CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Actually they're being a bit conservative, I think. There appears to be some tapering going on on that particular piece of hull. Measuring width more towards the gantry yields closer to 42 meters. (of course this is not the waterline level anymore) The gap that appears to be the hangar section is fairly narrow, though. I am getting 27 or so meters, not more.

Still, great photo and great addition to our intelligence dataset by CSIS, they've been doing some nice, informative articles over the years.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Totoro said:
Actually they're being a bit conservative, I think. There appears to be some tapering going on on that particular piece of hull. Measuring width more towards the gantry yields closer to 42 meters. (of course this is not the waterline level anymore) The gap that appears to be the hangar section is fairly narrow, though. I am getting 27 or so meters, not more.

Still, great photo and great addition to our intelligence dataset by CSIS, they've been doing some nice, informative articles over the years.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the gap in the module you're looking at is for the hangar, rather it's just the middle of the hull module that has yet to be "filled in". The hangar's dimensions should only be apparent later on once some additional "side" modules are added. Right now we should only be looking at just above the waterline.
Or rather, I would guess that the highest part of the modules we've seen so far, is probably at the level of the floor of the hangar deck. In time we will probably see the "wall" modules added on top of the super block (either at the current location or in drydock) to make the hangar.

The satellite photos they have are good (though that's more a reflection of being able to contract out imagery), the information they write up is sometimes accurate, sometimes not.
 
K

KIENCHIN

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
I don't think that the gap in the module you're looking at is for the hangar, rather it's just the middle of the hull module that has yet to be "filled in". The hangar's dimensions should only be apparent later on once some additional "side" modules are added. Right now we should only be looking at just above the waterline.
Or rather, I would guess that the highest part of the modules we've seen so far, is probably at the level of the floor of the hangar deck. In time we will probably see the "wall" modules added on top of the super block (either at the current location or in drydock) to make the hangar.

The satellite photos they have are good (though that's more a reflection of being able to contract out imagery), the information they write up is sometimes accurate, sometimes not.
Click to expand...
So Blitzo with these new details at hand, any guess how big this carrier is going to be.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
The beam estimate of 41m is on the higher side but is within bounds of what we've guessed it to be like.
Click to expand...
My calculation gives 39 meters.

The journalist measured the side as well, not only the top element.
The satellite made the picture from angle, not perpendicularly .

And the 41 meters width could put this carrier to the same class like the Nimitz.

But the 39 meters is closer to the nimitz than to the type 001 . (35m by wiki)

reference carrier.jpg china carrier.jpg
 
ZeEa5KPul

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
Anlsvrthng said:
My calculation gives 39 meters.

The journalist measured the side as well, not only the top element.
The satellite made the picture from angle, not perpendicularly .

And the 41 meters width could put this carrier to the same class like the Nimitz.

But the 39 meters is closer to the nimitz than to the type 001 . (35m by wiki)

View attachment 52225 View attachment 52226
Click to expand...
Your previous measurements and calculations were 32 metres:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-002-cv-18-carrier-news-discussions.t8048/page-267#post-552695

So your measurements and calculations don't count for much.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Anlsvrthng said:
My calculation gives 39 meters.

The journalist measured the side as well, not only the top element.
The satellite made the picture from angle, not perpendicularly .

And the 41 meters width could put this carrier to the same class like the Nimitz.

But the 39 meters is closer to the nimitz than to the type 001 . (35m by wiki)

View attachment 52225 View attachment 52226
Click to expand...

I think the exact resolution is not clear enough for us to confidently claim the exact meter length of the beam. For you this is further compounded by having to rely on GE to get the length of another variable to try to compare it with the CSIS photo to try and calibrate it to the same visual height. All of that adds error which could very easily produce a difference of a few meters.

IMO the exact beam of it is not too important; whether it's 39m, 40m or 41m or whatever.

The use of this image and their measured distance is useful in confirming that the beam of the vessel is definitely not 32m or LHD sized, but is rather carrier sized as everyone else has been saying.

Personally I've been convinced this was a carrier since we got pictures of it in work last year, but this is for the people who are still skeptical for whatever reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top