Nothing is perfect. The French had to redesign CdG to handle the E-2 and they’ve had experience in building carriers, operating carrier aircraft, and had the cooperation of the country supplying the aircraft to help them.

I’m not dismissing computer design, but it’s only as good as the programmers and their experience. 787 looked perfect on the screen, but in reality they’re finding glitches here and there. And I’d suspect a carrier is far more complex than an airliner, and if a company like Boeing can make mistakes, it’s well within the realm of believeablity that a country with zero experience building warships of that size and design will produce something with issues. They may not be show stoppers, but they’ll be there.

CAD was utilised in design process for the CdG . Didn’t prevent it from having design problems. But apparently in China CAD can mysteriously overcome design faults. 😀

Only for my sexual prowess.

ROFLOL. :rolleyes: And which donkey will attest to that?

“China can’t build carriers because it has not designed any carriers before, and China can’t design carriers because it never built any before”.

And this is my original post.

I too found it a little strange that they will try to contruct 2 carriers simultaneously. This won’t give them the chance to find out what the deficiencies are in the design and to make the necessary corrections in the second hull. What more, these carriers would be in service for a long time even if they are deficient, so why not hold off a few years in order to get a better design for the second hull?

Sure, they can try as best as they can to anticipate what they want and hence formulate their requirements – but having never operated a carrier before, almost certainly will it be the case that there is a lot of unrealistic assumptions or unknown but necessary requirements left out of the design that will require correction. Even those which have operated a carrier before and have design experience with carriers can manage to screw up a carrier (ahem, CdG?), so I don’t see why the China would necessarily be immune from such dangers.

Setting up strawman arguments do you no good. Or do you just have severe comprehension limitations?

And that is why China has spent decades looking at many carrier designs from many different nations.

As for carrier ops affecting the design, well that is only the case in a very broad sense for it to effect the operation of the ship. You would need a major design flaw for it to not be easily fixed with a few small modifications. When working with tried and tested designs and concepts, you need to be pretty incompetent to make such a big mistake, and incompetent people don’t get very far in China.

No carrier that China bought had any critical design flaws that would impede the smooth operation of the ship. Any lessons learnt from them would work just fine.

The ships might be optimized for different roles, but any competent engineer would be able to spot that, just it would be easy for an aircraft designer to look at the blueprints of the A10 compared to the F15 and see which features are suited for ground attack and which are for air combat.

So your only arguments are
1. China has been studying carrier designs &
2. There are no incompetant people in China

so

1. There will be no design flaw in China’s very first carrier carrier
2. Any changes required will be easily identified, since they know all that they require.

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

Nonsense and sour grapes.

You are getting carrier design mixed up with carrier operations. Carrier operations takes time and real experience, but a design is just a design. You put this feature in for this reason and that bulkhead is that shape and thickness for that reason.

A carrier is a ship, a very complex ship, but still a ship. There is nothing mythical or unknowable about their design a competent engineer cannot easily devise from just looking at it. And the Chinese have been studying carrier designs from many nations very carefully. Or did you actually think she bought all those old carriers for public amusement?

Please, don’t say something that makes you look so base. Carrier operations (and the performance of the aircraft they operate) are extremely closely intertwined with its design. Try reading Friedman’s Carriers and stop looking so stupid. Nonsense and sour grapes? Well, the USN actually is the first to tell you that it ain’t as easy as they make it look to be. There’s nothing sour grapes about stating facts which you find so hard to accept.

Read decades of methodical study and research on carrier ops and how everyone else has designed and built their carriers.

China can study as much as it wants, but nothing ever compares to operating one. And what it studies are mostly open source info without the aid of true carrier ops masters like the US or the French. And only through operation of carriers can an understanding of all the nuances and details which make up the details of flight operations be understood. Especially so when the experiences of carrier ops in other countries may not transfer over to China’s case, and sometimes this may not be realised until they start operating their own carrier. Understand this simple fact: reading and studying about something is simply quite different from carrying it out, and that is ever so true when the task gets complex. Carrier ops are just about as complex as things get. France did operate carriers prior to CdG – didn’t prevent them from making serious errors in CdG.

I was stating the obvious. Not everything requires ‘sources’. If you think that the F 22 will stay invisible for ever then you’re the bigger fool.

I believe what you’re trying to say is that for you, not everything requires thought. I didn’t even ask for sources, I asked how anti-stealth measures could overcome the limitations as shown in the article. But rather obviously, you have no idea. All you have is an intense need to believe that stealth will be rendered moot.

Have I stated anywhere that the F-22 is invisible? Trying strawman arguments like yours is the inevitable recourse when people like you argue against stealth.

I have posted before and will post again – there is a (conceptually) very simple way to counter stealth: pepper the area with radars. Since stealthy airplanes only reduce detection range, a lot of radars will give them no seams in radar coverage to slip through. Of course, the reason why nobody can do that is because it would bankrupt anyone trying to do so.