CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Totoro]

These images are pretty high res and elements of them are nicely visible in GE, allowing size correlation and measurements. Still, I am getting some weird numbers.

The part that is lying on the rail in front of the shelter, and which seems to be turned perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the future ship is rather wide. 43 meters. But the part which is barely visible, sticking a little out of the shelter and which seems to be positioned normally (not perpendicular) is only 34 meters in width.

These parts should very likely be the base parts of the hull, meaning their width should be the waterline beam of the ship. I've no idea why such discrepancy between two parts. Unless the smaller part is somehow not complete? The issue is NOT in perspective as I was careful to measure from two sides, the width of two roads at the intersection, and correlate each part to its respective position. And GE is also not wrong as the measurements there correlate to some known real-world measurements. 052D for example is very much to scale as it should be.

For reference, CdG carrier has waterline beam of 32 m, Kuznetsov has 35 m and Forrestal has 39 m.

 

[Intrepid]

Bowsections may be smaler.

 

[Totoro]

Very much true. (Though it's weird that the smaller section would be positioned where it has in relation to the larger section. What do they plan to do, lift the large section and position it all the way to the back of the shelters?)

Also, IF taken at face value, those measurements would suggest a much larger carrier than previously thought. 43 m waterline beam is huge. Which is I believe there's bound to be some measurement errors there, or perhaps I am simply looking at wrong parts of the hull and misinterpreting their position within the ship. In all likelihood, i expect the max waterline beam to be anywhere from 35 to 39 meters.

 

[Intrepid]

I still miss the way out for the modules to their assembly place (drydock or something else).

And this place was established in less then one year. Will they build more such places?

 

[Biscuits]

The exact dimensions of this ship haven’t ever been officially revealed have they?

43m is very wide, but the ship might be shorter? Or it’s outright big.

85 000 tons is just a guess based on the size of the largest conventional carriers. With so many advances in propulsion, a conventional carrier (especially one with IEP) could be made larger.

Maybe it’s designed to be equivalent to later carriers or even larger than them, so that when suitable nuclear power plants appear, they can be retrofitted into the ship, or so that multiple submarine sized reactors can be shoved into it.

The Enterprise was designed like that. Despite being less advanced than follow on ships, it was physically larger.

The point of building a “white elephant” carrier with CATOBAR and conventional propulsion is kinda lost on me. If the 002 is similar to the 003, it will allow them to perform one set of missions and the 001s to perform another set.

Is there official confirmation that it will have those specs on globalsecurity etc.? If so, disregard this post.

 

[Intrepid]

R08 Queen Elizabeth has a hull 280 * 39 meters. If 003's hull has the same shape, it could be 310 * 43 meters.

 

[Mirabo]

These images are pretty high res and elements of them are nicely visible in GE, allowing size correlation and measurements. Still, I am getting some weird numbers.

The part that is lying on the rail in front of the shelter, and which seems to be turned perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the future ship is rather wide. 43 meters. But the part which is barely visible, sticking a little out of the shelter and which seems to be positioned normally (not perpendicular) is only 34 meters in width.

These parts should very likely be the base parts of the hull, meaning their width should be the waterline beam of the ship. I've no idea why such discrepancy between two parts. Unless the smaller part is somehow not complete? The issue is NOT in perspective as I was careful to measure from two sides, the width of two roads at the intersection, and correlate each part to its respective position. And GE is also not wrong as the measurements there correlate to some known real-world measurements. 052D for example is very much to scale as it should be.

For reference, CdG carrier has waterline beam of 32 m, Kuznetsov has 35 m and Forrestal has 39 m.

This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the new module is the section below the waterline, towards the stern, where the propeller shafts are supposed to run through. Considering that bits can still attach to either side of the new sloping module, it's safe to assume that 34m will not be the final width of that section when it is moved into later-stage assembly.

As for the carrier's dimensions, the main hull sections on the rails (43m) must be representative of the waterline width, or close to the waterline width (which actually should be less than 43m width because torpedo bulges account for extra). So a 43m wide hull below the waterline is fine, but 43m beam at the waterline is very optimistic if not downright unrealistic. Even the 100k-ton Nimitzs do not exceed 41m at the waterline, let alone 43m.

I believe that the modules are 38m-40m wide based on estimates from the Chinese boards, with 43m being an inaccurate result of satellite photography. In fact, one of your posts from last November even measured the modules as being 48m wide based on GE, which just isn't possible. Remember that an extra 1-2 metres of beam can mean an extra 10,000-15,000 tons of ship.

 

[Intrepid]

Even the 100k-ton Nimitzs do not exceed 41m at the waterline, let alone 43m.

CV-41 Midway had 44 meters at the waterline after "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

".

 

[Richard Santos]

This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the new module is the section below the waterline, towards the stern, where the propeller shafts are supposed to run through. Considering that bits can still attach to either side of the new sloping module, it's safe to assume that 34m will not be the final width of that section when it is moved into later-stage assembly.

As for the carrier's dimensions, the main hull sections on the rails (43m) must be representative of the waterline width, or close to the waterline width (which actually should be less than 43m width because torpedo bulges account for extra). So a 43m wide hull below the waterline is fine, but 43m beam at the waterline is very optimistic if not downright unrealistic. Even the 100k-ton Nimitzs do not exceed 41m at the waterline, let alone 43m.

I believe that the modules are 38m-40m wide based on estimates from the Chinese boards, with 43m being an inaccurate result of satellite photography. In fact, one of your posts from last November even measured the modules as being 48m wide based on GE, which just isn't possible. Remember that an extra 1-2 metres of beam can mean an extra 10,000-15,000 tons of ship.

Where the hell did you get this?

To add 15,000 ton by adding 1-2 meter to beam would require the added volume to consist of over 50% solid steel. Even filling it entirely with oil will only add around 3000 tons.

 

[Mirabo]

Where the hell did you get this?

To add 15,000 ton by adding 1-2 meter to beam would require the added volume to consist of over 50% solid steel. Even filling it entirely with oil will only add around 3000 tons.

Simple inductive reasoning. If, assuming that:

CdG carrier has waterline beam of 32 m, Kuznetsov has 35 m and Forrestal has 39 m.

\

CDG measures in a 42k tons full load, the Kuz at 60k tons full load, and Forrestal at 80k tons full load. Each metre of beam added correlates to an extra 5,000-6,000 tons in displacement. So, 10,000-15,000 more tons for every extra 2m of beam is fully realistic, especially for larger ships where a small increase in width means a lot of additional volume.

Remember that as the beam gets wider, you can also expect the ship to get longer and the draft deeper.

So, if one assumes that the carrier will have a 43m beam at the waterline, then it's logical to also assume that it will be 330m to 350m long... Which would put the displacement solidly around the 120,000-ton mark. In other words, quite unrealistic for the 003, or even the 005, or any carrier for that matter.