CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Is it possible for an aircraft carrier 90k+ tons but not nuclear powered?
Intrepid
Major
Yes.
The missing elements are definitely there now. Whether or not they have been joined is too hard to tell. We thought a lot of the modules from before were joined, but clearer pictures revealed that there were still small gaps between them. However, since all the modules are present now for the lower hull, I would expect them to begin joining them up soon, if they haven't started already.
Yes, of course. The Kitty Hawks were 80k+ tons full load with 210 MW of power for propulsion, while the Enterprise had the same output but 90k+ tons full load. Enterprise had nuclear reactors, but power at the shafts were still total 210 MW. Most likely, an improved underwater hull form and higher fineness ratio (8.2 vs 7.5) gave her a higher top speed compared to the Forrestals, despite displacing 10k tons more on full load.
I would not be surprised if 003 ended up with similar dimensions to the Enterprise, with waterline length of 320m and beam of 40m, plus a slim hull form unlike the Nimitzs, this could put her at 78k to 80k normal displacement and 85k full load. A good hull shape designed with a modern understanding of hydrodynamics, plus 210 MW of power going to the shafts, could give her a top speed of 32-33 kns. Beyond that is unlikely, given the exponentially increasing power requirements for attaining higher speeds.
The speed beyond which further increase is unlikely would be the displacement or hull speed. This is the last efficient speed for a displacement hull. For a waterline hull length of 320m, that would be around 43.4 kts.
A Chinese paper from 2013 discussed the design of an optimized Kitty Hawk hull, with coincidentally waterline length of 320m. Judging by this figure, it would appear the hull would require about 110MW of effective power to attain 35kts, which they described as the economical speed. About 180MW to attain 40kts. The ratio of effective power to shaft power ranges between 55%-75%, and is a function of gear, shaft, propeller and hull efficiency.
Last edited:
I don't think it's actually that different. Ford's picture is at a later stage in construction where the bow has already flared out a bit.
While we all want to know the true dimensions and displacement of carrier 003, it is really not so important if it displaces 75000t or 80000t, etc.
As a note it would be helpful if people articulate the units of measure they are referencing, as I have seen much confusion as people quote figures based in Metric, Imperial, and American units. For example, there is no such thing as a metric ton! There are tonnes, Tons, and U.S. Tons. This Forum should use Metric given its international focus!
There are four elements that can help display how effective an aircraft carrier is: the layout of the vessel itself, the aircraft it carries, the supporting vessels that are part of the Battlegroup, and the training the Battlegroup has conducted.
To look first at the layout of the vessel itself. Critical elements include: available deck area; number, positioning, speed, and capacity of lifts; hangar size; and number, positioning, and capacity of catapults.
Some notable points on contemporary aircraft carriers: the Gerald Ford class carriers have reduced the number of lifts from the previous class from four to three, primarily because this increases available deck area; the HMS Elizabeth class has achieved a very large deck area given its hull form, and while it only has two lifts they are each capable of lifting two aircraft simultaneously without interfering with flight operations.
Second, we assess the aircraft on the aircraft carrier. A catapult-launched and updated variant of the J-15 will likely be a very capable fighter/strike aircraft, given its likely range/payload performance. Yes, it has a large RCS, but this is secondary to its primary role. To augment this a fifth (or forth) generation fighter is required. This appears likely given current information on the development of the F/C-31. Such a platform is primarily required for air dominance and initial (and payload limited) strike. Anti-submarine warfare is already covered by the Z-18, although a fixed-wing element would add to this in terms of range (perhaps a derivative of the KJ-600). The apparent development of a fixed-wing airborne early warning aircraft is a vital development for China’s CATOBAR carrier. The KJ-600 (as suggested) would provide the final critical element to the aircraft compliment to a Chinese CATOBAR carrier.
As a note it would be helpful if people articulate the units of measure they are referencing, as I have seen much confusion as people quote figures based in Metric, Imperial, and American units. For example, there is no such thing as a metric ton! There are tonnes, Tons, and U.S. Tons. This Forum should use Metric given its international focus!
There are four elements that can help display how effective an aircraft carrier is: the layout of the vessel itself, the aircraft it carries, the supporting vessels that are part of the Battlegroup, and the training the Battlegroup has conducted.
To look first at the layout of the vessel itself. Critical elements include: available deck area; number, positioning, speed, and capacity of lifts; hangar size; and number, positioning, and capacity of catapults.
Some notable points on contemporary aircraft carriers: the Gerald Ford class carriers have reduced the number of lifts from the previous class from four to three, primarily because this increases available deck area; the HMS Elizabeth class has achieved a very large deck area given its hull form, and while it only has two lifts they are each capable of lifting two aircraft simultaneously without interfering with flight operations.
Second, we assess the aircraft on the aircraft carrier. A catapult-launched and updated variant of the J-15 will likely be a very capable fighter/strike aircraft, given its likely range/payload performance. Yes, it has a large RCS, but this is secondary to its primary role. To augment this a fifth (or forth) generation fighter is required. This appears likely given current information on the development of the F/C-31. Such a platform is primarily required for air dominance and initial (and payload limited) strike. Anti-submarine warfare is already covered by the Z-18, although a fixed-wing element would add to this in terms of range (perhaps a derivative of the KJ-600). The apparent development of a fixed-wing airborne early warning aircraft is a vital development for China’s CATOBAR carrier. The KJ-600 (as suggested) would provide the final critical element to the aircraft compliment to a Chinese CATOBAR carrier.
Intrepid
Major
I don't care, I don't need this information. I know 003 will be the same size or a little bit bigger than Liaoning / Shandong. That's enough for me.
It is just another step in development towards the "real" Chinese aircraft carrier. And the Chinese do it really well: they work their way through the individual phases and don't start with gaps in experience at the end of the story.