CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)

para80

Junior Member
Registered Member
The rule of three applies across naval combatants generally. There are of course nuances, such as with SSK, which can spend lengthy periods at berth to sortie more densely (Vietnam may or may not pursue this approach based on images). But the general rule "One deployed, one working up to deployment or being post op/training, one in maintenance" really does cover any kind of complex naval combatant. With nukes things can get more extreme re duration of maintenance, but as USN shows, these carriers too also can be surged to higher readiness figures.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
Looks like another reason why China needs at least 3 (or 3+) carriers per the common paradigm...one in the dock, one in training, and one on station.
China will need a minimum of 6 carriers, which should ensure that at least 2 carriers are readily available in case of sudden developments/emergencies.

The number could then be surged to 3-4 carriers once the 1-2 carriers that are on working-up are made ready.

With 2 carriers that are on-station at any time, that means either the 2 carriers can work together as a dual-carrier CBG, or each of the two carriers can form their own CBGs to deal with situations that are separated across vast distances (Diaoyu Islands and SCS at once, for instance).

On the other hand, 9 carriers should be the maximum. Any more and the PLAN risks stepping into the shadows of the USN.
 
Last edited:

Atomicfrog

Captain
Registered Member
CV16 and 17, the two of them will be the only STOBAR build in Chinese navy most probably. Would be interesting to know how much of CV-17 design/components are in the CV-18.
 
Last edited:

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
So far the engine room layout: four boilers in a row in two compartments.
surprised that no gas turbines are being used. wouldn't acceleration be a problem, since steam boiler's throttle speed is much slower than gas turbine?

same principle as power plants. boiler thermal power plants are usually baseload and operate at fixed RPM, while gas turbines are operated as flexible load follower plants for peak power.
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
It is probably because originally the carrier was meant to use steam catapults. You would need some sort of steam generator on the ship.
EMALS was later added to the ship's design but it was probably too late to change it to gas turbines without considerable delays in redesigning the propulsion section.
 

TK3600

Captain
Registered Member
It is probably because originally the carrier was meant to use steam catapults. You would need some sort of steam generator on the ship.
EMALS was later added to the ship's design but it was probably too late to change it to gas turbines without considerable delays in redesigning the propulsion section.
Likely it is for getting experience for nuclear engine layout. This is just an intermediate design.
 

by78

General
An image from a damage control/firefighting exercise. @Deino, even the mockup has a serial number.

53503492228_7d0ea60b31_k.jpg
 
Top