CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

I don't see what is the problem CV17 will be commission end of the year or early next year But it will not receive its full complement of air wing until 2020 or 2021 . I believe that is how the airwing of Laioning was formed
In the meantime they can trained using the prototype series 55X on land They have 8 or 9 of these
Or if they need carrier experience they can do on Liaoning

Bltizo said:

I think now would also be a good time to consider how we end up describing the JN and DL CATOBAR carriers.

I think everyone agrees that JN's CATOBAR carrier should sensibly be called 003, but will DL's CATOBAR carrier also be called 003 -- i.e.: implying that the "00X" designation is a "type" or "class" -- or will it be called 004, and thus implying that each carrier is successively 001, 002, 003, 004, etc.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this as well. The problem with calling the Dalian CV 003 and the Jiangnan CV 004 is that it implies that they are separate projects, when the current consensus is that the two carriers are of very similar, if not identical, design.

Of course, consensus could be wrong. The case could be that the two ships are different enough to be different 'type' or 'class' from each other, or the official designation might turn out to be 003 and 004 regardless of how closely related the designs are. We just don't know yet.

In my opinion, the best thing we can do right now is to give them placeholder names, so that we can refer to them without confusion. For instance, the Dalian CV being D-003 and the Jiangnan CV being J-003. Or whichever variation you prefer.

Until a firm consensus is set by the Chinese boards and insider sources, I think it's best to avoid using '004' to refer to the Jiangnan carrier, because we know that a 100,000-ton CATOBAR succeeding the 003s isn't far off, which for all we know could be the 'real' 004. Our top priority now should just be to establish non-confusing labels for the two CATOBAR CVs under construction.

Higgle said:

The problem with calling the Dalian CV 003 and the Jiangnan CV 004 is that it implies that they are separate projects, when the current consensus is that the two carriers are of very similar, if not identical, design.

Click to expand...

001 and 002 are very similar, too. So I think to call them 003 and 004 are no problem at all.

As long as we have no technical details, we count them from 1 to n. In a later step we put them into classes. At the moment there is only one class: "Kuznetzsov", 1st built in Ukraine, 2nd built in Ukraine and finished in China and 3rd built in China.

Intrepid said:

001 and 002 are very similar, too. So I think to call them 003 and 004 are no problem at all.

As long as we have no technical details, we count them from 1 to n. In a later step we put them into classes. At the moment there is only one class: "Kuznetzsov", 1st built in Ukraine, 2nd built in Ukraine and finished in China and 3rd built in China.

Click to expand...

Right, but the DL and JN carriers are being constructed simultaneously, with more or less the same design, which by conventional wisdom and definition puts them in a class of their own. 001 and 002 were constructed separately almost 30 years apart, with completely different internals and technologies on board, which is arguably enough to put them in different classes.

Look at the American standard-type battleships, for instance. In terms of general design, the Pennsylvania-class, Nevada-class, Tennessee-class, and New Mexico-class were more or less identical. Only minor improvements, mostly internal, (and almost zero visual difference) were made, yet these were 9 ships in 4 separate classes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's one right answer here. This kind of disagreement is why we should rationally discuss what the new carriers should be labelled. Right now, your word is only as good as mine.

Higgle said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's one right answer here. This kind of disagreement is why we should rationally discuss what the new carriers should be labelled. Right now, your word is only as good as mine.

Click to expand...

I personally call them 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Chinese carriers simply distinguished after the start of construction, so I am free from all this hullnumber-, type- and class-discussions.

For a short time I called them 001, 002, 003 and 004, because that was very similar to my nomenclature. I think I'll leave it.

I call them 001, 002, 003 and 004

SinoSoldier said:

The general lack of new carrier aircraft is odd to say the least. To date there has been no hint of a resumption in J-15 production, development of a J-15B, or anything in that realm. The fact that CV-17 is set to enter service in 2019 and that its new pilots have already begun training aboard the CV-16 makes it all the weirder.

Regarding next-generation PLAN fighters, I think gongke101 mentioned that we might get the results of the tender in a few months' time. If we're to go by pb19980515's claim that the J-XY will fly in late 2019, an IOC date of 2025 (roughly when CV-18 and CV-19 will be entering service) isn't too implausible. But again, pb19980515 has been incorrectly pessimistic in his claims in the past (e.g. J-15D) and it's possible that the PLAN might have a few surprises up its sleeve.

Click to expand...

The perceived lack of new carrier aircraft could be due to a bunch of different things. There's been more of a communications blackout from China in the last year. So as far as we know the aircraft could have been put into production already. We also know they were testing prototype catapults (EMALS and steam catapults) on a land airstrip with some J-15 variant. This likely means that test J-15 airframe was strengthened to support launches from a catapult (AFAIK the original Su-33 did not have this as it was supposed to be only launched from STOBAR carriers). The J-15D is basically a Chinese clone/upgrade of the Su-30MKK for EW. That's a dual seat airplane. Which makes sense for long distance bombing missions or EW so you can have a dedicated navigator/systems operator. It also makes sense for training purposes. But a fleet defense fighter aircraft would only need a single seat fighter. So if you were to upgrade the J-15 for that role you would a) strengthen the fuselage for CATOBAR operation, b) improve the avionics, c) improve the engines, etc. Since these fighters are going to be built in small numbers they will likely reuse as much technology from other programs as they can. The J-15 airframe is already improved vs the Su-33 because the J-15 allegedly has lower empty weight than the Su-33 (I expect it's from more composite materials in construction and/or more advanced avionics). I also feel like they've continuously been doing upgrades to the J-15 while it's been operational on the Liaoning. I remember seeing different pictures of the cockpit instruments for example. I think they did engine upgrades as well. There is the possibility of integrating Su-35S technology but are those engines really reliable for sea conditions? I wouldn't bet on that. So it's quite likely you will see much the same J-15s in the CV-17 and probably even the CV-18/CV-19 initially. There is bound to eventually be a naval stealth aircraft. But considering the delays with the naval F-35C and the lack of carriers capable of operating with the F-35B I would say it's probably not the highest priority item on their naval agenda right now.
I would say the new IEPS and nuclear propulsion for large vessels are more important. The first would increase stealth in terms of noise and the second would increase range and endurance of the boats. China has less overseas military ports than the US and the Chinese seas are surrounded with foreign sensors similar to those in the GIUK gap.

Daniel707 said:

This Lucas also said,

For Type 003 AC #1 in Jiangnan Shipyard : Currently, in Shanghai, modular block farication is in progress. At the earliest, around November this year, assembly of these module blocks will commence.

For Type 003 AC #2 in Dalian Shipyard : In Dalian shipyard, work (steel cutting) commenced in May 2018 (see a few posts earlier). Spies (i.e. wall climbers) will be able to spot the module blocks after CV-16 Liaoning completes her maintenance works. Module block assembly will take place around August 2019.


Anyway, Let's relax, sit back, and wait for another months. We can see if his "leak" is true or not

nb : He also indicate that Type 003 AC #1 and #2 is Nuclear Powered EMALS Aircraft Carrier.
(who knows? we need to be patient to know the unknown)

Click to expand...

There is no chance that any of the Chinese carriers currently being built is nuclear-powered.

Interstellar said:

There is no chance that any of the Chinese carriers currently being built is nuclear-powered.

Click to expand...

In fact, we do not know.

But with the cautious approach that the Chinese have hitherto demonstrated, it would be very unusual for them to do two big leaps (CATOBAR & nuclear) at once.

There is little point in speculation now. I suspect we will get conclusive evidence quite soon as more pictures of modules show up.