China's Ford class supercarrier

[oct605032048]

^^fateh71

Thai Navy could be better than Indian Navy. How would you know? The Thais have never been colonized. They probably are better. Who knows unless there is a Indo-Thai War.

My logic is not flawed. What's hard for India means nothing to China.

Just look at the past decades. What happened when Chinese are serious about to do something? I'm not referring the fancy stuffs of Olympic games but the N-weapon, the great dams, the Qinghai-tibet railway, the maned-space program.

Far less countries are able to achieve those than to run an AC.

 

[gambit]

Naval aviation in its simplest form is nothing more than launching an aircraft from a flattop, taking several circles nearby launching a missle or two, before landing back on it in one piece, ok?

No...You fool. And calling you a fool here is being kind. Your reduction of a complex weapon system, its capabilities and its applicability to this 'simplest form' argument is a clear sign of arrogance and delusion. Anyone who was just an observer on a carrier deck, let alone served on an aircraft carrier or in a leadership position of planning for the armed forces, will have a hearty laugh at your foolishness.

Take the average commercial airport flightline with all its dangers and compress it into 4.5 acres (or 1.8 hectare) whose borders are dangerous seas. Do you know what is a 'sea state'? Probably not, so here is an education for you...

Douglas Sea Scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Douglas Sea Scale is a scale which measures the height of the waves and also measures the swell of the sea. The scale is very simple to follow. The Douglas Sea Scale is expressed in one of 10 degrees.

Naturally...Sea state directly affects a ship and its operations. The smaller the ship, the greater the effects. Conventional/Vertical Takeoff & Landing (C/VTOL) carriers have different sizes and can have different air operations allowed by sea state factors: Pitch, Heave, and Roll. All factors have the greatest effects on launch and recovery and restrictions for CTOL than for VTOL type. Can you figure out why? After all, it is very simple, no? A ramp design instead of catapults will have different deck operations. Does the PLAN have any ideas on what those differences are? Stabilizers can reduce the effects of the ship's rolling motion but not in pitch and heave. Stabilizers add weight and mechanical complexity to the ship. Does the Varyag, an unfinished ship, have stabilizers? You want a taste of the engineering involve...???

Here is a sample...

Modeling of Ship Roll Dynamics and Its Coupling with Heave and Pitch

Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic characteristics of ships undergo changes because of the varying underwater volume, centers of buoyancy and gravity and pressure distribution. Another factor is the effect of forward speed on ship stability and motions, particularly on rolling motion in synchronous beam waves. Taylan [41] examined the influence of forward speed by incrementing its value and determining the roll responses at each speed interval. Various characteristics of the GZ curve for a selected test vessel were found to change systematically.

<snipped>

The influence of incident sea waves of arbitrary direction along the hull is to change the average submerged shape defined by the instantaneous position of the wave. These waves exert external forces and moments in heave, roll, and pitch in addition they introduce an additional restoring forces and moments.

<snipped>

3.2. Ships Roll Damping

The surface waves introduce inertia and drag hydrodynamic forces. The inertia force is the sum of two components. The first is a buoyancy force acting on the structure in the fluid due to a pressure gradient generated from the flow acceleration. The buoyancy force is equal to the mass of the fluid displaced by the structure multiplied by the acceleration of the flow. The second inertia component is due to the added mass, which is proportional to the relative acceleration between the structure and the fluid. This component accounts for the flow entrained by the structure. The drag force is the sum of the viscous and pressure drags produced by the relative velocity between the structure and the flow. This type of hydrodynamic drag is proportional to the square of the relative velocity.

Does China have any experience in the large crude oil tanker industry to call upon to work on Varyag, a training carrier, regarding large ship motions in pitch, heave, and roll in high sea state? Smaller carriers than the US Nimitz class like the Varyag will exhibit greater roll motions than the Nimitz class ships. Does this affect aircraft elevators placement? You better believe it does. Deck edge elevators are preferable over inboard elevators. But are deck edge elevators desirable in high roll capable smaller carriers like the VTOL class? Internally, an inboard elevator has what is called 'volumetric impact' and much hangar deck operations must either cease or slow down considerably whenever the elevator is transporting an aircraft from the flight deck to hangar deck. So if the Varyag is of a design that has a higher roll rate than the American Nimitz class carriers but has no roll stabilizers and has deck edge elevators, would this affect air operations in contrast to equally sized carriers but has inboard elevators? Does the PLAN know this?

The US Navy have 'Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization' (NATOPS) and various versions of the document is publicly available for all to see. Other countries have their versions. Does the PLAN have anything similar? Does the PLAN know if those countries derived theirs from the USN or not? This is one of those 'established' item that you mocked and cavalierly dismissed.

This does not even touched on resupply, manpower, or aircrafts that must be designed for high physical stress operations in a corrosive salt environment. Yeah...You and your pal do go on believing how 'easy' it is for any country to field an aircraft carrier. I hope the PLA's leadership is filled with fools like you.

 

[oct605032048]

I don't think the Navy are fools.

Seriously they've been planning, studying and tracing all the relevant techs not for years but for decades. Training facilities had been built years ago and personal training should be going on as well. Everything went quietly until just recently they got the cash to make some noise and get job done.

 

[amalakas]

No...You fool. And calling you a fool here is being kind. Your reduction of a complex weapon system, its capabilities and its applicability to this 'simplest form' argument is a clear sign of arrogance and delusion. Anyone who was just an observer on a carrier deck, let alone served on an aircraft carrier or in a leadership position of planning for the armed forces, will have a hearty laugh at your foolishness.......
...........................
The US Navy have 'Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization' (NATOPS) and various versions of the document is publicly available for all to see. Other countries have their versions. Does the PLAN have anything similar? Does the PLAN know if those countries derived theirs from the USN or not? This is one of those 'established' item that you mocked and cavalierly dismissed.

This does not even touched on resupply, manpower, or aircrafts that must be designed for high physical stress operations in a corrosive salt environment. Yeah...You and your pal do go on believing how 'easy' it is for any country to field an aircraft carrier. I hope the PLA's leadership is filled with fools like you.

oh my God !!! any God, all Gods !!

Connection with the real world is rather more than playing battlefield or the like my friend.
Please, come to your senses.

I don't even want to think what will happen to that comment once Gambit gets his hands on it. I'd edit it if I were you before you embarass yourself any further.

call all the Gods you wish, but the facts are facts, non-negotiable.

Speedster2 ... brother, I told ya, didn't I tell ya? don't tell me I didn't warn you .... I do remember saying, change your post before you embarass yourself any further... you didn't listen....

on the bright side, now you know a little, perhaps you can order on amazon some of those documentaries on Carrier operations and what it means for a navy to have such a ship in its fleet....

ts ts ts

 

[amalakas]

I don't think the Navy are fools.

Seriously they've been planning, studying and tracing all the relevant techs not for years but for decades. Training facilities had been built years ago and personal training should be going on as well. Everything went quietly until just recently they got the cash to make some noise and get job done.

and I believe you, nonone is sayinig the PLAN is not trying, all I am trying to say is that fielding a carrier (of any size) is not an easy thing.
just the amount of training manuals that must be written and proof read and cross referrenced with real facts takes months if not years...

it's far from flying from a flattop, circle around and then fire a couple of missiles before you return to land on that flatop .. as if that is the easiest thing in the world.... (!)

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I don't think the Navy are fools.

Seriously they've been planning, studying and tracing all the relevant techs not for years but for decades. Training facilities had been built years ago and personal training should be going on as well. Everything went quietly until just recently they got the cash to make some noise and get job done.

They are working on the electromagnetic launch system.

For this gadget, you need a lot of electric power from the nuclear reactor, more than 3 times the power of the Nimitz reactor A4W.

This automatically proves that China is working on the 100,000 tons class nuclear supercarrier.

 

[Speeder 2]

No...You fool. And calling you a fool here is being kind. Your reduction of a complex weapon system, its capabilities and its applicability to this 'simplest form' argument is a clear sign of arrogance and delusion.

Yeah right, you genius.

So Isaac Newton was a fool in reducting of a complex system of an unknown physical phenominon, with its full capabilities and applicabilities, to a 'simplest form' argument called &#8220;Gravity&#8221;?

And Albert Einsten was such delusional and arrogant that he reduced an astronomically complex movements of energy in outerspece into some pathetically simple formula called &#8220;E= blah blah&#8221;.


Isaac, Albert and "you Chinese Boy " Speeder, behold! Sir Gaybit is here!

Anyone who was just an observer on a carrier deck, let alone served on an aircraft carrier or in a leadership position of planning for the armed forces, will have a hearty laugh at your foolishness.

sooooo? Now show me how you refute my statement that launching a jet from a falttop and returning to land on it is as simple as ridding a bike if one follows the SOP.

Take the average commercial airport flightline with all its dangers and compress it into 4.5 acres (or 1.8 hectare) whose borders are dangerous seas. Do you know what is a 'sea state'? Probably not, so here is an education for you...

Douglas Sea Scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Douglas Sea Scale is a scale which measures the height of the waves and also measures the swell of the sea. The scale is very simple to follow. The Douglas Sea Scale is expressed in one of 10 degrees.
Naturally...Sea state directly affects a ship and its operations. The smaller the ship, the greater the effects&#8230;.

Thanks for the 'education". So there is a thing called Sea state or Sea scale, and I quote your quotation &#8220;The scale is very simple to follow&#8221; . Yeah, your Vietnamese American sense of humour is great, but your point being?

Conventional/Vertical Takeoff & Landing (C/VTOL) carriers have different sizes and can have different air operations allowed by sea state factors: Pitch, Heave, and Roll. All factors have the greatest effects on launch and recovery and restrictions for CTOL than for VTOL type. Can you figure out why? After all, it is very simple, no? A ramp design instead of catapults will have different deck operations. Does the PLAN have any ideas on what those differences are? Stabilizers can reduce the effects of the ship's rolling motion but not in pitch and heave. Stabilizers add weight and mechanical complexity to the ship. Does the Varyag, an unfinished ship, have stabilizers? You want a taste of the engineering involve...???

Nice, but for the moment, i don't care what PLAN thinks, as I still want a taste of what a rocket science that enabled technological giants such as Royal Thai Navy and Indian navy to have launched it from a flattop successfully many many years ago ?

And for that matter, Japanese and many others did it again and again and again in WWII - 70 years ago ???

Here is a sample...

Modeling of Ship Roll Dynamics and Its Coupling with Heave and Pitch
Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic characteristics of ships undergo changes because of the varying underwater volume, centers of buoyancy and gravity and pressure distribution. Another factor is the effect of forward speed on ship stability and motions, particularly on rolling motion in synchronous beam waves. Taylan [41] examined the influence of forward speed by incrementing its value and determining the roll responses at each speed interval. Various characteristics of the GZ curve for a selected test vessel were found to change systematically.

<snipped>

The influence of incident sea waves of arbitrary direction along the hull is to change the average submerged shape defined by the instantaneous position of the wave. These waves exert external forces and moments in heave, roll, and pitch in addition they introduce an additional restoring forces and moments.

<snipped>

3.2. Ships Roll Damping

The surface waves introduce inertia and drag hydrodynamic forces. The inertia force is the sum of two components. The first is a buoyancy force acting on the structure in the fluid due to a pressure gradient generated from the flow acceleration. The buoyancy force is equal to the mass of the fluid displaced by the structure multiplied by the acceleration of the flow. The second inertia component is due to the added mass, which is proportional to the relative acceleration between the structure and the fluid. This component accounts for the flow entrained by the structure. The drag force is the sum of the viscous and pressure drags produced by the relative velocity between the structure and the flow. This type of hydrodynamic drag is proportional to the square of the relative velocity.

WOW, a very good example!

While I am deeply impressed by your immense capability of quoting large segments of texts, where and how you have managed to refute my above statement?

Does China have any experience in the large crude oil tanker industry to call upon to work on Varyag, a training carrier, regarding large ship motions in pitch, heave, and roll in high sea state? Smaller carriers than the US Nimitz class like the Varyag will exhibit greater roll motions than the Nimitz class ships. Does this affect aircraft elevators placement? You better believe it does. Deck edge elevators are preferable over inboard elevators. But are deck edge elevators desirable in high roll capable smaller carriers like the VTOL class? Internally, an inboard elevator has what is called 'volumetric impact' and much hangar deck operations must either cease or slow down considerably whenever the elevator is transporting an aircraft from the flight deck to hangar deck. So if the Varyag is of a design that has a higher roll rate than the American Nimitz class carriers but has no roll stabilizers and has deck edge elevators, would this affect air operations in contrast to equally sized carriers but has inboard elevators? Does the PLAN know this?

Well, will someone please paste some random links of size of China&#8217;s ship biulding industry and its super oiltank building stats, to satisfy Gambit&#8217;s professional curiosity ? Thanks you!

The US Navy have 'Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization' (NATOPS) and various versions of the document is publicly available for all to see. Other countries have their versions. Does the PLAN have anything similar? Does the PLAN know if those countries derived theirs from the USN or not? This is one of those 'established' item that you mocked and cavalierly dismissed.

This does not even touched on resupply, manpower, or aircrafts that must be designed for high physical stress operations in a corrosive salt environment. Yeah...You and your pal do go on believing how 'easy' it is for any country to field an aircraft carrier. I hope the PLA's leadership is filled with fools like you.

hmmmm.. and ?

So PLA know less of those and they can not build a flat top, and even cannot figure out how to launch a plane from a even purchased 2nd hand flattop like Thais and Indian gurus did years earlier?

Is that you were asserting with all those very relevant quotations?

Seriously Gambut, i thought you went to millitary.

 

[Speeder 2]

Speedster2 ... brother, I told ya, didn't I tell ya? don't tell me I didn't warn you .... I do remember saying, change your post before you embarass yourself any further... you didn't listen....

on the bright side, now you know a little, perhaps you can order on amazon some of those documentaries on Carrier operations and what it means for a navy to have such a ship in its fleet....

ts ts ts

on the brighter side, you can try to laugh your ar$e and grey matters off, now!

 

[Aramsogo]

It's not rocket science.
List of aircraft carriers by country

 

[gambit]

Yeah right, you genius.

So Isaac Newton was a fool in reducting of a complex system of an unknown physical phenominon, with its full capabilities and applicabilities, to a 'simplest form' argument called “Gravity”?

And Albert Einsten was such delusional and arrogant that he reduced an astronomically complex movements of energy in outerspece into some pathetically simple formula called “E= blah blah”.

At least those great men of science have RELEVANT EXPERIENCE in the areas of their famous equations and theories. What do you have? Were you a conscript reject? Let me guess, you are a Chinese living in the UK, perhaps even hold British citizenship, but have never served in the military. Have you even wore the uniform of a fast food franchise, let alone the uniform of a military? If not, do not compare yourself with those great men of science.

sooooo? Now show me how you refute my statement that launching a jet from a falttop and returning to land on it is as simple as ridding a bike if one follows the SOP.

Far more smarter readers than you have already seen how wrong you are about this issue already. I debunked you in public, they dismissed you in their minds.

 

[Nan Yang]

Does China have any experience in the large crude oil tanker industry to call upon to work on Varyag, a training carrier, regarding large ship motions in pitch, heave, and roll in high sea state? .

Interesting points. Thanks for posting.
China did build a tanker 3 times the size of an aircraft carrier.

The most sophisticated supertanker ever designed and built by a Chinese shipyard, Xin Pu Yang, is about to start its maiden voyage from Guangzhou later this month, media reports said.

The ship is believed to be the largest oil tanker in the world, three times the size of an aircraft carrier.

The maiden voyage marks a milestone that "the tonnage of China's oil tanks finally breaks through 300,000 tons", the China National Radio said.

Captain Feng Wanyuan said the tanker is equipped with the world's most advanced automatic navigation system, which enables it to sail 24 hours a day without manual operation.


"Xin Pu Yang is by far the most advanced super-large oil tanker with a high level of automation and reliability in performance, featuring independent technology in design and construction," Feng said.

The high efficiency of the tanker will safeguard oil security in China, experts said.

The vessel can sail at 30 km per hour even when it is fully loaded. That means it will only take 20 days for it to arrive at oil terminals in the Middle East from Guangzhou.

Also, the tanker is able to unload its 300,000 tons of oil within 24 hours.

Liu Yijun, an energy strategy specialist at China University of Petroleum, told China Daily that foreign tankers are shipping more than 80 percent of China's crude oil imports.

"For a country importing more than 50 percent of its crude oil, to develop its own shipment will make the oil industry cheaper and safer," he said.

 

[oct605032048]

Interesting points. Thanks for posting.
China did build a tanker 3 times the size of an aircraft carrier.

Building a Carrier is different from building such a tanker.

 

[webber]

china's shipbuilding industry already took NO.1 in the world

navy build up is just a natual safeguard for trade

but not those illiterate people can understand

 

[Nan Yang]

I did mention a while back that finding a carrier in a pelagic environment, i.e. a closed sea like the Med is relatively easy ..


finding a carrier in an ocean ..... well... that takes a lot more than satelites .. ..

Aircraft carriers are actually very noisy EMS wise so shouldn't that make it easy to detected?

 

[Nan Yang]

Building a Carrier is different from building such a tanker.

True, but having the largest ship building industry in the world certainly would help a lot.