Next Chinese aircraft carrier - Type 002 'Shandong' and Type 003 'Fujian'
- Thread starter totoro
- Start date
Direct evidence, no. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.
There were a lot of papers, news articles and publications coming from China over the years mentioning development of EM cats, breakthrough in development of EM cats and also installation of EM cats on the new carrier. Those may or may not all be true, but there is certainly a lot of smoke, so the fire may also be there as well.
There are photos of test facilities on the ground, in the carrier fighter training base, featuring two distinctly different catapult trenches.
The visible photos of 003 show cat trenches that do resemble quite a bit the EM cat trenches used on Ford.
There were a lot of papers, news articles and publications coming from China over the years mentioning development of EM cats, breakthrough in development of EM cats and also installation of EM cats on the new carrier. Those may or may not all be true, but there is certainly a lot of smoke, so the fire may also be there as well.
There are photos of test facilities on the ground, in the carrier fighter training base, featuring two distinctly different catapult trenches.
The visible photos of 003 show cat trenches that do resemble quite a bit the EM cat trenches used on Ford.
The PRC had a test facility with both types of catapult. They were working on both, with EMALs probably preferred and steam being the backup plan. I don't think we'll know until the ship undergoes trials which one they opted for.
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,558
- Reaction score
- 2,352
Would be interesting if EMALS are chosen. Mainly on what kind of energy storage the Chinese will use to power the catapult.
Roughly speaking, assuming takeoff speed requirement of 400 km/h a 30 metric tonne aircraft would need basically 180 MJ of power to achieve that speed. However to reduce acceleration felt by pilot (as 180 MJ in 1 second equals to over 11G of acceleration) The power have to be "spread" overtime. maybe at most 3 second (3.7G) or 6 Seconds (1.8G).
Roughly speaking, assuming takeoff speed requirement of 400 km/h a 30 metric tonne aircraft would need basically 180 MJ of power to achieve that speed. However to reduce acceleration felt by pilot (as 180 MJ in 1 second equals to over 11G of acceleration) The power have to be "spread" overtime. maybe at most 3 second (3.7G) or 6 Seconds (1.8G).
Sounds fast, 330km/h is more like US catapults, and you will get 60kph from the carrier, plus another 30 from the wind with a bit of luck.
You forgot the most important indicator -- Chinese language rumours.
Without those rumours, we are nothing
Bingo. Considering China total and absolute pragmatism, I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing it this way.
Note that they have been working on steam cats since the days they dismantled HMAS Melbourne - must be 35 years (!) so they have probably mastered that tech YET they may holding back to see if they can master EM, with all its advantages.
Pragmatic people, I tell you.
Just asking in passing: would it be possible to build a carrier with BOTH systems ?
Say, two steam cats and one EM secondary ?
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,558
- Reaction score
- 2,352
Ah yeah.. the carrier can steam up to to give a little boost. The smaller the speed needed for takeoff will take the power requirement.. maybe make the capacitor or any form of high pulsed power storage they use smaller.
I would say why not.
Like 2 Bow catapult can be steam powered while the single side one can be EMALS. The advantage might be less service generator and only 1 high pulsed power energy storage room required instead of maybe 3 to service all 3 catapults.
The rumour mill is what gives us the bulk of the information that subsequently gets confirmed.
As for IEPS -- not really.
Current consensus is it'll have steam oilers/turbines for prime movers, and the EM cats will be powered by gensets as part of the ship's service electricity.
That said we're probably only going to have full "confirmation" that it's using EM cats either once:
1. The PLAN or state media officially confirm it in no uncertain terms, or, for the skeptics...
2. We see the catapult in action through its entire launch and return cycle and confirm no steam is expelled.
Comparisons from 谈书xx on weibo based on the most recent satellite imagery via that economist piece.
L to R, pic 1: 003, Ford, Nimitz, Kitty Hawk
L to R, pic 2: 003, Ford, QE, Liaoning/Kuznetsov
Pic 3 just compares 003 and Ford.
While 003 is some 10+m shorter than Ford and Nimitz, its flight deck width is slightly greater and may provide a larger flight deck area than Nimitz, which is somewhat surprising.
Whatever the detailed specific number ends up being, this is clearly a proper sized flattop.
L to R, pic 1: 003, Ford, Nimitz, Kitty Hawk
L to R, pic 2: 003, Ford, QE, Liaoning/Kuznetsov
Pic 3 just compares 003 and Ford.
While 003 is some 10+m shorter than Ford and Nimitz, its flight deck width is slightly greater and may provide a larger flight deck area than Nimitz, which is somewhat surprising.
Whatever the detailed specific number ends up being, this is clearly a proper sized flattop.
isayyo2
Lurker alert
- Joined
- 24 November 2011
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 2,178
Flywheels or Supercapacitors?
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 3,391
artist impression on the differences on the island structure
via Weibo
top left is Liaoning/Varyag
top right is Shandong
Type 003 is 18
via Weibo
top left is Liaoning/Varyag
top right is Shandong
Type 003 is 18
artist impression on the differences on the island structure
via Weibo
top left is Liaoning/Varyag
top right is Shandong
Type 003 is 18
No chimney for No. 20. Nuclear?
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,660
- Reaction score
- 3,864
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,929
- Reaction score
- 11,110
I'd be less concerned if we didn't have a bunch of GD idiots in charge in Washington.
shin_getter
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 June 2019
- Messages
- 1,036
- Reaction score
- 1,361
Bottom Text:artist impression on the differences on the island structure
via Weibo
top left is Liaoning/Varyag
top right is Shandong
Type 003 is 18
No chimney for No. 20. Nuclear?
Following technology development, our carrier island will become smaller and smaller, especially nuclear carrier will no longer need smoke stacks, saving intake/exhaust space for the benefit for deck space and carrier stealth
Bold text:
National Nuclear Carrier's goals and missions
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 3,391
^ on a related note, how small can you make an island?
would it be possible to make a near islandless design on a modern aircraft carrier in order to further increase deck space and reduce RCS?
would it be possible to make a near islandless design on a modern aircraft carrier in order to further increase deck space and reduce RCS?
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,558
- Reaction score
- 2,352
Well Japanese did one back in WWII.
Despite the attraction of the concept. The island offers advantageous space for sensors, communication masts, and high ground for your carrier ATC.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
Not to mention office space for the paper pushers....
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 2,202
- Reaction score
- 3,306
Both HMS Argus and HMS Furious were completely islandless. The issue with a modern design would be antenna space.
shin_getter
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 June 2019
- Messages
- 1,036
- Reaction score
- 1,361
There has been a lot of talk of the ship, but what do we know of the air group? The KJ-600 AEW is a big addition but I don't think it'd do 1st world fights until 5th gens are developed, probably a decade away. One also wonders about the tanker option for the air group.
What is more immediately relevant is whether some kind of loitering drone available and can it conduct SEAD? If it did than it can get mixed up in Africa immediately.
What is more immediately relevant is whether some kind of loitering drone available and can it conduct SEAD? If it did than it can get mixed up in Africa immediately.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 3,391
i wasnt thinking of an islandless design, but how small it could be
Bhurki
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 16 July 2020
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 381
It could be pretty small, and end up looking like the truncated deck house of a zumwalt, but a carrier will always have an island.
Here's all the designs that were considered for Ford including a few stealth ones.
CV12Hornet
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 8 January 2021
- Messages
- 483
- Reaction score
- 1,079
The current tanker option would presumably be the J-15s doing buddy tanking; it depends on how close a copy of the Su-33 they are, as that was a key capability of the Su-33.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
Including the semi-submersible concepts if I am not mistaken, nice.
Last edited:
In theory, the sensors and comms could be placed on distributed set of really thin but tall masts, placed all around the edge of the deck (where not interfering with flight/deck ops) Really big radar arrays could be placed just below deck level. Sure, they'd sit lower than on today's carrier, but compared to other warships they'd still sit quite high up above water. Various cameras could be also set on those masts, helping the deck traffic control. That way deck would be almost clean. Though, such a move might be more hassle than it's worth, as it'd bring its own set of issues with it.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,277
That is assuming an otherwise relatively conventional nuclear powered carrier along the lines of the Nimitz or Ford-class CVNs of course.
The carrierborne 5th gen is probably going to make its maiden flight some time this year. Given it's derived from the FC-31 airframe and will likely be close enough to J-20 to use a set of avionics derived from it, I don't think it'll take a decade for the aircraft to finish development and enter service.
Probably some time after 2025.
FighterJock
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 5,138
- Reaction score
- 5,073
I think that they will be a lot quicker than 2025 Blitzo, I think that they would have learned a lot from the J-20 in terms of designing and building it.
If a maiden flight happens before the end of the year, assuming they are able to benefit from the subsystems of J-20 (perhaps with some directly transplanted over) and even assuming the years of flight testing the two FC-31 demonstrators also speeds up the J-XY's own flight tests a little bit.... IMO the fact that J-XY will still structurally be basically a new fighter and a carrier based one at that (with the associated thorough testing needed for it to operate from carriers), and likely adopting some improvements in stealth materials technology that there have been hints of, I doubt it will enter service before 2025.
Has the KJ-600 flown? J-15's have used buddy tanking in at least one photo that I think was declared genuine, so that is the tanking option. A J-31 model was seen on the carrier mock up the Chinese have leading to speculation it will be navalized, but there is no hard information that I'm aware of. AFAIK the only confirmed a/c for embarked fixed wing is the J-15 so far.
KJ-600 has flown.
And J-XY (carrier based FC-31 derivative) is all but confirmed. Actually, I'd argue that seeing the J-XY mockup on the carrier mockup was confirmation.
For the last few years, the 5th gen carrier based fighter being derived from FC-31 was highly suspected/basically confirmed in the same way that in 2008-2010 the configuration of J-XX/J-20 was basically confirmed as well.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,660
- Reaction score
- 3,864
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 3,391
side pics of the island via weibo
A thought for the brave people risking their freedom or lives to exfiltrate those pictures...
Any idea if it is a risked business, or on the contrary: merely tolerated / controlled / allowed to leak / by the Chinese government as a way of scaring the world - kind of ?
Any idea if it is a risked business, or on the contrary: merely tolerated / controlled / allowed to leak / by the Chinese government as a way of scaring the world - kind of ?
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,660
- Reaction score
- 3,864
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 3,391
^ assuming those dark lines are where the catapults will be
is it me or is the starboard side catapult look really close to the edge?
is it me or is the starboard side catapult look really close to the edge?
