PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Totoro, that's a nice drawing of a large civilian ship.
Yes indeed ... now I see it too: It's a casino !
The supporting sub structure along the sides, below the hanger deck, will be in position as they build up to the hanger deck...not after.
It is true that the elevator openings and the side tracks for the elevators will be placed thereafter, but the weight of the elevator on those tracks and its ability to sit flush with the hanger deck, means that the supporting substructure extends below the hanger deck and that will be in place when they get to the hanger deck.
Blackstone, I have not made a definitive decision yet.
But if I had to say which way I was leaning...I would say that I still lean to it not being a STOBAR carrier like the Liaoning. Not a slam dunk...maybe more like 6--40 or something like that.
We can be patient...and need to be.
There is sometimes too much tendency due to emotion and desire to rush to judgment one way or the other. I've learned through 59 years of life that it is rare when you can make such quick judgments based on emotion and desire alone, and have them be wise decisions.
Now, that does not mean that there are not times when there are factors that make things very obvious...or that sometimes because of the urgency and criticality of a situation you have to decide fast...but I do not see that being the case in this instance.
vesicles
Colonel
Most CV's in operation now and in the foreseeable future are based on design philosophy developed way before the 80's. I don't see any issue with that at all. Especially this is China's first indigenous CV. Better be safe with a design that they are very familiar with.
Intrepid
Major
I think 001A is an improved Liaoning with optimized superstructures, such as the Ford class is an improved Nimitz design with an unchanged hull shape.
What kind of argument is that? Which carriers built in the 10's is based on a design from the 80's which wasn't even a good one?
Copying the Admiral Kuznetsov 30 years later is anachronistic as hell.
Also is quite the stretch calling the Ford-class an "improved" version of the Nimitz class design.
Copying the Admiral Kuznetsov 30 years later is anachronistic as hell.
Also is quite the stretch calling the Ford-class an "improved" version of the Nimitz class design.
vesicles
Colonel
My argument is a very logical one. In fact, that is how everyone should go about when learning to do something...
Firstly, the goal of having a CV is to have an impact in potential conflicts in the future. Building a new CV based on a mature design will give China a CV that is at least equivalent to most of the CVs in operation now and in the foreseeable future. So what is wrong with that?
Also, again, THIS IS CHINA'S FIRST INDIGENOUS CV. Keep that in mind when you judge. You want to learn how to walk before taking up running. The one design that they happen to have and know is the Admiral Kuznetsov. So it is only natural that they want to start with that. Kind of like taking a physics class. Although the Newton's 3 laws were developed centuries ago, students nowadays still need to learn them, before going to the more modern theories of physics. Although it is now 2010's, you cannot simply jump to String theory without going through the basics. Now, the Admiral Kuznetsov design is the basics for China.
And China is learning the basics of building CVs. Just like in physics classes where you learn the fundamental of physics by replicating classic physics experiments, the Chinese designers are learning the fundamentals of building CVs by replicating the Admiral Kuznetsov design. Very logical and methodical, in my view.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if I get the first indigenous CV argument.
Sure, no one expect that China builds a nuclear powered carrier with EMALS or a carrier with a displacement close to the American supercarriers. But it's not a crazy idea to expect that Chinese are doing more than just a reverse engineering job.
There is no need to be so defensive about it.
Sure, no one expect that China builds a nuclear powered carrier with EMALS or a carrier with a displacement close to the American supercarriers. But it's not a crazy idea to expect that Chinese are doing more than just a reverse engineering job.
There is no need to be so defensive about it.
- Status