00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[dingyibvs]

Well, there are several ...

1. seems as if it is facing in the wrong direction (stern on the left)
2. seems to be split into two large parts / halves
3. the bollards on the bottom contradict a slim / high-speed design
4. why not again prefabricated modules like 003?

and against your plus-arguments:

1. the speed of construction could be (even if unusual) due to other reasons!
2. could be a large LNG tanker, so size alone is not an argument.

1) There is no such thing as a wrong direction. A ship can be floated out of the dry dock in any direction.
2) Why does it argue against a carrier? Why does it argue against anything?
3) I genuinely don't know what that means, could you explain?
4) Why use it? Dalian doesn't have to use the same construction technique as Jiangnan, and I don't know what goes into such decisions.

 

[mack8]

Just because some don't know what they are looking at doesn't mean there aren't others who actually DO know (i'm not versed into the intricacies of ship design, just making a point). The persistent attention to the hull being built, constant updates from chinese bloggers, continuous hints coming out points to this being 004. Frankly i don't recall any past instance when such attention was given to a ship under construction and it turned to be NOT what was rumoured/said/hinted to be in the first place. I seriously doubt chinese bloggosphere would get this wrong. So yeah my money is on 004, like i said before i'm expecting everything will be clearer later this year or thereabouts.

 

[AndrewJ]

the bollards on the bottom contradict a slim / high-speed design

Care to explain? Where're the bollards?

 

[Deino]

1) There is no such thing as a wrong direction. A ship can be floated out of the dry dock in any direction.
2) Why does it argue against a carrier? Why does it argue against anything?
3) I genuinely don't know what that means, could you explain?
4) Why use it? Dalian doesn't have to use the same construction technique as Jiangnan, and I don't know what goes into such decisions.

1. well, but at least until now all three aircraft carrier were built that was with the stern facing normally to the water side! So it most likely has a reason.
2. since you don't built an aircraft carrier in a huge dry-dock in two parts with the stern facing in the other direction only to move them later and turn them around.
3. I don't know the exact technical term, but these small dots in the dock are some sort of bollards, where the vessel is sitting on and the shape usually gives you quite a general impression of the ship's lower form. And here IMO it does not fit to what we know from 002 & 003

Again, I have no better explanation, but refusing or denying any arguments that speak against an aircraft carrier and to look for any argument for one is not helpful IMO when the stronger arguments at least based on what we see right now speaks against it!

 

[snake65]

Bollards = Keel blocks

 

[Deino]

Care to explain? Where're the bollards?

I mean these ones and the shape they form ... and again, what we currently see at Dalian is not even similar!

Bollards = Keel blocks

Thanks!

 

[AndrewJ]

Best we know from current process: (A must watcher)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1. well, but at least until now all three aircraft carrier were built that was with the stern facing normally to the water side! So it most likely has a reason.
2. since you don't built an aircraft carrier in a huge dry-dock in two parts with the stern facing in the other direction only to move them later and turn them around.
3. I don't know the exact technical term, but these small dots in the dock are some sort of bollards, where the vessel is sitting on and the shape usually gives you quite a general impression of the ship's lower form. And here IMO it does not fit to what we know from 002 & 003

Several great points from the video:

1. No one really knows the construction plan here. The construction process of a nuclear-powered carrier will be significantly different from previous conventional-powered 002 & 003. Especially given it's the first nuclear carrier built by China, more cautious tests/verifications need to be finished before the reactors are finally put & sealed into the vessel. These vessel sections won't be necessarily at their final positions, until the reactors are ready & in position.

2. The vessel will be ~340m long, much longer than 002 & 003, leaving not much space left in the drydock. A large space is needed to temporarily pile many large parts before they're finally installed. So they're going to build the ship in two separate halves, to reduce space usage, so that many uninstalled parts can be firstly placed at the right end of drydock.

3. It's 100% not a civilian vessel. Many parts/sections seen in the sate images are clearly for military-use, e.g., anti-mine protection side compartment (too thick for civilian), and reactor shield box side panels (two green/grey square panels in the right end of recent sate image, each for a reactor), etc.

4. By estimating the shield panels' size, can also conclude that the two reactors of this vessel are more compact/small-sized than that of USS Gerald R. Ford.

Two reactor shield panels of this vessel:


Also can be seen in this pic: (just beneath the red circle)

View attachment 153241

Two panels of USS Gerald R. Ford: (for comparison)

Spoiler

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is such a genius in Chinese military equipment OSINT deep analysis, much more credible than any other influencers.

 

[Deino]

Best we know from current process: (A must watcher)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Several great points from the video:

1. No one really knows the construction plan here. The construction process of a nuclear-powered carrier will be significantly different from previous conventional-powered 002 & 003. Especially given it's the first nuclear carrier built by China, more cautious tests/verifications need to be finished before the reactor is finally put & sealed into the vessel. These vessel sections won't be necessarily at their final positions, until the reactor is ready & in position.

2. The vessel will be ~340m long, much longer than 002 & 003, leaving not much space left in the drydock. A large space is needed to temporarily pile many large parts before they're finally installed. So they're going to build the ship in two separate halves, to reduce space usage, so that many parts can be placed at the right end of drydock.

3. It's 100% not a civilian vessel. Many parts/sections seen in the sate images are clearly for military-use, e.g., anti-mine protection side compartment (too thick for civilian), and reactor shield box side panels (two green/grey square panels in the right end of recent sate image, each for a reactor), etc.

4. By estimating the shield panels' size, can also conclude that the two reactors of this vessel are more compact/small-sized than that of USS Gerald R. Ford.

Two reactor shield panels of this vessel:
View attachment 153984

Also can be seen in this pic: (just beneath the red circle)


Two panels of USS Gerald R. Ford: (for comparison)
View attachment 153983

Thanks for the comprehensive reply and even if it could be indeed that way, such blurry satellite images are IMO not 100% conclusive! ... I prefer to wait.

 

[dingyibvs]

1. well, but at least until now all three aircraft carrier were built that was with the stern facing normally to the water side! So it most likely has a reason.
2. since you don't built an aircraft carrier in a huge dry-dock in two parts with the stern facing in the other direction only to move them later and turn them around.
3. I don't know the exact technical term, but these small dots in the dock are some sort of bollards, where the vessel is sitting on and the shape usually gives you quite a general impression of the ship's lower form. And here IMO it does not fit to what we know from 002 & 003

Again, I have no better explanation, but refusing or denying any arguments that speak against an aircraft carrier and to look for any argument for one is not helpful IMO when the stronger arguments at least based on what we see right now speaks against it!

View attachment 153944

There are certainly some "oddities" regarding this construction, but I just don't see how any of those specifically argue against a carrier. For example, what type of ship is typically built in two parts? I would think that if anything, new methods of construction are more likely to be used on a ship that China has never built before, which argues FOR a nuclear carrier, no?

 

[mack8]

I think we're spending far too much time arguing back and forth if this is a carrier. If some want to claim adamantly that this is not a carrier, fine, they can believe what they wish, but me i'd put my trust in chinese bloggers and fora who know far more about their own shipyards/shipbuilding than someone from another country. So from now on i'll put my money that 100% this is the 004 carrier.