Next Chinese aircraft carrier - Type 002 'Shandong' and Type 003 'Fujian'

Bmpd's take on Fujian. Many pictures and videos in one place.
bmpd.livejournal.com

Третий китайский авианосец вышел в море

Как сообщило информационное агентство Синьхуа, 1 мая 2024 года из Шанхая в море на заводские ходовые испытания впервые вышел третий китайский авианосец Фуцзянь (Fujian / 福建 , бортовой номер 18). Авианосец Фуцзянь, обозначаемый как проект 003, был…
bmpd.livejournal.com bmpd.livejournal.com
 
Archibald said:
I often appreciate the USN pragmatism before CVN-68 Nimitz.
1-They first defined a "supercarrier template" with CVA-59 Forrestal.
2-Then they improved it with the Kitty Hawks.
3-Before a first try (not conclusive enough) with Enterprise.
4-So back to a pair of conventional carriers (America & JFK)
5-before second try with CVN-68: Nimitz.
6-Once they got the Nimitz recipe - a decent nuclear carrier - they build only them and ten of them.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't describe US carrier design as pragmatic, quite the opposite, it started out as a war emergency crash program, the US ordered a single carrier every fiscal year from FY52 up until Enterprise in FY58, whose great cost forced a temporary stop to carrier production until FY61 when America was ordered as a conventional carrier for cost reasons. JFK was ordered in FY63, again as a conventional carrier for cost reasons, but between 1958 and 1962 numerous attempts were made to design smaller and cheaper nuclear carriers, as well a attempts in 1954 to design improved conventional carriers, but the various Forrestal-derived SCB 127 preserved, impart because many of the improvements of the other designs could be accommodated.

BlackBat242 said:
CVA-67 JFK was ordered April 1964 as CVAN-67, with 4 A3W reactors, but the design was reverted to 8 oil-fueled boilers before her keel was laid in October 1964 - mainly for financial reasons.

Due to her planned propulsion there were a lot of changes both internally and externally - even after reverting to a conventional propulsion plant many of the other changes remained (to reduce redesign time and cost).
Click to expand...
The Nuclear and Conventional designs were developed concurrently alongside each other. As far as I'm aware JFK was never ordered as anything other than a conventional carrier, the nuclear alternative designs died circa January-February 1962 prior to the ship being ordered.

Internal and external changes came about for multiple reasons, for example JFK got a more compact torpedo defence system designed originally for the SCB-211A small CVAN, to greatly increase volume available for aircraft ordnance and JP5. The choice to rearrange the machinery spaces in the conventional SCB-127C design was made in November 1961, not as a result of any mid-construction change from a CVAN into a CVA.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the nuclear Type 005 would be slightly bigger than the conventional Type 004 due to the fact that is going to be nuclear powered? Though it will depend on how many reactors the PLAN chooses for the carrier.
 
FighterJock said:
I wonder if the nuclear Type 005 would be slightly bigger than the conventional Type 004 due to the fact that is going to be nuclear powered? Though it will depend on how many reactors the PLAN chooses for the carrier.
Click to expand...
A carrier has an advantage over a submarine, in that you don't have to miniaturize things so far. You're not trying to pack everything into a 10-12m diameter pipe. You have at least 1/4 the waterline beam of the ship, and can go taller than 3 decks if you need to. Plus, that would area is a flat box, not a cylinder laying on its side!

So I'm sure the Chinese goal is 2 reactors. And I'd wait till I had two reactors of the required power level before I started building the CVN, rather than getting 8 or 4 reactors for one ship.
 
That is why I always thought that the PLAN should take their time over the Type 005 and try to let the technology for the nuclear reactors shrink down to a level where they can put two into the carrier without the need to make the carrier any bigger than it otherwise should be.
 
sferrin said:
The QE2 class would like a word.
Click to expand...
Does a 65kton ship count as a supercarrier?

Well, they counted the Forrestal-class as a supercarrier at 60k, so I guess so. But the QE class has an absolutely pathetic air wing, and doesn't have catapults.

Does 36x F35s and maybe 8x helicopters max count as a supercarrier air wing? How about 24x F35s and ~16x helicopters for typical operations?

Because the Fujian is looking to carry 24x J15, 4x J15D EW planes, 12x J35s, plus 4x AEW planes and 12x helicopters. Total air wing of 56. And those are 56 big aircraft!
 
Scott Kenny said:
But the QE class has an absolutely pathetic air wing, and doesn't have catapults.
Click to expand...
Josh_TN said:
Similar displacement, but I would argue the lack of cats make it significantly less flexible.
Click to expand...

I suspect that some time in the not too distant future the QE would undergo a refit installing catapults, it does have structural provisions for that.
 
NMaude said:
I suspect that some time in the not too distant future the QE would undergo a refit installing catapults, it does have structural provisions for that.
Click to expand...
I strongly suspect it will never do so. There is no budget for it.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
That may change given that NATO appears to be entering a second Cold War with Russia.
Click to expand...

If the UK has the extra coin, that will not be where it spends it. There is a lot of cost savings associated with only using STOVL aircraft for training purposes, and the single biggest thing a catapult would enable - E-2Ds - is itself an incredibly pricey item the RN likely cannot afford in meaningful numbers. Best to keep what they have and invest in other capabilities.
 
If the UK's annual defence spending is returning to Cold War levels then they may get the funding needed.
 
NMaude said:
If the UK's annual defence spending is returning to Cold War levels then they may get the funding needed.
Click to expand...

It is not and they won’t. The NHS is operating basically at third world medics levels at this point and the Tories are screwed, justifiably so.
 
CV12Hornet said:
The Forrestals are 60,000 at standard, the QEs are 65,000 at full. At full-load the Forrestals are 81,000.
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen that specified, and everywhere else people (including the Brits) have talked about ships it's been at standard/light load.

But yes, dimensionally the QEs are Midways. A bit more beam, a bit more draft, a bit more length. (121m 37m*2m*284m, less fairing, plus another 10x37x10, wait, those numbers are not looking right... )

Edit: Hrm, even after getting everything metric, that's a good 3700 tons more than a Midway in the length increase plus a good 10,000 tons more in the extra width and draft. I dunno, @CV12Hornet , looks like the QEs really could be 65k standard displacement...
 
Last edited:
That is what I was thinking F.L. then the Shenyang J-35 after the J-15 completes a few cat and traps to try out the arrestor and catapult system.
 
FighterJock said:
That is what I was thinking F.L. then the Shenyang J-35 after the J-15 completes a few cat and traps to try out the arrestor and catapult system.
Click to expand...

Will a new version of J-15 be needed for cat launch? Was the aircraft’s nose gear designed for that stress level when first fielded?
 
Josh_TN said:
Will a new version of J-15 be needed for cat launch? Was the aircraft’s nose gear designed for that stress level when first fielded?
Click to expand...
They should be trying the cat version of J-15 for several years, and it should be quite mature to be fielded first, when compare with J-35
 
SK2 said:
They should be trying the cat version of J-15 for several years, and it should be quite mature to be fielded first, when compare with J-35
Click to expand...

No doubt, but was a new version required or was it always designed with eventual cat use in mind?
 
Josh_TN said:
No doubt, but was a new version required or was it always designed with eventual cat use in mind?
Click to expand...
The original J-15 was a T-10K-3 with structural modification/strengthening, so a redesign of frontal airframe including new landing gear is needed.
 
Josh_TN said:
No doubt, but was a new version required or was it always designed with eventual cat use in mind?
Click to expand...
It's been around for a long while...

FG_3798147-JDW-9104.jpg
GIbJQ_UXMAEf3EW


FuTaPDkX0AAidlF

FuTf1P2X0AAX6-9
FuTgGtJXsAAcadN
F_hFZx4XMAAhT_d


Here's an artist's impression
https://twitter.com/x/status/1781207438139515276
View: https://x.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1781207438139515276


Check Huitong's blog for mostly reliable, up-to-date info
https://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/fighters-ii.html

Screenshot 2024-05-08 152041.png
 

Attachments

  • message-editor_1605715987658-j-15t-30.9.16-1xlmod.jpg
    message-editor_1605715987658-j-15t-30.9.16-1xlmod.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
So it looks like the J-15B is going to be the PLANs F-14 with it being armed with the JL-17 for long range BARCAP duties.
 
The new one looks like a wholly new development. The EW variant is particularly interesting. These new aircraft carriers with just upgraded flying sharks, awacs and helicopters will be very dangerous. I hope these developments are lighting a fire under the butts of the politicians dressed as generals and admirals. Time is still on our side but the Chinese sure are shrinking that time envelope.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom