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

Scott Kenny said:
combined response

Interesting, that island looks like they're trying to do some Zumwalt-level LO shaping...

How do you stealth a carrier?
Click to expand...
I think they've simply shaped it to give their flat panels the best lignment and line of sight they can.
 
aim9xray said:
Realistically, if a carrier's RCS was reduced to that of say, a B-2, you would then have a carrier-sized "dead spot" in a sea of specular reflections - an exploitable phenomenon.
Click to expand...
So you shape it to have some specular reflections, say roughly Sea State 4 or 5, and otherwise reduce the RCS to that of an empty piece of ocean. Bonus points if your engineers can manipulate the reflection lobes to be moving.
 
aim9xray said:
Not understanding the anger here...the response was meant as a quip with a truism behind it. To reiterate (as meant):

"How do you stealth a carrier?"
quip - "Sink it."

Realistically, if a carrier's RCS was reduced to that of say, a B-2, you would then have a carrier-sized "dead spot" in a sea of specular reflections - an exploitable phenomenon.
Click to expand...
No anger from me! SSCVNs would be fascinating to build, if absolutely ginormous. I'd guesstimate 500,000 tons for something the capabilities of a Ford/Nimitz. Hence my crack about calling one Leviathan, and in general them being the Kaiju (giant monster) class.
 
As pointed out by @foolsball "The unobstructed version allows a relatively clear view of the orange objects on the pier and near the catapult amidships."As such it looks indeed as if these "could" be preparations for the first catapult test.(Image via @LeoSongPKU from Weibo)

1700646039929.png

1700646130610.png
 
Latest update on the PLANS-18 „Fujian“ at Shanghai and as promised, there is indeed an aircraft on deck, namely (IMO) a J-35 mock-up. Also it seems, tanother catapult test is being prepared.(Images via 解放軍評論團/柳成梁 on FB)

1702016981665.png
1702016989787.png
And a second recent image showing the PLANS-18 "Fujian" together with the J-35 mock-up on deck as well as the next catapult test in preparation.

1702016882643.png
1702016897830.png
 
A previously not yet posted image of the PLANS-18 „Fujian“ at Shanghai in an almost direct top-view. However it seems to be not the most recent one since no dead-weight for catapult tests nor the J-35 mock-up is visible.

(Image via @应用技术联合体 from Weibo)

IMG_1062.jpeg
 
Something I never really appreciated before; they went with a much more centrally located island than even the Nimitz class.
 
Josh_TN said:
Something I never really appreciated before; they went with a much more centrally located island than even the Nimitz class.
Click to expand...

which is interesting since the French went with an island that's located quite a bit forward on the CdG
while the latest US carriers and the new French proposal are located quite far back.
then you have the Brits, the Italians and potentially the Koreans going twin
 
helmutkohl said:
which is interesting since the French went with an island that's located quite a bit forward on the CdG
while the latest US carriers and the new French proposal are located quite far back.
then you have the Brits, the Italians and potentially the Koreans going twin
Click to expand...

I suppose in the case of the PLAN, the Kuznetsov design set them up for this layout. There might be training issues with having carriers with completely different flight ops orientations. Or alternatively it was seen as a lower risk from a topside balance perspective as opposed to going with an all new layout. I think the early Nimitz class had some balance/ballast issues with laid back island and Midway’s stability never recovered from her modernization.
 
Josh_TN said:
I suppose in the case of the PLAN, the Kuznetsov design set them up for this layout. There might be training issues with having carriers with completely different flight ops orientations. Or alternatively it was seen as a lower risk from a topside balance perspective as opposed to going with an all new layout. I think the early Nimitz class had some balance/ballast issues with laid back island and Midway’s stability never recovered from her modernization.
Click to expand...
The Nimitz class had a slight (1.5°) permanent list to starboard in neutral trim - they just counter-ballasted with a little port bilge flooding and went on their way.

I'm not sure they bothered to fix that even when building the later ones.
 
BlackBat242 said:
The Nimitz class had a slight (1.5°) permanent list to starboard in neutral trim - they just counter-ballasted with a little port bilge flooding and went on their way.

I'm not sure they bothered to fix that even when building the later ones.
Click to expand...
From what other posters have said here, that hasn't been fixed. Every Nimitz just has about 5000 tons of ballast water on the port sideto level the flight deck.
 
Scott Kenny said:
From what other posters have said here, that hasn't been fixed. Every Nimitz just has about 5000 tons of ballast water on the port sideto level the flight deck.
Click to expand...
So it might possibly be that the PLAN did not think that moving the CoG of the ship around was worth the effort. I think people underestimate how hard it is to create warships of this size and in particular create a balanced ship with an angled deck and offset island. This is not an easy piece of engineering for even the most modern navies.

Or again, there might be doctrinal or training reasons for the choice. Who knows. Lots of naval organizations have come up with a lot of different solutions. I tend to subscribe to the USN's decisions because they've been in the game longer than anyone else, but also some other countries are operating different aircraft launch and recover modes and in smaller shapes, so different solutions might well be more optimal. What I find unique about this carrier is that it is by far the closest to a USN "super carrier", or basically any post Midway design/upgrade. But it definitely has a different form and layout to any USN carrier (I dare say even Forrestal) despite having a similar displacement.
 
aonestudio said:
www.scmp.com

Why antennas will go almost unseen on China’s next-generation warships

Scientists have revealed details of the Fujian’s ‘all in one’ mast – technology they say will have a big impact on warfare in the future.
www.scmp.com www.scmp.com
Click to expand...
Makes sense, having integrated sensor masts aids productivity, while also helping to lower the overall radar footprint of the ship. Only possible downside that I see is that the ship will have one point of failure for all sensors, instead of having them more spread out, but even on US CVNs, the sensors are relatively compacted together on the island roof. The British seem to have the right idea with the distributed island setup their QE2s have.
 
F.L. said:
So, at this moment, the work on deck is completed ?
Click to expand...


As it seems not at all ... a small part in "orange" is still missing and I'm not sure if the final layer is already applied. At least painting the markings is missing too.

This is from 13th February when it was still in the dock.

PLN CV-18 Fujian - 20240213 - 1 XL+.jpg
 
Maybe the image posted yesterday was too blurry but here it is clearly visible, also all the red and yellow deck markings are applied on the PLANS-18 "Fujian". I would say, deck is complete and the ship is ready for the party!?
1f973.png


And my gut feeling tells me that it is not entirely unlikely that this will take place next Tuesday, April 23rd, on the 75th anniversary of the founding of the PLAN. ;)

1713333432089.png
 
It would be interesting regarding what their onboard aircraft maintenance capabilities are as compared to our CVN AIMDs?
 
Hydroman said:
It would be interesting regarding what their onboard aircraft maintenance capabilities are as compared to our CVN AIMDs?
Click to expand...

In terms of physical space for workshops? She has not even been shaken down yet and she is first in class, likely with an air compliment that differs from the other two. I would imagine maintenance planning is still over the horizon.
 
For our US carriers, all aircraft "I-Level" component maintenance spaces for example and in fact all spaces are identified and established during the design phase, you can't allocate critical spaces after the ship has been built and determine who or what goes where. Shakedown has nothing to do this.
 
Hydroman said:
For our US carriers, all aircraft "I-Level" component maintenance spaces for example and in fact all spaces are identified and established during the design phase, you can't allocate critical spaces after the ship has been built and determine who or what goes where. Shakedown has nothing to do this.
Click to expand...

I understand that, which is why I asked the question. There would be almost no other information about their maintenance practices available since I suspect the training and personnel aspects have not been finalized.
 
Hydroman said:
For our US carriers, all aircraft "I-Level" component maintenance spaces for example and in fact all spaces are identified and established during the design phase, you can't allocate critical spaces after the ship has been built and determine who or what goes where. Shakedown has nothing to do this.
Click to expand...
In 1985-87 I spent a lot of time (364 days away from home port wandering the northeast Pacific and the Southwest Pacific and Indian Oceans) aboard a US aircraft carrier (CV-61 Ranger) that had been built in the 1950s (Aug 1954 - Aug 1957).

When she was built she was designed for FJ Fury (navalized F-86), F3D Demon, F4D Skyrays, F11F Tigers, and F9F Cougars, A4D Skyhawks, A3D Skywarriors, AD Skyraiders, and Grumman S2F Trackers - and assorted helos.

Later she operated F-8 Crusaders, F-4 Phantoms, A-7 Corsair IIs, A-6A Intruders, A-5 Vigilantes, E-1 Tracers, and so on.

By the time I was aboard she was operating F-14 Tomcats, A-6E Intruders, EA-6B Prowlers, S-3 Vikings, E-2C Hawkeyes, and SH-3Gs.

The aircraft had 5-10 times the electronics of those she was built for, and the space for the repair shops were all over the ship... wherever they could find room. The radial engine shops were gone, and so on.

My avionics shop (and the test equipment calibration center, and the F-14 TARPS recon pod camera repair shop) were in what used to be (when Ranger commissioned) a bomb assembly area - we used ordnance elevators and the remaining overhead hoist rail tracks to move the larger of our equipment around the way bombs used to be moved around in there.


Yes, you design in what is needed for the air wing existing at commissioning... but the truth remains - you can plan and design all you want, but sooner or later (always sooner) you have to start repurposing spaces as needs change with changes in aircraft, the systems in those aircraft, the systems in the ship, and so on.

And sometimes what you thought would work in one place and one way, just doesn't, and things have to be changed immediately after full trials have ended.
 
BlackBat242 said:
In 1985-87 I spent a lot of time (364 days away from home port wandering the northeast Pacific and the Southwest Pacific and Indian Oceans) aboard a US aircraft carrier (CV-61 Ranger) that had been built in the 1950s (Aug 1954 - Aug 1957).

When she was built she was designed for FJ Fury (navalized F-86), F3D Demon, F4D Skyrays, F11F Tigers, and F9F Cougars, A4D Skyhawks, A3D Skywarriors, AD Skyraiders, and Grumman S2F Trackers - and assorted helos.

Later she operated F-8 Crusaders, F-4 Phantoms, A-7 Corsair IIs, A-6A Intruders, A-5 Vigilantes, E-1 Tracers, and so on.

By the time I was aboard she was operating F-14 Tomcats, A-6E Intruders, EA-6B Prowlers, S-3 Vikings, E-2C Hawkeyes, and SH-3Gs.

The aircraft had 5-10 times the electronics of those she was built for, and the space for the repair shops were all over the ship... wherever they could find room. The radial engine shops were gone, and so on.

My avionics shop (and the test equipment calibration center, and the F-14 TARPS recon pod camera repair shop) were in what used to be (when Ranger commissioned) a bomb assembly area - we used ordnance elevators and the remaining overhead hoist rail tracks to move the larger of our equipment around the way bombs used to be moved around in there.


Yes, you design in what is needed for the air wing existing at commissioning... but the truth remains - you can plan and design all you want, but sooner or later (always sooner) you have to start repurposing spaces as needs change with changes in aircraft, the systems in those aircraft, the systems in the ship, and so on.

And sometimes what you thought would work in one place and one way, just doesn't, and things have to be changed immediately after full trials have ended.
Click to expand...
I am referring to the "basic" aviation maintenance space allocation of a "new" designed ship, I was assigned to CVN-65 from 80 - 85 and ran the AIMD hydraulic shop. I am aware of space mods/changes based upon the evolution of the various aircraft types to be supported over time especially in the areas of avionics shops. When I visited CVN-65 in 2012 during the inactivation, the hydro shop was basically same except for test bench/equipment, work bench, tool/fixturing storage improvements and the way it was organized but it occupied the same amount of space. I was curious of how the Chinese would approach this, probably will copy us more than likely.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom