PLAN Carrier Construction

Engineer

Engineer

Major
delft said:
An aircraft leaves a ski ramp at a lower speed than it leaves a straight cat. Building an EM cat into a ski ramp makes the ramp smaller and the cat shorter thus saving a lot of deck real estate. You might be able to make a smaller carrier just as efficient as a big one and have more carriers than an other navy with the same total capability and the same costs but with more flexibility.
Click to expand...

The very presence of a catapult would make a ski ramp redundant. The whole point of a ski ramp is to allow takeoffs without catapults. The whole point of catapults is to allow takeoffs on a flat deck. The two are mutually exclusive.

Here is another thing. A bigger carrier is more efficient, because the ship can carry more aircraft per ton of displacement. Keep in mind that a small carrier and a large carrier requires the similar amount of crew. A larger ship is also more fuel efficient per tonnage. So in the long one, having a large carrier is less costly than two small carriers. This is why size of oil tankers become bigger and bigger over the years.

There is another benefit to a bigger ship, and that is the bigger deck offers by a larger ship. This will provide plenty of space to park aircraft after a surge. This is important because when 40 aircraft are coming in for landings after a huge battle, there will be no time turn them around or move them into the hangar. The only thing left to do is to shove them to the front part of the deck to clear up the aft section for landings. Building a ski ramp when there is no need would be the same as dropping a heavy object onto your own foot.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
Possible images of the nuclear reactors for China's future CVN.

View attachment 8126
View attachment 8127
Click to expand...
Those have already been debunked on another thread here at SD by Engineer as steam generators for civilian nuclear reactors. They are not nuclear reactors themselves. But they are steam generators used by civilian nuclear reactors.

Having worked for a number of years in the nuclear power industry here in the US, I can definitely tell you that those are not reactors themselves, and they do look similar to the steam generation vessels used for civilian reactors, those those used in the PRC are sure to be somewhat different.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Engineer said:
The very presence of a catapult would make a ski ramp redundant. The whole point of a ski ramp is to allow takeoffs without catapults. The whole point of catapults is to allow takeoffs on a flat deck. The two are mutually exclusive.

Here is another thing. A bigger carrier is more efficient, because the ship can carry more aircraft per ton of displacement. Keep in mind that a small carrier and a large carrier requires the similar amount of crew. A larger ship is also more fuel efficient per tonnage. So in the long one, having a large carrier is less costly than two small carriers. This is why size of oil tankers become bigger and bigger over the years.

There is another benefit to a bigger ship, and that is the bigger deck offers by a larger ship. This will provide plenty of space to park aircraft after a surge. This is important because when 40 aircraft are coming in for landings after a huge battle, there will be no time turn them around or move them into the hangar. The only thing left to do is to shove them to the front part of the deck to clear up the aft section for landings. Building a ski ramp when there is no need would be the same as dropping a heavy object onto your own foot.
Click to expand...
Most of your arguments are quite correct. But every engineering effort involves many compromises. When the cats are incorporated into a ski ramp both are smaller than they otherwise would be and so win area to spot aircraft. This might allow a reduction in the size of the flight deck crew and time spend in respotting aircraft. There are many other factors in organizing the operation of an aircraft carrier and while imitating US practice is a cheap way of getting started it might not be the best way forward.
 
F

franco-russe

Senior Member
It would be very silly to put a catapult beside a ski-jump.

The compromise selected for ULYANOVSK (Pr. 11437) was to retain the ski-jump and to install two catapults in the angled deck. The PLAN might choose a similar scheme for the CV 002, since it would enable them to operate both J-15 and the prospective carrier aircraft.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
franco-russe said:
It would be very silly to put a catapult beside a ski-jump.

The compromise selected for ULYANOVSK (Pr. 11437) was to retain the ski-jump and to install two catapults in the angled deck. The PLAN might choose a similar scheme for the CV 002, since it would enable them to operate both J-15 and the prospective carrier aircraft.
Click to expand...
I believe building a Liaoning type carrier based on the Varyag, but with the Ulyanovsk arrangement could be a very distinct possibility...either coming right out with it in CV 002, or providing for it in that design for later installation if the catapults are not ready immediately.
 
Last edited:
shen

shen

Senior Member
in that case, that would fit with the revised construction plan posted in rolking in the other thread.

"New 2 steps:
1. Build skid + catapult coventional-powered Liaoning-plus.
2. build nuclear-powered CATOBAR Nimitz-sized carriers.

So one less step to their goal of CVN."

carrier number 1, Liaoning, gain basic carrier operation experience.
carrier number 2, build one from the scratch, learn catapult operation
carrier number 3, the logical next step is to move to nuclear propulsion. Which is not an area China doesn't have any experience in. PLAN has operate nuclear submarines for decades. Many nuclear surface ships have reactor adapted from submarine nuclear reactor. The De Gaulle uses the same reactor as French nuclear subs.
 
K

kroko

Senior Member
I wonder why no addicional aerial photos have been posted of the ship in the shipyard. If they did managed to take one photo during flyby, why cant they take another photo? it could answer if what we are seeing in that photo are "shadows" or not.
 
N

no_name

Colonel
Being a military fan, knowing where to look, be in the correct flight path, be in the correct seat/side, good cameras ready, weather is forgiving, actually bothering to put it online, knowing where to put it, not worrying about being invited to tea etc etc.

Pretty sure national intelligence agencies have pretty good ideas how far along the project(s) is/are, but they are going to keep silent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top