CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[steve_rolfe]

Oh dear......after years of confusion, then finally a correction, someone here just had to stir things up regarding Chinese carrier identification numbers. Well its quite obvious its a sequential number, and not a class number.
This all started with China's second carrier the Shandong, which was an improved variant of the Liaoning, so some Western media sources decided to call this carrier 001A. Which was fine if China had not decided to carry on building more Carriers..........but then they decided to build their very own new design, known as 003, and this number was even seen on Chinese posters etc of the new carrier 003. It was at this point that people realised that calling the Shandong 001A was wrong, and in fact it was 002, which is how the Chinese referred to the Shandong. Anyway, reading some of the recent posts here, it is clear that some members are still confused to the numbering sequence of Chinese carriers, and that if there is to be a sister ship to the 003 it would be called say 003A. No, it won't it will be called 004. Excuse me being sarcastic, but the Chinese must be laughing their heads off if they were to read these posts of the numbering of Chinese carriers........ie they are just sequence numbers, and have nothing to do with the actual type of the Carrier themselves. For proof just see that the Chinese themselves have given their carriers a numerical sequence order. Thanks.......i can't believe anyone has to explain this.........

 

[para80]

[Question] is the CVXX 003 being designed with the future carrier borne fighter in mind or is it being designed with the intent to operate the current batch of J15s? And if so is it possible that the 003 won’t operate J15s until the J-31 enters service [if the J-31 enters service between the ships fitting out, sea trails, and commissioning].

There is a visually identified J-15T (CATOBAR) so I'd say that answers that question as much as everything. Beyond that aspect however CVs are routinely operating for 40 or 50 years, so they are not normally "designed" for one or two particular fighters, rather its the other way around.

 

[antiterror13]

I don't know where to put this very interesting article by Rick Joe aka our lovely moderator @Bltizo , please feel free to move it to more suitable thread

Part 1 :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Part 2 :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Gloire_bb]

003 does not take a long way to go ahead of it right now

Erm. no?
There is the whole testing of the new launch method (EMALS). Can a second carrier be ordered right now? Sure. But there is a very bad example right across the pond - and it's going to weigh as a risk factor.

And this is clearly not the only new thing - thing that may go wrong - out there. For all intents and purposes, 003 is the first carrier designed from the bottom up in China. As a bonus - the carrier itself comes with a whole bunch of new fixed-wing aircraft. Which, as of now, can't be tested at sea.
Maybe something will go wrong - engineers are humans, they make mistakes sometimes.

This brings us to the point: 003 right now is an unknown quantity. It can't be ordered right now with a reliable schedule of getting an operational ship - only of construction. It, of course, can be ordered "the Churchill way" - but if things go wrong, there is a huge risk at stake here.

Second - indeed, as you've mentioned, there is a new training and procedure establishing. Single-type fixed-wing STOBAR airwing is quite different from a mixed-type CATOBAR airwing.

Liaoning is strictly from 0 to 1 and bootstrapping.

Well, for example, Ford is expected to go on its first cruise in 2022 (5 years after commissioning).
And from operations points of view - Ford is a completely known quantity, which follows after many, many similar ships. 003 isn't.

We aren't talking "they wrong we right" here. We're talking project management on a national level, with national-level repercussions in case of a miscalculation. Liaoning, from this point of view - is safe.

This is why it can be counted as an indication of lack of rush: PLAN intends to get the vessel it wants, and not vessel it can reliably get asap and in numbers.

(answered in a proper thread)

 

[Blitzo]

Erm. no?
There is the whole testing of the new launch method (EMALS). Can a second carrier be ordered right now? Sure. But there is a very bad example right across the pond - and it's going to weigh as a risk factor.

And this is clearly not the only new thing - thing that may go wrong - out there. For all intents and purposes, 003 is the first carrier designed from the bottom up in China. As a bonus - the carrier itself comes with a whole bunch of new fixed-wing aircraft. Which, as of now, can't be tested at sea.
Maybe something will go wrong - engineers are humans, they make mistakes sometimes.

This brings us to the point: 003 right now is an unknown quantity. It can't be ordered right now with a reliable schedule of getting an operational ship - only of construction. It, of course, can be ordered "the Churchill way" - but if things go wrong, there is a huge risk at stake here.

Second - indeed, as you've mentioned, there is a new training and procedure establishing. Single-type fixed-wing STOBAR airwing is quite different from a mixed-type CATOBAR airwing.


Well, for example, Ford is expected to go on its first cruise in 2022 (5 years after commissioning).
And from operations points of view - Ford is a completely known quantity, which follows after many, many similar ships. 003 isn't.

We aren't talking "they wrong we right" here. We're talking project management on a national level, with national-level repercussions in case of a miscalculation. Liaoning, from this point of view - is safe.

This is why it can be counted as an indication of lack of rush: PLAN intends to get the vessel it wants, and not vessel it can reliably get asap and in numbers.

(answered in a proper thread)

I think what he means by saying "003 does not have a long way to go" is in terms of where the PLAN went from pre CV-16, to operating CV-16 (and CV-17).

Sure, 003 as a carrier is bigger than CV-16/17, with a larger airwing and it also introduces EM catapults -- however it is very much a smaller step between the cross-applicable experience gained in operating CV-16/17 to 003, than it was to go from no carrier experience at all pre-CV-16, to operating CV-16.


For sure, there are certain subsystems on 003 whose maturity will determine how quickly the ship reaches operational status (the EM catapults primarily), and it is also a significantly larger ship than CV-16/17 with a larger airwing. But compared to the experience of going from nothing to CV-16/17 now, I think it is fair to say that such a step is quite a bit smaller and by comparison, relatively incremental.

And yes, a carrier like CV-16 very much is "safer" -- which is why they ordered CV-17 as an "extra" before they went with 003.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Sure, 003 as a carrier is bigger than CV-16/17, with a larger airwing and it also introduces EM catapults -- however it is very much a smaller step between the cross-applicable experience gained in operating CV-16/17 to 003, than it was to go from no carrier experience at all pre-CV-16, to operating CV-16.

I think that in carrier design at least, The CV-16/17->003 jump is bigger than the nothing -> CV-16 and will be the biggest jump in the Chinese carrier program into the indefinite future. 003 introduces a lot of risk - it is an entirely clean sheet design and it has an entirely new aircraft launching system. With CV-16 China had the hull and 17 was essentially an improved variant of 16.

With future nuclear powered carriers, the biggest change will be the new powerplant. But that is tempered by the fact that I think that 004 (just to use a shorthand for the nuke) will inherit a lot of 003's design, if not being essentially a scaled up 003 with one or two more elevators and another track. Also, it will no doubt benefit from China's experience in fielding nuclear powered submarines.

But speaking operationally, of course going from nothing to taking off and landing aircraft on a carrier at sea is the biggest jump there could be.

 

[james smith esq]

This might’ve been asked, and answered, already, but,... are we expecting that the catapult configuration will allow the J-15 to achieve its maximum operational potential, or will its M(ission)TOW still be somewhat limited?

Or, is this even the correct thread for this question?

 

[Maikeru]

This might’ve been asked, and answered, already, but,... are we expecting that the catapult configuration will allow the J-15 to achieve its maximum operational potential, or will its M(ission)TOW still be somewhat limited?

Or, is this even the correct thread for this question?

If you've got CATOBAR it's not the MTOW you need to worry about but the bring-back. USN jets routinely launch for combat patrols with far less than their maximum launch capacity because the limit is what they can land safely with, and they don't want to dump $$$ of expensive precision munitions in the sea just so a plane can land on deck.

 

[james smith esq]

If you've got CATOBAR it's not the MTOW you need to worry about but the bring-back. USN jets routinely launch for combat patrols with far less than their maximum launch capacity because the limit is what they can land safely with, and they don't want to dump $$$ of expensive precision munitions in the sea just so a plane can land on deck.

Can they bring-back a full load of internal fuel?

 

[Blitzo]

This might’ve been asked, and answered, already, but,... are we expecting that the catapult configuration will allow the J-15 to achieve its maximum operational potential, or will its M(ission)TOW still be somewhat limited?

Or, is this even the correct thread for this question?

J-15 should already be able to achieve MTOW from CV-16/17 depending on headwind +/- launch position.

What the catapults should offer for J-15, is to launch at MTOW under a much wider variety of conditions (e.g.: suboptimal headwind).

I think that in carrier design at least, The CV-16/17->003 jump is bigger than the nothing -> CV-16 and will be the biggest jump in the Chinese carrier program into the indefinite future. 003 introduces a lot of risk - it is an entirely clean sheet design and it has an entirely new aircraft launching system. With CV-16 China had the hull and 17 was essentially an improved variant of 16.

With future nuclear powered carriers, the biggest change will be the new powerplant. But that is tempered by the fact that I think that 004 (just to use a shorthand for the nuke) will inherit a lot of 003's design, if not being essentially a scaled up 003 with one or two more elevators and another track. Also, it will no doubt benefit from China's experience in fielding nuclear powered submarines.

But speaking operationally, of course going from nothing to taking off and landing aircraft on a carrier at sea is the biggest jump there could be.

In terms of technology and subsystems, sure going from CV-17 to 003 is a bigger change than CV-16 to CV-17.

But I would maintain that the change from "nothing" to CV-16, is still a much bigger change in technology and subsystems (and operational experience), than going from CV-17 to 003... which is what weig was pointing out.