CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

T

Twix101

Junior Member
Totoro said:
While it's perhaps too early for attempts at hangar measurements as the resolution is just so poor - here's one nevertheless. I am getting some 31 pixels of hangar width and 47 pixels of overall width. At that point the ship is, judging by fairly high res GE imagery, 40 meters wide. Which would imply the hangar is at the same point some 26 meters wide. That may or may not be true, due to possible errors.

But for the reference - hangar widths of some of the other carriers:
Nimitz 34 meters
QE 33 meters
C. de Gaulle ??
Forrestal 31 meters
Kuznetsov 26 meters
Click to expand...

CDG has a 138m * 29m hangar, cut in two by a large fire door.
 
Intrepid

Intrepid

Major
The clear height of the hangar is important in order to be able to repair early warning aircraft there, for example. American supercarriers have a 25 foot high hangar. The Midway class only had a 17 foot 6 inch hangar and was limited accordingly.
 
M

Mirabo

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
I'm actually somewhat confused as to these latest images.

These new modules seem to show a bulkhead that crosses transversely along the width of the level. Is that an optical illusion? Because I can't imagine why there would need to be a bulkhead like that for the hangar deck module/level.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine a reason for a dividing wall either. I assume it's just a temporary support strut, or something along those lines. Or perhaps the bulkhead belongs to a module that's forward/aft of the hangar bay and it's not part of the hangar at all.
 
H

Haot

New Member
Registered Member
Higgle said:
I can't imagine a reason for a dividing wall either. I assume it's just a temporary support strut, or something along those lines. Or perhaps the bulkhead belongs to a module that's forward/aft of the hangar bay and it's not part of the hangar at all.
Click to expand...
It is a temporary support structure, and it has been confirmed there were columns supporting the hanger only for now.
 
S

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Intrepid said:
The clear height of the hangar is important in order to be able to repair early warning aircraft there, for example. American supercarriers have a 25 foot high hangar. The Midway class only had a 17 foot 6 inch hangar and was limited accordingly.
Click to expand...
Weren't the E-2's designed with the limitations of the smaller Essex's in mind, though?.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
favoriteasian said:
Oh yeah I definitely agree as well! The PLA as a whole imports loads of military hardware from other nations that they deem reliable, no doubt. And I'm sure they do have a lot of confidence in their EM catapult systems. I was just saying that I think their carriers are in a particularly special position within the PLA, and that they use them just as much, if not more for political purposes than for actual tactical/operational purposes. And with that, it wouldn't necessarily be crazy for them to pick one system over the other if it makes them appear on-par with US carriers.

China puts an immense amount of pride in their CV's now that they've joined other powerful countries in the prestigious 2 carrier club. They boast about their carriers all the time on social media and on the state-run news sites. I'm willing to bet for the future CV-18, they're going to use that bad boy for all sorts of political propaganda once it becomes operational. Whether or not they do have functional EM catapults, it would be a massive propaganda win for the PLAN and the PRC as a whole, as they would accomplish only what the US has done for their carriers, and that would be something to be immensely proud about!

And who knows. Maybe one day they might just decide to go for something a little more risky, something new and innovative that would give them a practical advantage over the US. They are getting bolder every day after all.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You are saying
  1. China is somewhat bragging with EM.
  2. Made the choice of EM to compete with the U.S. (the only other is US).
  3. Somewhat China's EM cat is faking or rushed or less mature compared to EMALS.
We have seen the EMALS and AAG living in a hell of technical problems, design flaws and years of delay. Although we have not had the chance to see issues in China's EM catapult on board 003, that only means that we don't know anything yet, no judgement can be made (which you did).

With the mountains of troubles of USN, you somehow still conclude and insist (in multiple posts) that it is China choosing immature tech for political and bragging right, rather than USN. It is a very strange attitude:
  1. To face known facts (USN)
  2. To assess unknowns (China).
Lastly, you need to know that in field of EM launcher and its related technology, China is many years ahead of US, even Germany is probably better equipped in making working EM launchers than USA because of decades of experiences in the following areas:
  1. High power linear motor - EMS Maglev train
  2. Active (in millisecond) levitation control in EMS Maglev
  3. High voltage DC power grid
  4. High voltage (KV) AC-DC-AC conversion - ICE
The US does not have the top-notch civilian industry base to support its effort in EMALS. China has learnt a lot of lessons from their civilian application before and during their work on EM cat, the US can only learn the lessons from EMALS tests. This is where the confident and maturity rest.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
taxiya said:
Seriously? You are saying
  1. China is somewhat bragging with EM.
  2. Made the choice of EM to compete with the U.S. (the only other is US).
  3. Somewhat China's EM cat is faking or rushed or less mature compared to EMALS.
We have seen the EMALS and AAG living in a hell of technical problems, design flaws and years of delay. Although we have not had the chance to see issues in China's EM catapult on board 003, that only means that we don't know anything yet, no judgement can be made (which you did).

With the mountains of troubles of USN, you somehow still conclude and insist (in multiple posts) that it is China choosing immature tech for political and bragging right, rather than USN. It is a very strange attitude:
  1. To face known facts (USN)
  2. To assess unknowns (China).
Lastly, you need to know that in field of EM launcher and its related technology, China is many years ahead of US, even Germany is probably better equipped in making working EM launchers than USA because of decades of experiences in the following areas:
  1. High power linear motor - EMS Maglev train
  2. Active (in millisecond) levitation control in EMS Maglev
  3. High voltage DC power grid
  4. High voltage (KV) AC-DC-AC conversion - ICE
The US does not have the top-notch civilian industry base to support its effort in EMALS. China has learnt a lot of lessons from their civilian application before and during their work on EM cat, the US can only learn the lessons from EMALS tests. This is where the confident and maturity rest.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But more importantly, remember that China is new to carrier catapults.

So for China, a simpler electrical EMALs catapult is almost certainly easier than a mechanically complex steam catapult system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top