00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

So Google earth is wrong by over 30m?

That's just what I remember from previous conversations here and on weibo. You could be right I suppose.

Well, one way to be absolutely sure is by measuring the same locations using a different satellite imagery provider website. For one, we do know that Baidu Maps certainly didn't use the exact same satellite imagery systems as Google Maps.



Regarding the drydock length - Perhaps there has been some confusion in the previous discussions?

On the west side of Dalian Bay, there are two large-sized drydocks underneath the Dalian Shipyard management which are typically associated with the construction of PLAN warships:
- The drydock to the left (which is where the 004 CVN is currently being assembled) is ~370 meters long; and
- The drydock to the right (which is where five 052D DDGs were seen constructed simultaneously some years ago) is ~400 meters long.

The measurements on both Google Maps and Baidu Maps do match.

Hopefully, this clears up the confusion.

(For note, the Dagushan site (also under Dalian Shipyard management) is located on the east side of Dalian Bay.)

 

[mack8]

What is the width too if i may ask?

 

[RoastGooseHKer]

What is the width too if i may ask?

90 metres

 

[HailingTX20]

Another one. Though this is basically just the HD version of the one posted here: 00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread by 00CuriousObserver.

 

[Owlfelino]

So Google earth is wrong by over 30m?

That's just what I remember from previous conversations here and on weibo. You could be right I suppose.

Well, one way to be absolutely sure is by measuring the same locations using a different satellite imagery provider website. For one, we do know that Baidu Maps certainly didn't use the exact same satellite imagery systems as Google Maps.

View attachment 168985

Regarding the drydock length - Perhaps there has been some confusion in the previous discussions?

On the west side of Dalian Bay, there are two large-sized drydocks underneath the Dalian Shipyard management which are typically associated with the construction of PLAN warships:
- The drydock to the left (which is where the 004 CVN is currently being assembled) is ~370 meters long; and
- The drydock to the right (which is where five 052D DDGs were seen constructed simultaneously some years ago) is ~400 meters long.

The measurements on both Google Maps and Baidu Maps do match.

Hopefully, this clears up the confusion.

(For note, the Dagushan site (also under Dalian Shipyard management) is located on the east side of Dalian Bay.)

Official figures from CCCC 1st Harbor Engineering Company Ltd., the contractor who built the dry dock.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

本工程施工内容包括基坑开挖、坞墙沉箱预制、船坞建设、总组平台及驳岸工程等，施工技术难点较多。船坞长370米，宽86米，深14.6米，是当时国内最深的船坞，采用干、湿结合的施工工艺，坞口以钢浮箱结构作为堵口围堰，预制重达1.2万吨的泵房沉箱一座，安装13种不同型号的沉箱96座，共浇筑混凝土210000立方米，该工程建设中进行了多项新工艺的研发、应用，进一步充实了公司建造大型船坞的施工能力。

The scope of this project includes foundation pit excavation, prefabrication of dock wall caissons, dry dock construction, grand assembly platforms, and revetment works, involving numerous technical challenges. Measuring 370m long, 86m wide, and 14.6m deep, it was the deepest dry dock in China at the time. The project utilized a combination of dry and wet construction techniques, featuring a steel floating caisson structure as the cofferdam for the dock entrance. Key highlights include the prefabrication of a 12,000-ton pump house caisson and the installation of 96 caissons across 13 different models, with a total concrete pour of 210,000 cubic meters. The R&D and application of new techniques during this project have significantly bolstered the company’s capabilities in large-scale dry dock construction.

 

[Owlfelino]

By the way, everyone on SDF, please don't take @伏尔戈星图 and @Captain小潇's recent Weibo posts about those container ship academic papers too seriously—especially that '349m total length' figure. These people are just selfishly trolling those who make overblown claims about the size of the carriers under construction.

Honestly, I’m not a fan of this kind of agenda-driven bickering; on the Chinese internet, we call this 'fishing' (baiting).

Regarding the designs themselves, remember that the core evidence for the previous '315m container ship' theory was its four-shaft, four-screw propulsion. Any proposal that doesn't show the specific hull form and power layout unique to a carrier shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Syrida2887]

According to some people's analysis, the tail section should still have a long distance. Inferring from the similar structure of 003 and Ford class, perhaps the last section of the section may only have a distance of less than 10 meters from the wall.

 

[Syrida2887]

Perhaps most of the tail segments have already appeared.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

View attachment 168805
Another paper says 125.6K ton displacement with a BP length of 333.3m (WL length should be close to this value as well) and a LOA of 349m.

But how likely is this indeed the true 004?

By the way, everyone on SDF, please don't take @伏尔戈星图 and @Captain小潇's recent Weibo posts about those container ship academic papers too seriously—especially that '349m total length' figure. These people are just selfishly trolling those who make overblown claims about the size of the carriers under construction.

Honestly, I’m not a fan of this kind of agenda-driven bickering; on the Chinese internet, we call this 'fishing' (baiting).

Regarding the designs themselves, remember that the core evidence for the previous '315m container ship' theory was its four-shaft, four-screw propulsion. Any proposal that doesn't show the specific hull form and power layout unique to a carrier shouldn't be taken seriously.

Here are two screenshots of said academic paper where the "330-meter long waterline, 349-meter long overall ship" mention originated from. The paper is basically depicting computer and physical simulations of a certain TEU container ship model from Europe, with a single fvcking propeller shaft (typical for plenty of container ships everywhere). The academic paper is published by a PhD from the Harbin Marine Engineering University.

Posted by @伏尔戈星图 on Weibo, who clarified that his initial post on those figures was indeed intended to bait.



So, TL; DR - If something sounds too good to be true, feels too good to be true, looks too good to be true - Then it's probably really a good time/chance to take a step back and think and rethink and re-rethink and re-re-rethink about this "something".

Yes, the PLA can be full of surprises, as evident with the 12-26 and 9-3 revelations, among some other things. But still, they are bound by the laws of logic and reality as much as everyone else.

Hopefully, this serves as a useful lesson.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

On the other hand, there have been several academic papers related to the 004 CVN, all of which use the exact (if not almost exact) same dimensions (whether 1:1 scale or 1:X-scaled), namely: 315/316 meters waterline length, 42.8 meters waterline beam, and 12.1-13 meters draft.



For reference, here's the same thing happening for CV-18 Fujian back then (312/313 meters overall length, 293 meters waterline length, 39.5 meters waterline beam, and 10 meters draft):



So there's that. Posted by the same guy on Weibo.