My apologies; looking back at the previous posts, you were not on the offensive and this descriptor was hasty and unwarranted. I need more brain-to-hands filtering.Thanks for your ongoing efforts to keep things polite and productive. I do consider Iron Man's "fanboi" accusation (which predates this latest discussion) to the be trigger for the combative tone of my own recent posts, but this is clearly unproductive and I will try to refrain from further such contributions.
Thanks, I've been waiting for that graphic.The hull of the lead vessel has essentially been completed. I wouldn't be surprised if the thing hits the water in early-mid 2017.
View attachment 33364
My apologies; looking back at the previous posts, you were not on the offensive and this descriptor was hasty and unwarranted. I need more brain-to-hands filtering.
Thanks, I've been waiting for that graphic.
With the final assembly of the basic hull form in place, we can start guessing at superstructure and VLS layouts based on the Wuhan mockup:
View attachment 33375
For future information purposes, the length of this CG is 482 pixels (maroon), and the length of the hangar is 49 pixels (red), making the ratio of ship:hangar at 9.84:1. Once we get the length of the ship from GE (or official sources), the interior length of the hangars will be deducible.
The orange area of the dual hangars seem unnecessarily lengthy as part of the hangars themselves, though it is obviously connected to the rest of the hangars. Perhaps it is an extra workspace, or they plan to fit a non-folding helo in there, or perhaps a pair of Z-18s, or extra space for UAVs.
It looks like the RHIB garages are unlikely to be housed with the helos given there is no space on the sides of the hangar superstructure to accommodate them at that location.
The forward VLS section looks like it's only large enough to accommodate a 2x4 section of VLS modules, meaning the aft VLS section would have to be turned 90 degrees sideways to accommodate a similar 2x4 block of VLS modules.
Yeah no problem.
I wouldn't rely on the meticulous details and proportions too intimately; whoever made these CGs probably did so based on a rough eyeballing of the hull and has no real access to the refined blueprints of the incomplete vessel.
Yeah, at this point I think using the CGIs to model the expected topside structures in a relatively precise way is jumping the gun a little bit -- though the effort is definitely appreciated and interesting to see!
I think the best thing we could get right now is for someone to hire out a satellite and take a picture of JNCX to see if the hull really is that complete as the CGI depicts, and also to estimate the length of the completed hull as well.
The length will be the big determinant of the ship's displacement, which in turn will provide foundation for a variety of other potential extrapolations. Considering we've had a preliminary estimate of the ship's beam from GE images, the overall length is a good next stage to proceed to.
Yes, I do applaud Iron Man's for his work; I think his representation would be pretty close to the ship's final configuration. As for the dimensions of the thing; couldn't we simply extrapolate the numbers from the land-based mockup? I highly doubt the vessel would diverge from the land model to any appreciable extent.
Awaiting for the superstructure: