Type 001A (CV-17 Shandong) Aircraft Carrier News & Discussions

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Jeff Head, Aug 19, 2016.

  1. Equation
    Offline

    Equation Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,850
    Likes Received:
    13,139
    It's bloody gorgeous...there see...gender neutral.;):D
     
    bruceb1959 and B.I.B. like this.
  2. PiSigma
    Offline

    PiSigma "the engineer"

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    1,412
    Chinese language does not give gender to objects. I personally think called computers female or tables male a stupid practice.
     
    N00813, Equation and Hendrik_2000 like this.
  3. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    6,999
    Likes Received:
    23,850
    In Asian concept there is no male or female connotation with material thing either ship or car
    So it is equally correct to say ship is handsome or beautiful.
    There is no tense or article to differentiate male or female Not like german or french with their article of Die Mutter(mother) and Der Vater(Dad) or La and Le
     
  4. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    20,323
    Likes Received:
    26,120
  5. Max Demian
    Offline

    Max Demian Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    57
    The Wikipedia article claims the propulsion is derived from the obsolete Soviet 80's era steam turbine design. Do we have any additional details on the powerplant?
     
  6. Intrepid
    Offline

    Intrepid Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,515
    Likes Received:
    1,592
    Yes we have. At various points deep in this forum. But you have to look for yourself.
     
  7. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    921
    Likes Received:
    882
    It is simple and it is multi-fuel. Given that the design was to have as little modifications as possible why not just keep the steam turbines? So they did.
    Steam boilers were used for decades, including in the Kitty Hawk class which preceded the Nimitz.

    It would be rather much simpler to convert such a system to a steam catapult design than other conventional propulsion systems. Steam catapults were the original proposal for the Type 002 carriers. I could see a change on the EMALS equipped carriers but for this one I think it made sense to keep the same propulsion type.
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  8. Max Demian
    Offline

    Max Demian Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    57
    I was wondering whether they innovated on the original design. Something on the lines of combined cycle gas-steam would be interesting but unlikely, given that it would be a major redesign with main chunk of power derived from gas turbines.

    Steam catapult upgrade theory does support steam turbine choice, but I doubt that was a major consideration.

    On the downside, steam turbines together with boilers and condensers take up more space compared to contemporary designs if you're going STOBAR.
     
  9. Intrepid
    Offline

    Intrepid Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,515
    Likes Received:
    1,592
    When installed in exactly the same strength and quality as the original designers intended, they have a better propulsion system in 002 (2nd Liaoning) than the Kuznetsov.
     
  10. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    921
    Likes Received:
    882
    Quite likely the IEPS systems were not ready on time and like I said they originally thought the CATOBAR carriers would use steam catapults. The change in the design to EMALS on Type 002 was made really late in the design period. Way after the Type 001A began actual construction. It took some major convincing.

    So hindsight is 20/20. Yes IEPS would be nicer considering how, say, the QE-class is designed, and that they did go for EMALS in the end. But this was not possible to know nor were the components for IEPS readily available at the time. I think.

    Just consider all the components you would need. Higher power gas turbines than the ones used on the Type 055, electric power generators (only recently did news of a 20MW converter become available according to news reports), and electric engines.

    I think it is quite likely if they do go for a system like that they will test the IEPS components on a smaller vessel first. Rather than on the carrier. At least that is how I would do it.
    Think of how the Type 45 destroyer preceded the QE-class in British service.
     
    #3550 gelgoog, Feb 17, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019
Loading...

Share This Page