perhaps, but i think that there would be a major difference in the cross sectional shape of a lhd or carrier from bow to stern. assuming that the upright piece is close to the bow,(sharper bottom for cutting through the water) i'd expect the stern to have a wider, flatter bottom.
PLAN Carrier Construction
- Thread starter escobar
- Start date
perhaps, but i think that there would be a major difference in the cross sectional shape of a lhd or carrier from bow to stern. assuming that the upright piece is close to the bow,(sharper bottom for cutting through the water) i'd expect the stern to have a wider, flatter bottom.
Midway was about ten years old when she was rebuild immediately after she had been in use. The Kiev's are nearly forty years old, have not been used for a quarter of a century, have been rebuilt for use as amusement parks. What is the condition of the propulsion plant?
After stripping off everything dubious you might have spent nearly as much as when you build a new ship.And then you have a old hull that will have to be adapted to the needs of PLAN.
Much better to design and build the ship you want. Since buying Varyag PLAN has learned a lot.
ok this CG pix has 4 fixed wing awacs on the carrier. do they really need to have 4? how does the USN do it?
You must remember this picture is just a rendering.
Some US Navy E-2C squadrons have five aircraft. Most still have four.
The E-2D is being delivered to the fleet. It will take almost 10 years to fully integrate the Advanced Hawkeye with the existing fleet. 75 aircraft will be produced..
If the Chinese navy already planned to give their domestic carrier waist catapults, what would be the reason to add a bow ramp instead of adding bow catapult as well?
Obviously catapult would give greater flexibility then the ramp, and low performance aircraft like AWAC, onboard delivery transport, and any future ASW aircraft probably would be unable to use the bow ramp. If waist catapults are down, those aircraft would be stuck.
Obviously catapult would give greater flexibility then the ramp, and low performance aircraft like AWAC, onboard delivery transport, and any future ASW aircraft probably would be unable to use the bow ramp. If waist catapults are down, those aircraft would be stuck.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
My guess would be putting a cat on the bow section and 'flattening' the deck would mean a total redesign of the hull and for now I think PLAN would like to keep things as close to Liaoning as possible with a few modifications. Island may look a little different but the basic hull shape will most likely be the same. Most changes will probably occur on the inside.
If there's one thing we've learned is that PLAN is very methodical in their approach. No reason to totally risk everything on their first domestically produce carrier on something very unknown. Liaoning #2 will be a very good hands on for them w/o going totally out of their comfort zone in carrier design and development.
Their 3rd carrier I can almost guarantee will be a CATOBAR.
AeroEngineer
Junior Member
That doesn't make all that much sense to me. In terms of flight deck design, Varyag's ramp was designed by the soviets based on as little operational experience as the Chinese have now. In terms of ship structure design, the Chinese are probably adept now at using more sophisticated design techniques and more advanced fabrication and construction techniques than was available to the Soviets. So it doesn't seem reasonable to me the Chinese designers would hesitate to raze that ramp if their operations people tells their designers that catapults are preferred.
I am thinking it is more likely their operations people have no confidence that their catapults would be ready for prime time when their new carrier is ready, so they instructed their designers to hedged.
I am thinking it is more likely their operations people have no confidence that their catapults would be ready for prime time when their new carrier is ready, so they instructed their designers to hedged.
By using all catapult design. Existing carrier wings like J-15 and J-15S will need modification on its front gear in order to be useful on the new carrier with catapult only.
By using a catapult and ramp design. J-15 and future carrier fighter can both co exist on the new carrier while J-15 can still be use on CV-16 liaoning.
If fighter jet is on intercepting mission, I believe a light load of few WVRAAM and AMRAAM with full fuel is able to take off from the ramp for defending fleet. Catapult is not neccessary.
By using a catapult and ramp design. J-15 and future carrier fighter can both co exist on the new carrier while J-15 can still be use on CV-16 liaoning.
If fighter jet is on intercepting mission, I believe a light load of few WVRAAM and AMRAAM with full fuel is able to take off from the ramp for defending fleet. Catapult is not neccessary.
OFF TOPIC
Oh no...incorrect. The Midway was built with two bow Hydraulic catapults and had major re-fits from '55-'57 and '66-'70'.
The Midway still serves as a museum ship in San Diego CA.
End off topic..
Oh no...incorrect. The Midway was built with two bow Hydraulic catapults and had major re-fits from '55-'57 and '66-'70'.
The Midway still serves as a museum ship in San Diego CA.
End off topic..