AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN LHD/LPH/LHA discussion
I just hope it's not a Varyag copy like some are saying. Something new at least.
I just hope it's not a Varyag copy like some are saying. Something new at least.
PLAN Carrier Construction
- Thread starter escobar
- Start date
Skywatcher
Captain
Re: PLAN LHD/LPH/LHA discussion
Well, couldn't the flight deck be extended later on in construction to get the width to about 70 meters (ten on each side)?
Well, couldn't the flight deck be extended later on in construction to get the width to about 70 meters (ten on each side)?
Re: PLAN LHD/LPH/LHA discussion
If that module really is a carrier, we should remember its final overall beam could be longer than what it is now due to actually adding on te flight deck (right now it's only the hull) and also, this module may be a bow module which doesn't include the waist/landing strip.
If GE estimate is right, then this module seems much too wide to be an LHA/D, but is about right for a liaoning sized carrier, minus the flight deck.
Of course, the module seems somewhat different from liaoning, namely the dimensions of the elevator and the curious trough running on top of the module almost reminiscent of a space for a catapult.
Basically (apart from being a cargo ship, which we can't rule out) these are what the module can be, in decreasing likelihood:
-Carrier (liaoning or liaoning+catapult derivative)
-LHD/A (possible, but 50m beam seems way too large)
-"Mock up" of a carrier (mutterings of this module and the LHA/D both being an elaborate PLAN mock up still persist, which could possibly explain how the LHA appeared out of nowhere so fast. BUT a half sized mock up would be unprecedented for any navy, and seems a little useless to me, whether it is only a fraction of the real thing's size or full size). You'd also think a mock up would be better built on land, not at a shipyard and actually floated out onto water.)
If that module really is a carrier, we should remember its final overall beam could be longer than what it is now due to actually adding on te flight deck (right now it's only the hull) and also, this module may be a bow module which doesn't include the waist/landing strip.
If GE estimate is right, then this module seems much too wide to be an LHA/D, but is about right for a liaoning sized carrier, minus the flight deck.
Of course, the module seems somewhat different from liaoning, namely the dimensions of the elevator and the curious trough running on top of the module almost reminiscent of a space for a catapult.
Basically (apart from being a cargo ship, which we can't rule out) these are what the module can be, in decreasing likelihood:
-Carrier (liaoning or liaoning+catapult derivative)
-LHD/A (possible, but 50m beam seems way too large)
-"Mock up" of a carrier (mutterings of this module and the LHA/D both being an elaborate PLAN mock up still persist, which could possibly explain how the LHA appeared out of nowhere so fast. BUT a half sized mock up would be unprecedented for any navy, and seems a little useless to me, whether it is only a fraction of the real thing's size or full size). You'd also think a mock up would be better built on land, not at a shipyard and actually floated out onto water.)
Skywatcher
Captain
Re: PLAN LHD/LPH/LHA discussion
Well, the module at Dalian obviously doesn't have that 10 meter extension on the starboard side of the Kuznetzov (though that only leaves us with 60 meters).
And the alleged elevator would have only a width of 9 meters and length of 12-13 meters (going from GE on 3/3/2013).
And we are assuming that the module in the most recent photos is still the same width when the photo was taken as it was on March 3, 2013 from GE.
Well, the module at Dalian obviously doesn't have that 10 meter extension on the starboard side of the Kuznetzov (though that only leaves us with 60 meters).
And the alleged elevator would have only a width of 9 meters and length of 12-13 meters (going from GE on 3/3/2013).
And we are assuming that the module in the most recent photos is still the same width when the photo was taken as it was on March 3, 2013 from GE.
Engineer
Major
Re: PLAN LHD/LPH/LHA discussion
I have to say that's way too small to be a carrier. The hangar is only two decks in height, which will clearly not be able to fit a J-15. Size wise, the section could be for a LHD, but I am more incline to believe it to be an experimental section.
I think an actual ship would have been built from the ground up. Even if multiple sections were to be built and later joined together, each section should be far longer then what they have right now, especially for a mid-section that has an elevator. Moreover, the section photographed has many features that are found on a carrier, but these features are way too close together to be of use. One notable example is the catapult trench being just a few steps away from the edge. The section would be very useful in terms of demonstration and practices however.
To those who feel a LHD or a small carrier is good practice for China, I disagree. Firstly, a carrier has to be of sufficient size to be efficient. A small carrier requires similar sized crew as a large carrier, but carries fewer planes. The small size will also make launch, recovery, and maneuvering aircraft on the ship very difficult. Secondly, if an idea doesn't work on a full-sized carrier, that same idea isn't going to magically work better on a smaller ship. Thirdly and most importantly, an actual ship has operating cost. Once a ship is built, it is kept around for at least 20 years. The operating cost over two decades will seriously put a dent in any budget allocated for full-sized carriers. If one doesn't built an operational ship for practice, then the operating cost can be eliminated. Going further, if there is no need to operate the ship, then there would be no need to build the entire thing. A single section cramped with every features found on a carrier would be sufficed for practicing purposes.
I have to say that's way too small to be a carrier. The hangar is only two decks in height, which will clearly not be able to fit a J-15. Size wise, the section could be for a LHD, but I am more incline to believe it to be an experimental section.
I think an actual ship would have been built from the ground up. Even if multiple sections were to be built and later joined together, each section should be far longer then what they have right now, especially for a mid-section that has an elevator. Moreover, the section photographed has many features that are found on a carrier, but these features are way too close together to be of use. One notable example is the catapult trench being just a few steps away from the edge. The section would be very useful in terms of demonstration and practices however.
To those who feel a LHD or a small carrier is good practice for China, I disagree. Firstly, a carrier has to be of sufficient size to be efficient. A small carrier requires similar sized crew as a large carrier, but carries fewer planes. The small size will also make launch, recovery, and maneuvering aircraft on the ship very difficult. Secondly, if an idea doesn't work on a full-sized carrier, that same idea isn't going to magically work better on a smaller ship. Thirdly and most importantly, an actual ship has operating cost. Once a ship is built, it is kept around for at least 20 years. The operating cost over two decades will seriously put a dent in any budget allocated for full-sized carriers. If one doesn't built an operational ship for practice, then the operating cost can be eliminated. Going further, if there is no need to operate the ship, then there would be no need to build the entire thing. A single section cramped with every features found on a carrier would be sufficed for practicing purposes.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN LHD/LPH/LHA discussion
On some of the pics of the sections, there seems to be guy walking on top holding a bundle and he's at different places in each pic. If it is a guy, I don't know if that helps with the scale.
On some of the pics of the sections, there seems to be guy walking on top holding a bundle and he's at different places in each pic. If it is a guy, I don't know if that helps with the scale.
PeoplesPoster
Junior Member
Re: PLAN LHD/LPH/LHA discussion
Just use the railings. If they are per Chinese safety code they should be 1.1 meters tall.
Just use the railings. If they are per Chinese safety code they should be 1.1 meters tall.
usaf0314
Junior Member
Re: PLAN LHD/LPH/LHA discussion
a standard rescue buoy is about 800mm in the outer diameter. with that being the guideline shown in the photos, the height of the cutaway is approximately 4.0 meters. Meanwhile the J-15 has a height of 5.9 meters.
a standard rescue buoy is about 800mm in the outer diameter. with that being the guideline shown in the photos, the height of the cutaway is approximately 4.0 meters. Meanwhile the J-15 has a height of 5.9 meters.
Attachments
-
Capture.jpg
Re: PLAN LHD/LPH/LHA discussion
But if this was half scale then that would make it around 8m tall, and the width would suggest mid section of a larger carrier. That section don't look like it's for LHD.
So a section like this (to borrow an existing example) with maybe 3 cats :
But if this was half scale then that would make it around 8m tall, and the width would suggest mid section of a larger carrier. That section don't look like it's for LHD.
So a section like this (to borrow an existing example) with maybe 3 cats :
Last edited: