Perhaps so but it still doesen’t make the fact vanish that the 052B/C and the older 113 are having inferior engines that where orginally planned for the ships. If PLAN is about to incorporate another steam powered ships then it just shows the inadequance of chinese shipdesign standarts as all other major warship builders have moved onwards to using either gas or diesel engines (only difference are carrier size ships). Using steam engines in modern destroyer designs is pretty much same as using turbojets in modern fighters.

Do I need to point out that every nuclear powered vessel is essentially a steam powered vessel, with the reactor(s) merely replacing the boiler(s)? Even the MESMA AIP system is based on a steam turbine.

Steam turbines even enjoy a few notable packaging advantages in naval applications.

Since China has been denied access to the latest gas turbine technology from the United States and the UK, it makes sense that China has retained the ability to produce steam powered warships.

The main problem with the Aden 25 was that the ammo feed to the pods required the belt to be curved in an extreme fashion, which caused constant failures to fire because the belt jammed or broke. Many years were spent trying to solve this problem, to no effect.

I don’t know why they didn’t fit another gun instead. Obviously, they could have used the old 30mm Aden as carried by the Sea Harriers before their demise this year, or they could have taken 27mm Mausers from decommissioned Tornados (it is closely comparable in size, weight and performance to the Aden 25).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

I have always been puzzled by the switch to Oerlikon 25×137 ammunition? I can see obvious advantages in terms of muzzle velocity, but it seemed like a needless logistic complication.

Of course, I am surprised that the 25mm Oerlikon was never proposed as an aircraft gun

Since they’re both small islands, if the Army has do do any fighting…that means the war is over!
As you suggest, Taiwan or Japan trying to fight China’s Army would be a losing proposition.

I should also point out that ground forces typically have an expeditionary warfare function which is largely absent in both Taiwan and Japan. If Taiwan and Japan actually took a role in overseas coalition military operations, they might actually have a justification for larger, better equipped ground forces.

No one seems to have noticed that the F-8E(FN) first flew in 1964 and only went into service in 1966 – very late indeed. At this point, the RN’s carrier force was already on its way to oblivion.

In retrospect, the F-8 wasn’t the great “MiG fighter” that some people make it out to be. The whole point of this thread seems to be that the F-8 was equal to the F-4 in technology, and superior in combat performance. This is just not true. Until the F-4, just about every USN jet fighter represented an “interim capability,” and the same is probably true of the of the F-8.

If the F-8 saw a reasonable degree of success over North Vietnam, it was only because of the naval aviators who flew the type, not because of the “superiority” of the type.

You never hear much about this jet, but it had an excellent record and was gorgeous to look at. Why when it performed just as well as the F-4 and was talked about so well by its pilots didn’t the F-8 Crusader gain major export success? I mean outside the US only France and the Phillippines bothered to order it!!!

The F-8 failed to gain new production export orders (outside of France) because Lockheed’s F-104 and Northrop’s F-5 dominated the western-alligned market. Perhaps the F-8 was a better fighter than the F-104, but the intake design precluded an avionics fit of sufficent size for beyond-visual range missiles. Ironically, the F-8 was too big and too expensive for most export markets as well.

France’s purchase of the F-8 was probably a mistake, since the order was placed at the very end of the production run, just as the USN was phasing out the F-8. In truth, France’s F-8s were probably obsolete from the day they were ordered.

The Philippines did order a few refurbished F-8s, but they didn’t serve nearly as long as France’s. Perhaps the the F-8 required too much upkeep or the airframes were overaged to begin with, but the Philippines didn’t keep the type active for very long. Perhaps the F-5 was right type of fighter after all for this sort of third world air force?

1) I wholeheartedly agree.
3) Indisputable.

But 2) – how does 3rd place after S. Korea & Japan “dominate the world”? One day, maybe – perhaps quite soon in tonnage, though later in revenues (Chinese ships are cheap not just because the prices are low but because they’re mostly bottom-end, basic simple vessels). But not yet. 14.5% of world tonnage last year, compared to S. Korea 35% & Japan 29%.

The Japanese and South Korean shipbuilding industries are going the way of Europe and the United States. China is indeed very close to dominiating the world in overall tonnage, but the scary thing is that China is attempting to chase some of the higher margin and more speciallized markets. For instance Japan and Korea have never been able break Europe’s hold on the cruise ship market, but China is making a huge attempt to do just that.

Here are some of my pictures onboard the MSC Lucy, 324m long, speed of 27kts with a 90,000hp engine, can take around 8,800TEU, although as you know they never really take that amount.

How big is the crew?

I also wonder about the operating economics of a 25-27kt ship compared to a 22-23kt ship? Does the timesensitive nature of the cargo offset the additional fuel consumption?

Then there is the big question for a naval aviation board:

How would one compare the acquisition and operating costs of an aircraft carrier converted from a 27kt container liner with the purpose designed 25kt CV-F?

What we should do is subsidize Boeing to the same extent as Airbus and see what happens with a level playing field…

America already subsidizes Boeing. The only difference is that in the United States it is largely the state and local governments that offer grants, tax deferrment and loans to sustain or create local employment. Many localities have already agreed to “subsidize” some aspect of 787 “Dreamliner” production, having outbidded the losing state and local governments.

The reality is that American subsidizes aerospace – and industry in general – just as much as Europe. We just do it differently.