 002's propulsion output. So I think he's speculating a bit himself in regards to the 68000t number.
Whether 002 will be the supposed "701 institute CV-16 derivative" is another question, but I think there's still a bit of a question mark hanging around certain of the details in his post.
Last edited:
You have see size of Ford 337 m .. ?
I'm not sure what your question means.
Are you trying to say the length of Ford means it can fit a 120m or 150m catapult?
And justely no, coz one the main advantage of US CVN is they are able to catapult and receive/landing in the same time, ofc only 2 front cats available, make sense China want it and with cats of 15 m in more i don' t see enough room for a futur CV presumably more small or to max same length...
Design matters but with ridiculous qty infos we have in more a futur and nothing sure right now impossible to say.
Design matters but with ridiculous qty infos we have in more a futur and nothing sure right now impossible to say.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
PLAN high command has been conservative, deliberate, and systematic with CV/airwing development, so it's not surprising they're staying with the same for 002. On the other hand, CVN Charles de Gaulle 'only' displaces 40kt, and she's quite effective in her role, so China might pass on the 100kt supercarriers in favor of smaller, less expensive ones. Who knows, we're all guessing, but that's what makes it fun.
Well, let's have a think about how China would use a carrier.
For a low-end conflict where the other side can't shoot back, it doesn't really matter whether how large the air wing is. What matters is having enough carriers to always have one on station. Plus China is unlikely to start foreign wars in distant theatres like the USA.
For a high-end conflict, this is likely to occur in the Western Pacific close to mainland China.
Large, expensive nuclear powered carriers have the advantage of range, endurance, large airwings. But these attributes aren't all that useful when Chinese ports and Chinese airbases with bombers and tanker aircraft are closeby. In fact, carriers aren't all that useful given the presence of Chinese airbases on the mainland.
Anyway, if China were to standardise on 67000ton carriers, an airwing of 36 jets should still be able to conduct AEW, air superiority operations and ISR missions.
And it is the ISR sensor missions which are key.
==
Plus if a Liaoning sized aircraft carrier only costs $2-3B, does it mean China could spend $9B for 3 carriers with an airwing of 108 aircraft?
That compares to $10B for a Ford-class carrier with 60-odd aircraft.
For a low-end conflict where the other side can't shoot back, it doesn't really matter whether how large the air wing is. What matters is having enough carriers to always have one on station. Plus China is unlikely to start foreign wars in distant theatres like the USA.
For a high-end conflict, this is likely to occur in the Western Pacific close to mainland China.
Large, expensive nuclear powered carriers have the advantage of range, endurance, large airwings. But these attributes aren't all that useful when Chinese ports and Chinese airbases with bombers and tanker aircraft are closeby. In fact, carriers aren't all that useful given the presence of Chinese airbases on the mainland.
Anyway, if China were to standardise on 67000ton carriers, an airwing of 36 jets should still be able to conduct AEW, air superiority operations and ISR missions.
And it is the ISR sensor missions which are key.
==
Plus if a Liaoning sized aircraft carrier only costs $2-3B, does it mean China could spend $9B for 3 carriers with an airwing of 108 aircraft?
That compares to $10B for a Ford-class carrier with 60-odd aircraft.
- Status