CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Intrepid]

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 ...

A lot of modern warships have an other length to beam ratio. It is not 1:9 like Enterprise or 1:8,5 like Nimitz/Ford but 1:7 like Queen Elizabeth.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Simple inductive reasoning. If, assuming that:

\

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.

it's counter-intuitive what you're saying:

65 (height above waterline) + 37 (draft) = 102 feet is about 31 m;

134 feet (beam at waterline) is about 41 m;

two-meters-wide slice would have a volume of 2542 cubic meters;

let's say it'd be about 3500 cubic meters together with outer compartments (in blue above),

but it'd weigh your "10,000-15,000 more tons" only if it contained a vault full of gold LOL

 

[hkbc]

it's counter-intuitive what you're saying:

65 (height above waterline) + 37 (draft) = 102 feet is about 31 m;

134 feet (beam at waterline) is about 41 m;

two-meters-wide slice would have a volume of 2542 cubic meters;

let's say it'd be about 3500 cubic meters together with outer compartments (in blue above),

but it'd weigh your "10,000-15,000 more tons" only if it contained a vault full of gold LOL

IMHO your arithmetic is off and I suggest you read the works of Archimedes!

Bearing in mind the measurement is displacement not weight

Lets say waterline length is 300m if draught remains the same say 11m adding 2m to the waterline beam would be an additional nominal volume of 300x11x2 = 6600 cubic meters, (imagine 2m wide slice going through the centre line with a depth of the draught) this volume has nothing to do with anything above the waterline, we're dealing with displacement!

Given the draught stays the same the nominal additional displacement would be at least 6700 tonnes, a cubic metre of sea water is 1023 kg i.e. density of 1023kg/m3 and we would be displacing an additional 6600 cubic meters of sea water!

From there it would only take increases in draught, changes to block coefficients to get to 10,000t-15,000t displacement

 

[Biscuits]

Simple inductive reasoning. If, assuming that:

\

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.

Not all ships were created with equal ratios. It’s possible that PLAN carrier designs are wider and shorter compared to USN carrier designs.

Also unless we have official confirmation on the 002’s dimensions, it might as well be an Enterprise-type ship, I.e. less advanced but larger than follow on designs. Propulsion tech has come a long way since Forrestal class.

There is no ironclad rule that says a carrier cannot weigh above 100k tons, it wouldn’t be a big deal if future carrier projects were slightly heavier or lighter than USN carriers. In fact, because we know for sure that drone operation is a mission for China’s CATOBAR carriers, it would be strange if they were not slightly larger to accomandate the extra stuff.

 

[taxiya]

How is 43m beam dimension being reached? Do we know the resolution of the satellite? Meters or Centimetres? (I seriously doubt Centimetres). And more importantly what is the altitude of the satellite? Any reference ground features with know measurement to sub meter (like the crane in the photo)? Without these knowledge how could anyone get the measurement of anything on the ground?
We have the same experience of dimension of type 055. Is there a conclusion of 055? If not, what is the point of doing the same thing for this "carrier" modules to within 3 meters?

 

[Richard Santos]

There is no absolute reason why the Chinese carrier should have similar length/beam/draft ratio as other contemporary carriers. I don’t see why it is impossible the Chinese would choose a wider hull design than other countries. The Chinese carrier could well have smaller displacement than Nimitz/ford and yet have greater waterline beam if certain design criteria required her to have disproportionally shallower draft or shorter length than Nimitz/ford. One would increase a ship’s beam while reducing its draft without losing hydrodynamic efficiency.

As a matter of fact, fast combat surface ship design trends have over the last 30 years gradually moved away from long, narrow, deep hull that has marked fast displacment warships hullform since before 1900 towards shorter, broader, shallower hull forms.

 

[Orthan]

No. That site has no drydock, so the carrier will not do final assembly there. The reduction in modules likely is a result of smaller modules being linked to form bigger ones (to the limit of whatever they think they can transport).

Weird process. Why do they assemble the modules away from any point of launch, needing to transport the modules to another place ? JN shipyard is a very big place. They could have reserved some other place to do that.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

The first tangible evidence that navalized FC 31 is now being built via JSCh They issue tender for naval warfare component via akasa
Here's a link to all the mentioned military tenders put out by SAC:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There are a lot of them. This may be the first official hint that the 601 Institute has bagged the naval fighter tender.


China’s medium-sized stealth fighter jet FC-31 may be deployed on future aircraft carriers: sources
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/1/1 15:45:24

A model of an FC-31 fighter jet is displayed at Airshow China 2018 in Zhuhai, South China's Guangdong Province. Photo: Yang Sheng/GT

China's future aircraft carriers will see stealth warplanes on their decks, likely the medium-sized fighter jet FC-31, said Chinese military experts as the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is procuring stealth parts for China's aircraft carrier-based fighter jet manufacturer.

Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute is in need of an integral unit for photoelectric target acquisition that is stealth capable, according to a notice the PLA weapon and equipment procurement website weain.mil.cn released on Thursday.

The notice also said that the unit must be able to operate against naval targets and capable of monitoring humidity.

Judging from the stated requirements and previous rumors, Chinese military observers said that the parts mentioned in the procurement are very likely to be used on China's new aircraft carrier-based stealth fighter jets although the notice did not specify how the parts will be used.

Having already designed China's current aircraft carrier-borne fighter jet J-15, Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute is developing a new carrier-based warplane based on the FC-31, a Chinese military insider, who asked not to be named, told the Global Times.

The FC-31 is a fourth generation medium-sized stealth fighter jet originally intended for export. Chinese military experts said that the PLA procurement notice suggests the FC-31 is no longer export-oriented, and is destined for domestic military service.

The FC-31 made its public debut flight at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in Zhuhai, South China's Guangdong Province, but went relatively quiet after that.

Multiple changes and upgrades are being made to the FC-31 allowing it to be used on an aircraft carrier, the insider said.

China's third aircraft carrier, which was confirmed to be under construction by the Xinhua News Agency in November and is widely expected to be equipped with an electromagnetic catapult, will use the stealth fighter jet, predicted Wang Yunfei, a naval expert and retired PLA Navy officer.

The single-seat, twin-engine fighter jet will greatly expand Chinese aircraft carrier battle groups' capabilities just as China's most advanced stealth fighter jet the J-20 did for the PLA Air Force, the anonymous insider said.

"Only a fourth generation fighter jet can stand up against another fourth generation fighter in an engagement without being at a significant disadvantage," he said.

The US-made fourth generation fighter jet F-35B and F-35C are capable of operating on aircraft carriers, and Japan is planning to upgrade its Izumo-class helicopter destroyers into aircraft carriers, equipping them with imported F-35Bs.

 

[asif iqbal]

FC-31 for PLAN the obvious choice

but where is V3?

 

[by78]

A blurry photo taken from a afar... The shipyard should be quiet around the Chinese New Year.

(928 x 1920)