00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[GiantPanda]

Thanks and as it seems some are angry or frustrated on X that I'm perhaps being too skeptical or critical, but my gut tells me something here doesn't fit with a CVN, and therefore a simple rule of "explain or follow" isn't quite so simple ... here's an attempt at an explanation: The beam may be fine at around 42m, but the length at the waterline of 270m is too short for a CVN—especially since it's claimed to be at 120kt.

View attachment 157531View attachment 157530

The supports at the front right now are not necessarily the final position of the bow.

Supports can be increased to as much as the dry dock allows. We don't know yet.

 

[Phantom Chuck]

Here is another clear picture.
View attachment 157615

The relatively blunt taper of the keel block arrangement at the front suggests to me a relatively slow merchant ship hull with high block coefficient , not a high speed warship hull with a sharper bow entry and low block coefficient.

 

[ENTED64]

The relatively blunt taper of the keel block arrangement at the front suggests to me a relatively slow merchant ship hull with high block coefficient , not a high speed warship hull with a sharper bow entry and low block coefficient.

The thing is we probably have the most circumstantial evidence that it's not a merchant ship because it is being constructed at a very slow pace compared to typical merchant ships. Perhaps that's just wrong because it's some experimental new design but still, it seems more likely that if this is not a warship it's some kind of unusual special purpose ship like the floating power plant or nuclear icebreaker or something than a run of the mill civilian merchant ship.