CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[TK3600]

Personally, I think the Chinese Navy will end up larger somewhere between 50% and 100% (twice the size). Very roughly speaking.

Remember, if the Chinese Navy is the same size, the US can still hope to win.

If China-US relations are bad, then I think we would see the Chinese Navy growing to 2x the size, to make the point that the US will surely lose if it attempts to use the military against China.

It would also be a huge geopolitical signal to everyone in the world that an alliance with the US is a mistake.

That is not the same as China being the world's policeman.

A navy that is bigger than American alliance will suffice. Quality will make up the rest.

 

[by78]

Gorgeous weather at Yulin naval base.

 

[AsuraGodFiend]

Will 003A fix the blast deflector cutting into the landing runway or is just a carbon copy of 003

 

[kwaigonegin]

Will 003A fix the blast deflector cutting into the landing runway or is just a carbon copy of 003

Not a fan of the overall design. Very obvious limitations that in my opinion is just lazy design or lack of experience.
The deflector, the stack, the limited fantail, lack of starboard elevators etc. all could be easily rectified in the design phase. And these are only the things that we can see.

 

[Blitzo]

Will 003A fix the blast deflector cutting into the landing runway or is just a carbon copy of 003

Why do you think we can even start asking these questions to begin with?

 

[Cloud_Nine_]

Not a fan of the overall design. Very obvious limitations that in my opinion is just lazy design or lack of experience.
The deflector, the stack, the limited fantail, lack of starboard elevators etc. all could be easily rectified in the design phase. And these are only the things that we can see.

Okay obligatory response to any question regarding to Fujian cat 2 JBD: it's not a defect that needs to be "fixed", its just what you pay for for a carrier of this tonnage. For 95% of the time Fujian does not need to be launching and recovering at the same time. Hell, not even USN CVNs do that for most of the time. Esp considering PLAN CVs will mainly be facing off against opfor naval and air power and not standing on station spitting out JDAMs like Surge 97. For the kinds of fight Fujian will be in she will mainly be flying either alpha strikes or cyclical packages.

PA-NG is a good illustration of this same "issue". Even though she's a CVN and could place her island further to the stern, the Island can only go so far aft since you need to clear the landing strip and unless the elevators are right next to each other. You could do a very aggressive angled deck like Midway but I suspect that would be simply disastrous for balance considering the length of Fujian's landing strip.

As for a third elevator on the starboard side. I suspect both Naval Group and CSSC designers thought it wasn't important enough to have an opening and thus structrally weaker spot there simply because it wouldn't offer much usage either way. In anycase the starboard elevator is easily the least used elevator on a USN CVN since they are really only used for spotting aircraft on the starboard side.

I don't know about you but when I see two 80,000 ton carriers that came out the same way and there're elements of the design that seem not optimal, I wouldn't think I am smarter than their designers and that they never thought about it. EMALS is longer than C13, it's just what it is. Cat 2 JBD placement is a small price to pay for the advantages EMALS provide.
View attachment 164461

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Notice these line markings. They seem to align with the wheels of J-35, J-15T, and KJ-600 respectively.

Slightly off topic: if the outer line is indeed for the KJ-600 (I haven’t found a photo yet, but we should see one eventually), then for it to operate from CV-16/17 (big if here), the wheel chocks on those carriers would need another update.

View attachment 164270

The three carrier aircrafts aligning with their respective take-off calibration line. Via 伏尔戈星图