But the actual plane has not been spotted so far....Another flyover update. A model of the carrier transport plane appears to be on the flight deck (2nd image, circled). The same model was previously seen at dockside (3rd image, circled).
![]()
![]()
![]()
seems not hard to prepare an alpha strike when 40 fighter jets + 2AEW +2/4 heli on deck and use 2 CATs to launch planes.
View attachment 155038
depends on which cat you use to launch the aew.if you use cat 3 then bow spotted wont infringe the fighter jets launch.(accsually the photoshop magnet bother me a lot.i cannot rotate the jets to a right angel and put them well in line. hahaha)I think you've minimised the clearance a bit for the aircraft (especially lateral), and the bow spotted aircraft technically infringe on the foul line for the port now catapult (though perhaps they may have a narrower foul line in play if they only launch tacair from the port now catapult).
But nice effort.
depends on which cat you use to launch the aew.if you use cat 3 then bow spotted wont infringe the fighter jets launch.(accsually the photoshop magnet bother me a lot.i cannot rotate the jets to a right angel and put them well in line. hahaha)
and if you compare with the nimitz class deck layout.the lateral is still larger than those fa18s.
thought It's still fine. you can see nimitz are useing landing deck as store deck and I tried to avoid it. maybe I can try some Nimitz style park spotting laterI think the positioning of the J-35s on the bow in terms of foul lines, depends on whether CV-18 actually has a "central" foul line as depicted in a piece of official art from some time ago.
View attachment 155060
If that central foul line is present, then it could correspond to an intent for there to be more starboard bow deckspace to spot aircraft while allowing tactical fighter aircraft (J-15T, J-35) to be launched from the port bow catapult, but at this stage I wouldn't assume it to be the case until we see it on deck.
As for lateral clearance, I'm not opposed to the inherent space between each individual jet, but I think your depiction would inevitably need a few spaces without aircraft to allow more maneuverability for aircraft at the "edges" of the "patches".
For example, the CVN-77 image you posted is a good example of how while there are many jets packed tightly together, they also are done so in "patches" rather than continuously, e.g.: something like this
View attachment 155061
Given how enamored the world is with artificial intelligence, it would be no surprise if the PLAN uses it to develop multiple permutations of optimal spacing configurations based on stipulated physical requirements and different ratios of aircraft type.I think the positioning of the J-35s on the bow in terms of foul lines, depends on whether CV-18 actually has a "central" foul line as depicted in a piece of official art from some time ago.
View attachment 155060
If that central foul line is present, then it could correspond to an intent for there to be more starboard bow deckspace to spot aircraft while allowing tactical fighter aircraft (J-15T, J-35) to be launched from the port bow catapult, but at this stage I wouldn't assume it to be the case until we see it on deck.
As for lateral clearance, I'm not opposed to the inherent space between each individual jet, but I think your depiction would inevitably need a few spaces without aircraft to allow more maneuverability for aircraft at the "edges" of the "patches".
For example, the CVN-77 image you posted is a good example of how while there are many jets packed tightly together, they also are done so in "patches" rather than continuously, e.g.: something like this
View attachment 155061