CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Engineer]

STOBAR is a different class of vessel from a CATOBAR not simply a name like James or Jenny.

That is false equivalence — not the same meaning of class. If you want to go down this rabbithole, you would find different navies calling the same ship as frigate/destroyer/cruiser — you won't win. Ultimately, class is arbitrary just like names James and Jenny, which is why talking about it is Red Herring. Whether a ship is derivative of another is invariant to how people call it.

Every ship of a certain type is going to be derivative of a certain design because that design is needed for the type of ship to carry out its roles. There will never be an aircraft carrier without a hangar and a runway on its deck because those are necessary for it to be an aircraft carrier in the first place. All aircraft carriers, no matter who builds them, must follow this same, basic design, else they aren't aircraft carriers.

Similar incoherent arguments have been brought up a few times in previously posts. Essentially, such statement is simultaneously trying to take advantage of a stretched definition (they both float) and a narrowed down one (they look different) to then argue why the middle position (a derivative) is the extreme. This is a reflection that either 1) people don't understand what derivative means, or 2) it is some form of mental gymnastics.

 

[Inque]

Similar incoherent arguments have been brought up a few times in previously posts. Essentially, such statement is simultaneously trying to take advantage of a stretched definition (they both float) and a narrowed down one (they look different) to then argue why the middle position (a derivative) is the extreme. This is a reflection that either 1) people don't understand what derivative means, or 2) it is some form of mental gymnastics.

And it's been brought up multiple times that being based on an existing design does not mean it can't also be improved at the same time. The 003 is not a Kuznetsov as an end result because it has advancements like EMALS that the Kuznetsov does not have.

 

[Engineer]

And it's been brought up multiple times that being based on an existing design does not mean it can't also be improved at the same time. The 003 is not a Kuznetsov as an end result because it has advancements like EMALS that the Kuznetsov does not have.

And it has been pointed out multiple times that that 003 is a derivative of the Kuznetsov class, not that it is identical to the Kuznetsov. Either understand what a derivative is or quit strawmanning.

 

[Inque]

And it has been pointed out multiple times that that 003 is a derivative of the Kuznetsov class, not that it is identical to the Kuznetsov. Either understand what a derivative is or quit strawmanning.

Is it? It most likely is given what Chinese naval engineers had to work with, but is there factual evidence for this?

But either way, we're ultimately both in agreement in spirit.

 

[GiantPanda]

And it has been pointed out multiple times that that 003 is a derivative of the Kuznetsov class, not that it is identical to the Kuznetsov. Either understand what a derivative is or quit strawmanning.

A derivative is a term you use. It is not used as a common shipbuilding term,

1) Class by types -- ship classes are categorized by their function, size, and design such as container ships, oilers, destroyers, etc.

2) Class as a particular design -- Kuznetsov is the first and thus used as the name of its design class.

There is no "derivative" as a proper shipbuilding term.

There are type classes, named classes, subclasses and variants in the shipbuilding world. The Shandong and Vikrant -- though built by different nations -- are both ships of the STOBAR type class.

The Liaoning is a sister of and thus of same named class as the Kuznetsov.

The Fujian is a CATOBAR and thus a completely different type and class from the STOBAR Kuznetsov.

It is nonsensical to use an ambiguous term like "derivative" because every modern ship is derived from iron hulled vessels in the late 1800s.

 

[Engineer]

A derivative is a term you use. It is not used as a common shipbuilding term,

1) Class by types -- ship classes are categorized by their function, size, and design such as container ships, oilers, destroyers, etc.

2) Class as a particular design -- Kuznetsov is the first and thus used as the name of its design class.

There is no "derivative" as a proper shipbuilding term.

There are type classes, named classes, subclasses and variants in the shipbuilding world. The Shandong and Vikrant -- though built by different nations -- are both ships of the STOBAR type class.

The Liaoning is a sister of and thus of same named class as the Kuznetsov.

The Fujian is a CATOBAR and thus a completely different type and class from the STOBAR Kuznetsov.

It is nonsensical to use an ambiguous term like "derivative" because every modern ship is derived from iron hulled vessels in the late 1800s.

If you truly believe "every modern ship is derived from iron hulled vessels in the late 1800s", then you are automatically agreeing that 003 is a derivative of the Kuznetsov class. So what are you even arguing about? LOL!

Distinction between CATOBAR and STOBAR does not contradict the statement about 003 being a deriviative of Kuznetsov class. There are many classes of CATOBAR carriers, so skijump (or lack thereof) isn't what differentiating them. Deck is only a small part of a carrier, and one ship having catapults on a flat deck instead of skijump does not make it "completely different"!

As evident by your absurdity of comparing modern day aircraft carriers to ships of the 1800s, you are clearly confused by your own nebulous definitions. If your own definition of "derivative" is ambigious then that is all on you. That has nothing to do with what I say about derivative.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Fujian is said to be in Bohai.

 

[lcloo]

I bet they are rendezvous with shore based aircraft in landing and take off exercises. It seem very obvious geographically.

 

[Engineer]

Is it? It most likely is given what Chinese naval engineers had to work with, but is there factual evidence for this?

I posted links to satellite images, or what's left of them, a few pages back. You can see design elements of the same size and location inside the hull on both ships.

 

[optionsss]

Deck is only a small part of a carrier

Deck is only a small part of a carrier is a wild statement. In term of operation capibility, it's one of the most if not the most important, CATOBAR operations enable larger weapon loads, longer-range sorties, higher sustained operational tempo and more flexible launch cycles than STOBAR. Not to mention some of the most important evolution of carrier design is the shift from straight decks to angled decks. You can make very good estimate on a carrier capabilitiies based on the deck design and size alone.