CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Jeff Head]

I imagine it would be full displacement -- I remember a few years back 65,000 tons was listed as CVF's full displacement on wikipedia, but then a little while back it got knocked up to 71,000 tons. The wikipedia citations for CVF's displacement seem to suggest it may reflect the growth margin in the ship over its lifetime.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A 71,000 ton standard displacement for CVF would mean an 80,000+ ton full displacement for it... which would be a bit ludicrous and definitely would've been reported on and noticed if it were the case.


and of course, the royal navy itself still lists it as 65,000 tons full (bottom of page: "She will be the Royal Navy's largest ever surface warship with a full displacement of 65,000 tonnes"). So I think whoever edited the wikipedia entry might have been a bit eager

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Probably correct.

Still, at even 70,000 tons full displaceemtn it is a big ship.

...makes me wonder all the more at the UK not putting cats and traps on the carrier.

They know how and have done it before. But instead they kept the large displacement and are having to use the F-35B for its STOVL capability, when they could have had the full blown aircraft, AEW aircraft, etc., etc.

...and I will say here and now, that due to the nature of such large projects, particularly new desings like this...they are going to end up spending as much to get what they are bringing online as they would have spent for the whole tamale (at least IMHO).

As it is, the chinese are going to have cats and traps, and full capability aircraft on their carrier.

[perhaps not 5th gen at this point...but that too will come in time and then they will have catapults launching fully loaded fixed wing aircraft.

It is going to be a very exciting time.

Heck it already is.

with the CV-17 launch, the coming sea trials of the Queen Elizabeth, the onging trials of the Ford, and the commissioning and continued launching of the ZUmwalts, the coming launch of the Type 055s, etc., etc. Pretty much years worth of new, exciting naval technology and new class vessels lined up for years.

The new Korean Dokdo, which may well have a ski jump. The recent launches and commissioning of the Australian Canberras and their new Hobarts.

...and then in the midst of all of that we will see the Type 002 carrier launch and tirals and then commissioning.

 

[dingyibvs]

I thought they did consider adding EMALS, but apparently it was gonna cost as much as the carrier itself (like $3 B), so they decided against it.

 

[antiterror13]

The Queen Elizabeth Class indicates about 71,000 tons displacement...but does not indicate if that is standard or full load. My guess is that it is standard. Full load probably somewhat larger..

If the 002 is 75,000 tons standard load, it will be the largest non-American carrier yet built.

Heck, up until the CVF and CV002, the Kuznetsov class, including the Liaoning and now the Shandong, were the largest aircraft carriers built outside of the US.

The US Kitty Hawk class were about 83,090 tons full load, which were the last conventionally powered US carriers built, those four carriers being launched from 1960 to 1967...wow, the last (the JFK) was launched over 50 years ago.

Everything after that (and if you include the Enterprise which was built and launched in the same time frame), has been nuclear. All the Nimitz class were over 100,000 tons. The enterprise was closer to 95,000 tons.

The Ford class will be over 100,000 tons...but basically the same displacement as the Nimitz, even though the Ford flight deck is actually 14 feet longer than the Nimitz class. The waterline and deck widths are the same, as is the waterline length.

I have been wondering why the US hasn't built super carrier bigger than 100,000 tons (let say 150,000 tons for the sake of discussion), obviously the US has the capability .. is it less efficient being 150K than 100K ?

 

[Equation]

I have been wondering why the US hasn't built super carrier bigger than 100,000 tons (let say 150,000 tons for the sake of discussion), obviously the US has the capability .. is it less efficient being 150K than 100K ?

In the age of more dangerous and accurate ASBM and HGV, who wants to be a bigger target?

 

[Intrepid]

I have been wondering why the US hasn't built super carrier bigger than 100,000 tons (let say 150,000 tons for the sake of discussion), obviously the US has the capability .. is it less efficient being 150K than 100K ?

It is better to have several carriers than one big carrier. If one carrier is out of order for a periode of time because of an accident you can recover your airgroup on the other carriers. Several 100k-carriers with 100-meters catapults and a 250-meters landing strip seams to be the optimum.

In the last big conflict (Gulf war) three carriers worked in a team, rotating through a schedule of two days duty followed by one day replenishing and recreation for the crew. At all times two carriers available for flying missions and one off.

 

[antiterror13]

It is better to have several carriers than one big carrier. If one carrier is out of order for a periode of time because of an accident you can recover your airgroup on the other carriers. Several 100k-carriers with 100-meters catapults and a 250-meters landing strip seams to be the optimum.

In the last big conflict (Gulf war) three carriers worked in a team. Two days of duty followed by one day replenishing and recreation for the crew, At all times two carriers available for flying missions and one off.

ok, then why not having more let's say 75K carrier (15 instead of 11)

I am suspecting there is something to do with the efficiency and the optimum is around 100K @Jeff Head surely could educate us

 

[Intrepid]

ok, then why not having more let's say 75K carrier (15 instead of 11)

For a minimum length of catapults and landing strip and a maximum hight of the hangar and a underwater protection system and some kind of armour you get a ship of 100k. May be in the future with other sizes of aircraft (UAVs for example) it is possible to have smaller ships.

 

[delft]

OT

I thought they did consider adding EMALS, but apparently it was gonna cost as much as the carrier itself (like $3 B), so they decided against it.

They specifically designed the ships in such a way that it would be easy to add EMALS at a later date, they said. They even changed the order for F-35B into -C some seven years ago but then found that EMALS was more expensive than they expected and that adapting the ships at that stage(!) was much more expensive still.
But don't forget that the last time they built flattops was more than forty years ago so there is no institutional memory. They expect to build replacements in forty years time.
Compare China planning to continue building flattops.

 

[Jeff Head]

I have been wondering why the US hasn't built super carrier bigger than 100,000 tons (let say 150,000 tons for the sake of discussion), obviously the US has the capability .. is it less efficient being 150K than 100K ?

The US Navy has done all sorts of studies on optimum carrier performance in terms of sortee rates, surge rates, and the ability to spread its force structure out optimally.

They determined some years ago that the basic Nimitz type design was the optimum for aircraft available then, and they have now tweaked that a bit for the coming aircraft and technologies with the Ford class.

For what the US wants to accomplish and for the types of war at sea, CAS, ground support, deep strike, and recon missions it will run, the exisiting classes are the optimum design for now.

 

[Skywatcher]

Also, if you increase the size of CVN by 50%, you'd have to redredge and scale up a lot of harbors and onshore facilities, which might be more trouble than its worth if the 150,000 ton CVN doesn't offer, say 50% more performance over the Nimitz.