CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Well obviously I use those designations within the context of the PLA rumour watching cycle
According to the user who posted the satellite image on CJDBY, this mock-up is not the original, and is at a different location, though it is still in Wuhan. He says that it is at "木兰湖边“, by Mulan Lake.
It took me about 30 seconds to find.
Find it yourself here:
CO-ORDINATES:
31°06'59.2"N 114°27'51.8"E
It took me about 30 seconds to find.
Find it yourself here:
CO-ORDINATES:
31°06'59.2"N 114°27'51.8"E
I think the rumor watching cycle regarding the new carrier does not legitimate either designator more than the other.
Using GE that mockup measures roughly 292m x 62m. Maybe this is just a 'casino' after all.
Actually I think it does.
If one designation is consistently used by credible individuals and if certain characteristics are consistently ascribed to that designation, and if another designation has never been used, then naturally the designation and characteristics that has been consistently used would be the one that is considered more valid.
Of course, this isn't meant to be an all encompassing maxim (that would require more careful wording), but in this case, I think I'm well within the bounds of the credible rumours we have about the Chinese carrier programme to say that 002 is currently the consensus designation for the next domestic carrier and that "001B" has not been used before in any meaningful or credible context.
If we get new credible rumours, then obviously the consensus will change, but as of right now I think what I describe is a fairly accurate lay of the land.
Intrepid
Major
The unanimous opinion was that the next Chinese aircraft carrier following type 001A is no longer based on the Kuznetsov Design. Therefore, the designation type 002 was created.
If there should be a further copy of the Kuznetsov class, then a separate label is necessary. This could be type 001B when lightly changed to type 001 or type 001A. Or a second type 001A.
That would be a consistent and logical approach.
Otherwise we have to describe it like "Liaoning", "Variant 1 of Liaoning", "New design larger than Liaoning" or "Variant 2 of Liaoning".
If there should be a further copy of the Kuznetsov class, then a separate label is necessary. This could be type 001B when lightly changed to type 001 or type 001A. Or a second type 001A.
That would be a consistent and logical approach.
Otherwise we have to describe it like "Liaoning", "Variant 1 of Liaoning", "New design larger than Liaoning" or "Variant 2 of Liaoning".
001B never see don' t exist.
Quickie
Colonel
Imo, calling China's third carrier "001B" gives you a sense of "stagnation", like it's so difficult to get away from the first carrier "001". On the other hand, irrespective of the carrier actual design, the "002" designation gives a sense of things changing and already moving fast forward.
Intrepid
Major
May be, the second mockup that we found north of Wuhan on Lake Mulan is obsolet. There is no intention to build a third Liaoning with slight improvements to Type 001A. Then the designation Type 001B will not be needed.