Another sidenote: Wikipedia is drunk.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I am still puzzled by why the 003 is apparently a singleton. building a single unique carrier does not appear to me to make sense, unless she is seen as a safer backup to the next nuclear carrier.
I think more likely she will have a sister. China has 2 yards capable of and now experienced in building carriers. So I think a second 003 will be built more or less concurrently with 004 if China does indeed intend to build an 004 immediately after the first 003.
I think more likely she will have a sister. China has 2 yards capable of and now experienced in building carriers. So I think a second 003 will be built more or less concurrently with 004 if China does indeed intend to build an 004 immediately after the first 003.
Last edited:
I remember PLAN's naming rule talks about "provincial level" not province. This means as far as the naming concerns, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing are "provinces".
It’s a modification of a poem by Yankeesama, which was shorter and concluded differently.
So he doesn't miss the dual 37mm AA mountings? Honestly I thought they had a certain retro appeal after a while.
12-13 meters of draft and 80,000 tons of full displacement?
Wait, the official Chinese media say it is more than 80,000 tons.
300*40*12*0.6*1.025=88,560="80,000+"
300*40*12.5*0.6*1.025=92,250="80,000+"
Well, they are right.
Wait, the official Chinese media say it is more than 80,000 tons.
300*40*12*0.6*1.025=88,560="80,000+"
300*40*12.5*0.6*1.025=92,250="80,000+"
Well, they are right.
It has been speculated for a while now that a AESA radars with enough power can focus their beams on a target, frying the electronics on board.
In theory the F-22 could do that, but like I said, it was mostly speculation.
I would not put much credence on implications deduced from a few percent differences in the displacement figures put out by different navies Unless you know exactly how each displacement is calculated, and how frequently and under what circumstances the displacement figures are actually attained in real service.
For example, it Is not unknown for some warships to begin sortie at a certain displacement, but really would not want to fight at that displacement because to achieve the range needed for the mission, the fuel load aboard the ship at the beginning of the sortie must be stowed in such a way that puts the ship out of trim and compromises the ship’s damage stability.
so if one navy quotes the ship’s maximum displacement as the displacement in the scenario above, while another quotes the ship’s maximum displacement as the displacement assumed when calculating the ship’s combat stability, how do these two compare?
For example, it Is not unknown for some warships to begin sortie at a certain displacement, but really would not want to fight at that displacement because to achieve the range needed for the mission, the fuel load aboard the ship at the beginning of the sortie must be stowed in such a way that puts the ship out of trim and compromises the ship’s damage stability.
so if one navy quotes the ship’s maximum displacement as the displacement in the scenario above, while another quotes the ship’s maximum displacement as the displacement assumed when calculating the ship’s combat stability, how do these two compare?
Last edited: