CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Richard Santos]

No quite rubbish. Post war US carriers all have 4 elevators, until the ford class which has 3. 003 has only 2. Reducing the utilization of one of the three or four available elevators to avoid jet blast interference would have less impact on potential operational tempo than reducing the utilization of one of only two available Elevators.

as a side note, the forward starboard elevator on US carriers is also the one most often shut down due to heavy weather. So that elevator might Be considered the not full equal of all the other elevators in terms of contribution to the carrier’s effectiveness.

 

[plawolf]

I am not at all convinced that is the JBD. It’s not in line with the catapult by a considerable margin and also feels to be placed unnecessary far back.

The feature looks more like a temporary structure, which is reinforced by the piping running directly into it. Zero reason to need full deck penetration for JBD installation.

 

[Tyler]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455512426007330825

seems like an oversight by placing the blast deflector right next to the elevator. i realize realistically you won't be using that cat along with that elevator at the same time anyways, but Ford at least gives you that potential capability, whereas 003 completely shuts that down. what do you guys think?

Who discovered this so-called "problem"?

 

[lcloo]

I don't see how the mostly upward deflacted jet blast will affected aircraft on the lift, especially if there is only one aircraft placed at the centreline of the lift.

 

[lcloo]

Also, look how close ground crew are standing next to jet blaster.

 

[zgx09t]

If we blow up the recent overhead satellite photo of 003, the inward edge of that supposed jet blast deflector is still slightly ahead of the forward edge of fore elevator, maybe a meter or two. The lenght between inward end of catapult and jet blast deflector's fore edge have a good distance that can easily fit in a jet. Looking at the above photo, jet engine flames are very focused and narrow, so the majority of heat will hit the blast deflector directly and canted upward, not deflected out sideways. Heat radiating out sideways would easily be dissipated by sea moisture, wind and open air before it reach the elevator. Not sure how much heat a modern jet's surface can withstand through friction with air while flying, but I'm sure they are not delicate flowers. If no heat blast is tolerable, then 20 secs wait will suffice to rectify it.

Definitely sounds like much ado about nothing.

 

[Blitzo]

No quite rubbish. Post war US carriers all have 4 elevators, until the ford class which has 3. 003 has only 2. Reducing the utilization of one of the three or four available elevators to avoid jet blast interference would have less impact on potential operational tempo than reducing the utilization of one of only two available Elevators.

as a side note, the forward starboard elevator on US carriers is also the one most often shut down due to heavy weather. So that elevator might Be considered the not full equal of all the other elevators in terms of contribution to the carrier’s effectiveness.

What is rubbish, is the idea that the location of the elevator relative to the JBD has a significant debilitating effect on either of their functions to begin with.

That is to say, if it were the case, then no USN carrier would have continued to locate their elevator that close to JBDs on their own ships for so many different successive carrier classes..

 

[Richard Santos]

What is rubbish, is the idea that the location of the elevator relative to the JBD has a significant debilitating effect on either of their functions to begin with.

That is to say, if it were the case, then no USN carrier would have continued to locate their elevator that close to JBDs on their own ships for so many different successive carrier classes..

The limits on the dimension of the US carriers, the length of the catapult, and the available deck edge space relative to the hanger suitable for placing an elevator, and the mandate to work 4 deck edge elevator into the design probably meant there wasn’t much choice for US designers when it comes to where to locate the starboard forward elevator relative to the forward starboard catapult, The elevator’s overall utility may be degraded by jet blast, but it is not useless. The remaining usefulness of the elevator may still justify the design compromises required to include it.

however, that is in the context of US carriers having 4 elevators.

For a carrier like 003 that is basically the same size over all as US carriers, but probably designed from outset to have only 2 elevators, there were probably more latitude to shift the location of the elevators to avoid jet blast. so there may have been less constrains which would force the placement of elevator where jet blast may interfere with it fully discretionary operation.

 

[Blitzo]

The limits on the dimension of the US carriers, the length of the catapult, and the available deck edge space relative to the hanger suitable for placing an elevator, and the mandate to work 4 deck edge elevator into the design probably meant there wasn’t much choice for US designers when it comes to where to locate the starboard forward elevator relative to the forward starboard catapult, The elevator’s overall utility may be degraded by jet blast, but it is not useless. The remaining usefulness of the elevator may still justify the design compromises required to include it.

however, that is in the context of US carriers having 4 elevators.

For a carrier like 003 that is basically the same size over all as US carriers, but probably designed from outset to have only 2 elevators, there were probably more latitude to shift the location of the elevators to avoid jet blast. so there may have been less constrains which would force the placement of elevator where jet blast may interfere with it fully discretionary operation.

The limits of the dimensions of 003, the size of the elevators that they wanted, also meant that they would not be able to place the catapult forward of the bow elevator in a similar way to the Ford.

As I wrote two posts ago, obviously the more spacing there is between a JBD and an elevator the better -- but if the proximity were a significant design flaw, then successive US carriers would not have been able to tolerate them so close to each other, and it would have been significantly repositioned/altered in the same way in which the Forrestal class was the only class to have an elevator at the end of the angled flight deck while all other subsequent classes removed it.

 

[Intrepid]

When the hangar deck is full of planes and other equipment, you need more entrances to gain access to a particular aircraft without having to clear everything. That may be the reason for insisting on four elevators. Meanwhile, the opinion has changed, even fewer elevators are completely sufficient.