What's new

Type 00X/003 (former Type 002) Aircraft Carrier News & Discussions

Figaro

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 17, 2017
5,751
8
10,660
Country
United States
Location
United States
@ChineseTiger1986
Look at how your most seemingly affirmative or even bold statements on the 003 has been causing some fascinating dynamic controversy even at the adjacent, prof. forum :P well, we all gonna see which part matches what you said, hopefully by some time in this December. Ha ha ha you indeed take some "risk" to say out aloud some notions in advance. Most folks will be more cautious and opt to stick to the mainstream notion and avoid such "risk" putting his credibility on the table... :D

Let's keep a note for future ref upon these matters as time goes by,,,, hopefully by coming Dec things are cleared out.
View attachment 691976
People are getting triggered on SDF as usual ... why are some people so sensitive and think everything coming out of PDF is inaccurate? :disagree: :rofl:
 

ChineseTiger1986

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 27, 2010
23,003
11
40,822
Country
China
Location
Canada
@ChineseTiger1986
Look at how your most seemingly affirmative or even bold statements on the 003 has been causing some fascinating dynamic controversy even at the adjacent, prof. forum :P well, we all gonna see which part matches what you said, hopefully by some time in this December. Ha ha ha you indeed take some "risk" to say out aloud some notions in advance :enjoy: Most folks will be more cautious and opt to play safe, stick to the mainstream notion, or simply wait n see and avoid engaging in such "risk" putting his credibility on the table... :D

Let's keep a note for future ref upon these matters as time goes by,,,, hopefully by coming Dec things are cleared out.
View attachment 691976
Right now, the mainstream notion about the Type 003 cannot hold ground against reality.

The coming December aerial pic will probably nail everything once and for all.
People are getting triggered on SDF as usual ... why are some people so sensitive and think everything coming out of PDF is inaccurate? :disagree: :rofl:
Most people still don't have a clue about the layout of an aircraft carrier.

Right now, the Type 003 is sitting there around 295 meters without the wave piercing bow and the bulbous bow.

The final module to conclude its total length is going to be the bulbous bow module, which contains both wave piercing bow and bulbous bow.


ford.jpg

White man’s insecurity.
If the Type 003 can hold up its size against the Ford class, then it is definitely going to outweigh it by a couple of thousands tonnes.

The Ford class got its waterline being shrunk significantly in its stern section which will cause it to lose several thousands tonnes of displacement against the Type 003.
 
Last edited:

Deino

INT'L MOD
Nov 9, 2014
9,711
14
15,451
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
As I said before, let's see how fast they can pull this thing out.
The aerial pic in next month should confirm whether the ship's main hull has been welded together into one piece.
After that, the propulsion compartment should be soon sealed with more modules being added above the waterline section.

By the end of Q1 2021, the wave piercing bulbous bow module should be joined with the main hull. By then, expect the total length of the ship to reach about 330 meters.
Agreed and as usual I appreciate any discussion with even if in the end I often enough come to other conclusions. So like this one ...


Some people have already spotted the radiation shielding boxes in the shipyard.
So it is quite self-explanatory.
....
Indeed, if these are "radiation shielding boxes in the shipyard", then it is indeed "quite self-explanatory". However I'm still not sure and prefer to wait for my final conclusion.
.

@ChineseTiger1986
Look at how your most seemingly affirmative or even bold statements on the 003 has been causing some fascinating dynamic controversy even at the adjacent, prof. forum :P well, we all gonna see which part matches what you said, hopefully by some time in this December. Ha ha ha you indeed take some "risk" to say out aloud some notions in advance :enjoy: Most folks will be more cautious and opt to play safe, stick to the mainstream notion, or simply wait n see and avoid engaging in such "risk" putting his credibility on the table... :D

Let's keep a note for future ref upon these matters as time goes by,,,, hopefully by coming Dec things are cleared out.

That's indeed an interesting issue, but one I beg to understand and not to overrate.

I think both forums have their very individual strengths and weaknesses, both have established thru the years of development very different standards and a very different mix of members. I must admit I love both and I won't miss any of them even if I'm surely one of the members here, who often enough annoys members here with that "nasty" SDF-habit of asking for a proof!

@ChineseTiger1986 is indeed a prime example for this: IMO he is at the PDF one of the most valuable members and I like discussing with him very much, even if most often I cannot agree with him. This carrier question on CV or CVN is one and the other the topics I don't agree and even more that all J-20s are shall be using WS-15 engines since 2011.
But anyway, he argues, he helps to understand the other way of thinking, presents constantly valuable sources I won't find without his guidance and most of all he initiates a constant process of thinking, reconsidering of my own opinion. So the most important thing for me is not to have the same opinion in the end, but the process is it.

On the other side I see at the PDF - partially in the PAF and nearly completely in the Turkish section - too many with a too much overrated nationalistic chest-bumping attitude. Statements like "you are not allowed to post here since you are not a Pakistani/Turkish member", open insults only since an opinion - often enough explained with several reasons - is simply refuted without even any argument and the IMO difficult to understand habit of simply believing what certain members say regardless contradicting evidence is a problem to my scientific approach. My old friend MK with his applause to a fan boy that the JF-17 Block 3 will have an Italian engine and use AMRAAM is the prime example of this stupid arrogance, which is something, barely or simply not acceptable at the SDF.

Sorry for the long post, but maybe it helps a bit to understand the differences.
 

samsara

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 28, 2016
2,635
8
7,700
Country
Lao Peoples Democratic Republic
Location
China
Agreed and as usual I appreciate any discussion with even if in the end I often enough come to other conclusions. So like this one ...




Indeed, if these are "radiation shielding boxes in the shipyard", then it is indeed "quite self-explanatory". However I'm still not sure and prefer to wait for my final conclusion.
.




That's indeed an interesting issue, but one I beg to understand and not to overrate.

I think both forums have their very individual strengths and weaknesses, both have established thru the years of development very different standards and a very different mix of members. I must admit I love both and I won't miss any of them even if I'm surely one of the members here, who often enough annoys members here with that "nasty" SDF-habit of asking for a proof!

@ChineseTiger1986 is indeed a prime example for this: IMO he is at the PDF one of the most valuable members and I like discussing with him very much, even if most often I cannot agree with him. This carrier question on CV or CVN is one and the other the topics I don't agree and even more that all J-20s are shall be using WS-15 engines since 2011.
But anyway, he argues, he helps to understand the other way of thinking, presents constantly valuable sources I won't find without his guidance and most of all he initiates a constant process of thinking, reconsidering of my own opinion. So the most important thing for me is not to have the same opinion in the end, but the process is it.

On the other side I see at the PDF - partially in the PAF and nearly completely in the Turkish section - too many with a too much overrated nationalistic chest-bumping attitude. Statements like "you are not allowed to post here since you are not a Pakistani/Turkish member", open insults only since an opinion - often enough explained with several reasons - is simply refuted without even any argument and the IMO difficult to understand habit of simply believing what certain members say regardless contradicting evidence is a problem to my scientific approach. My old friend MK with his applause to a fan boy that the JF-17 Block 3 will have an Italian engine and use AMRAAM is the prime example of this stupid arrogance, which is something, barely or simply not acceptable at the SDF.

Sorry for the long post, but maybe it helps a bit to understand the differences.
Deino, if there is one thing that I dislike much is the arrogant talking point... commenting from the high ground.

One may not agree with others, or not agree in most issues, or every issue, that is fine, just part of the life... the rather disturbing part is just those conceited tones.

It's better to say that "I don't agree with XYZ idea of ABC because of this PQR reason or these PQR, LMN reasons and so forth..." the ways of reasoning...

Well, that's just the general atmosphere, the culture being nurtured in such environment.


As about @ChineseTiger1986 , I admire his coolness, his patience in explaining, just like yours... something that I don't have... like you have your area of expertise, he has his own well-informed state as well... and both earn respects for that traits... and well, some times we all may have to agree to disagree, that's just normal things. No big deal.

And I do mean it when I say about his boldness in presenting those ideas, for a long time and active member like him, most folks may opt to avoid that path and instead take safer ways... :-) Cheers 🍻🍻 Pilsner... I had some in München 3 years ago
 

ChineseTiger1986

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 27, 2010
23,003
11
40,822
Country
China
Location
Canada
@ChineseTiger1986 is indeed a prime example for this: IMO he is at the PDF one of the most valuable members and I like discussing with him very much, even if most often I cannot agree with him. This carrier question on CV or CVN is one and the other the topics I don't agree and even more that all J-20s are shall be using WS-15 engines since 2011.
But anyway, he argues, he helps to understand the other way of thinking, presents constantly valuable sources I won't find without his guidance and most of all he initiates a constant process of thinking, reconsidering of my own opinion. So the most important thing for me is not to have the same opinion in the end, but the process is it.

On the other side I see at the PDF - partially in the PAF and nearly completely in the Turkish section - too many with a too much overrated nationalistic chest-bumping attitude. Statements like "you are not allowed to post here since you are not a Pakistani/Turkish member", open insults only since an opinion - often enough explained with several reasons - is simply refuted without even any argument and the IMO difficult to understand habit of simply believing what certain members say regardless contradicting evidence is a problem to my scientific approach. My old friend MK with his applause to a fan boy that the JF-17 Block 3 will have an Italian engine and use AMRAAM is the prime example of this stupid arrogance, which is something, barely or simply not acceptable at the SDF.

Sorry for the long post, but maybe it helps a bit to understand the differences.
Well, the engines of the J-20 are pretty much declassified by the PLA itself.

The non-Chinese online communities often took those notions from the CD forum as the official one.

However, I can tell you that the CD forum right now is a lost cause in the eyes of the beholders.
 

Deino

INT'L MOD
Nov 9, 2014
9,711
14
15,451
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Well, the engines of the J-20 are pretty much declassified by the PLA itself.

The non-Chinese online communities often took those notions from the CD forum as the official one.

However, I can tell you that the CD forum right now is a lost cause in the eyes of the beholders.

Even if we are off-topic again (sorry since I'm guilty for that!) the PLA declassified IMO nothing. And concerning CD, may I ask what you mean with CD forum? I have the feeling that we both speak of different CD-forums (http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php#1)?
 

ChineseTiger1986

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 27, 2010
23,003
11
40,822
Country
China
Location
Canada
Even if we are off-topic again (sorry since I'm guilty for that!) the PLA declassified IMO nothing. And concerning CD, may I ask what you mean with CD forum? I have the feeling that we both speak of different CD-forums (http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php#1)?
Yes, they did, those aforementioned senior PLA members represent them.

BTW, back to the topic. I pretty much got the impression that the final dimension of the Type 003 is going to be toe on toe with the Ford class, but it is going to outweigh the latter by a couple of thousands tonnes because of the waterline leverage.

So far, I am pretty confident with the available proofs, and the incoming evidence will likely further consolidate it.
 

hirobo2

FULL MEMBER
Dec 20, 2015
345
1
767
Country
United States
Location
United States
Type 003 has to outweigh the Ford class. It's psychological warfare. To win without firing a single bullet (meaning psych your enemy) is the best course of action. No point in making anything with less displacement.
 

ChineseTiger1986

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 27, 2010
23,003
11
40,822
Country
China
Location
Canada
I think ChineseTiger1986 meant cjdby.net the Chinese military forum when he say CD forum.:-)
The mods of the CD forum went full retard by not allowing to post any satellite image. If you don't abide, then it would result an immediate ban.

That's why most people don't take them seriously anymore.
Type 003 has to outweigh the Ford class. It's psychological warfare. To win without firing a single bullet (meaning psych your enemy) is the best course of action. No point in making anything with less displacement.
If the Type 003 can be confirmed with the draft height of 12.5 meters, and maintain its waterline to be no less than 315 meters, then it is going to outweigh the Ford class for sure.

The incoming aerial pic of December will be crucial to fulfill that definition. :enjoy:
 

ChineseTiger1986

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 27, 2010
23,003
11
40,822
Country
China
Location
Canada
Any idea why they come in such irregular intervals?
Because the shipyard is located in a island which is in the midst of the mouth of the Yangtze River.

It is 5 km away from Shanghai, so it is very hard for the military enthusiasts to take a photo.

The aerial view from an airliner is the only viable way for them to take a good shot.
 

samsara

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 28, 2016
2,635
8
7,700
Country
Lao Peoples Democratic Republic
Location
China
This site somehow posted a fairly enough accurate, informative and readable article on the Chinese aircraft carrier program... by the GlobalSecurity.org, and as usual no clear date of article is stated, seemingly an ongoing update modelling the wiki style, but less politics, more to whatever factual information it can garner -- a mere online publication with vague ownership, don't know which entity owns this online media -- its About Us tells nothing: I stumbled across this page when looking for the relevant CGI pics of 003, lazy to dig manually in the piling of forums :P

---------------------------

CVAN 003 aircraft carrier

By GlobalSecurity.org | Page last modified: 25-12-2019 18:42:54 ZULU

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy will operate at least five aircraft carriers in the near future, including the country's first two nuclear-powered ones that would likely be launched around 2025, Chinese military experts predicted on 05 December 2018. The remarks came after online discussions on how many aircraft carriers China needs, which were sparked by a WeChat article from the Xinhua News Agency on November 25, which announced the construction of the nation's third aircraft carrier.

The PLA Navy will shift its focus from "offshore waters defense" to "offshore waters defense" with "open seas protection," and will enhance its capabilities for strategic deterrence and counterattacks, maritime maneuvers, joint operations at sea, comprehensive defense and support, according to China's Military Strategy released by the State Council's Information Office in 2015.

Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, said that China needs at least five aircraft carriers to fulfill the strategic shifts. Wang Yunfei, a naval expert and retired PLA Navy officer, told the Global Times on 05 December 2018 that China needed six aircraft carriers to ensure enough carriers are on active duty while the others are undergoing maintenance. Meanwhile, China's Ministry of National Defense has not yet revealed a plan for future carriers. Ministry spokesperson Ren Guoqiang said at a press conference in November that the development of China's aircraft carriers will be based on the country's overall plan.

Minnie Chan writing for the South China Morning Post [SCMP] on 27 November 2019 reported "... plans for a fifth have been put on hold for now, according to military insiders. They said that technical challenges and high costs had put the brakes on the programme... one of the key obstacles is in the development of a new generation of carrier-based fighter jets. “China doesn’t possess the nuclear technology required, although it has developed many nuclear-powered submarines,” said the source, who added that developing a reactor for use on a large warship is more challenging than making one for a submarine.... tests of the electromagnetic catapults used to launch the J-15, China’s only carrier-based fighter, had yet to meet the required standard."

This story came amidst reports that the third carrier, namely the first locally designed big-deck carrier, was under construction and would be delivered within a few years. Without respect to the reporter, the clear intent of the reporter's sources was "don't worry, be happy" seeking to allay anxiety provoked by the rapid buildup of Chinese seapower. In the long sweep of a complex multi-year project such as an aircraft carrier, to say that plans "have been put on hold for now" is nearly meaningless. The "technical challenges" of the notional CV-003 would not seem to represent too much of a leap beyond the CV-002, which was a great leap over the CV-001 medium carrier. China's naval buildup does not otherwise seem constrained by "high costs".

The "development of a new generation of carrier-based fighter jets" was cited as "one of the key obstacles". For some years now, China has been flying both the J-20 [first flight in 2011] and the J-31 [first flight in 2012]. As of 2019, neither had been observed in association with land based carrier activities, though the J-31 [still a work in progress] was frequently featured in aircraft carrier artwork. A schedule mismatch of a few years between an aircraft carrier and its primary combat aircraft would not be out of the ordinary. In the Royal Navy, the new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth was commissioned on 07 December 2017. On 30 June 2016 the first of Britain's new F-35B Lightning II supersonic 'stealth' strike fighters touched down in the UK for the first time. By the end of 2019, the second carrier, Prince of Wales, had be commissioned, but F-35B operations were not anticipated until 2021 at the earliest.

Turkey began the construction of a new multipurpose amphibious assault ship called the TGC Anatolia in January 2016. Turkey's procurement of the Russian S-400 missile defense systems prompted the U.S. administration to suspend Ankara's participation in the F-35 joint program in July 2019. This leaves Turkey without a clear path towards providing a fixed-wing combat capability for this ship. Turkey will thus be alone in having a large amphibious assault ship with no fixed wing aircraft.

The source maintained that "China doesn’t possess the nuclear technology required.... developing a reactor for use on a large warship is more challenging than making one for a submarine." A Chinese nuclear powered aircraft carrier would probably require a new power reactor, but Chinese industry is surely adequate to the task at hand. Such a reactor would probably need to be several times more powerful than existing submarine reactors, but contrary to the SCMP source's claim, reactors for surface vessels present less of a challenge than submarine, reactors, since the surface vessel does not confront the space limitations inherent in a submarine design.

US media reported that China has developed the 003 nuclear powered aircraft carrier. China's new aircraft carrier hinted at the future of the country's navy, according to a report published on the website of the Popular Science magazine published in the United States on 12 January 2017. China will develop fourth aircraft carriers, that is, the type of nuclear powered aircraft carrier, by the year of 2030. The 003 aircraft carrier displacement would be about 100 thousand tons, with a fleet of 70 to 100 helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. It would have a number of aircraft elevators and a large ship island.

With a nuclear reactor, the 003 aircraft carrier can reach speeds of more than 30 knots. Taking into account China's interest in unmanned vehicles, 003 aircraft carriers may be equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles, used to carry out surveillance and reconnaissance missions. The 003 aircraft carrier fleet will be equipped for anti submarine warfare and search and rescue helicopter.

The ship will use the US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier as the standard, installing nuclear power and electric propulsion system, equipped with electromagnetic catapult and the fourth generation of advanced aircraft. The overall combat effectiveness would reach the world's most advanced level. In January 25, 2017, broadcast on CCTV CCTV10 channel "2016 annual science and Technology Festival" program, the naval power engineering expert Ma Weiming, said the latest research progress we are most concerned about the situation of the electromagnetic launch technology, said the electromagnetic launch technology, will replace the traditional chemical technology in ten years. The exciting news that is being developed in the design of 003 aircraft carrier type electromagnetic launch is a foregone conclusion.

The aircraft carrier battle group escort ships may include 055 destroyers and a future Chinese frigate. The improved type 055 destroyer will have an integrated electric propulsion system to enhance the ability of the ship to generate power for sensors and directed energy weapons. In addition to carrying helicopters, the ship may also be equipped with more than 100 long-range air defense and ground attack missiles. Considering the Chinese of unmanned vehicles in the Navy, these ships may carry unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) and unmanned surface vehicle (USV), to deal with mine. As for underwater escort, escort submarines may be type 095 attack submarines. Compared with the current Chinese attack vessels, the submarine stealth performance is better and more sophisticated equipment.

From type 001 to type 003, China would have 4 aircraft carriers in 2025. In 2025, it is estimated that China's fourth aircraft carrier type 003 will be launched into service. By then, China will have at least 4 aircraft carriers.

China planned to have by 2049 - the Centenary of the founding of the PRC - completed construction of 10 aircraft carriers.

(some CGIs at the site)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom