In the first picture, there is already another module in the background yet to be installed.
This picture may give a more precise measurement of the length and width of 003 at waterline level, comparing it to the destroyer behind it.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
This confirms more or less that 003 will be much similar in size/displacement to the Kitty Hawk Class carriers as previously assumed.
055 is measured to 178 m as per Google earth images. Then the pixel count is compared to 003's pixel count. And 307 meters at the waterline is, roughly, guesstimated.
Take into account that the shadow of the 003 clearly shows just how much overhang, over the waterline figure, there already is. That's why the measurement line doesn't go all the way to the end of the visible structure, but tries to extrapolate where the end of waterline bow would be, using the shadow.
On another note, it would appear the hangar module is not near the back of the ship but almost at the middle. Cetainly at the middle of the hangar length, where the hangar should be at its widest. So the 26-27m measurement of hangar width then doesn't bode well for the overall maximum hangar width, when the final product is done.
Waterline lengths for Forrestal and Kitty hawk are 300-302 m, while Nimitz's waterline figure is often cited at 317 m. So this 003 would seem to be somewhere in between, though a bit closer to Forrestal.
Of course, it doesn't say much about the overall size or displacement of the ship as hull shape might be different. Chinese designs do have a habit of being longer, compared to their width, than the US designs; likely stemming from otherwise inadequate propulsion to go for wide designs.
Using the same methods to size up and measure width of the ship, I am getting just under 39 meters at its widest. it's not quite waterline level as we know, so the waterline value might be less, perhaps 38 meters?
Take into account that the shadow of the 003 clearly shows just how much overhang, over the waterline figure, there already is. That's why the measurement line doesn't go all the way to the end of the visible structure, but tries to extrapolate where the end of waterline bow would be, using the shadow.
On another note, it would appear the hangar module is not near the back of the ship but almost at the middle. Cetainly at the middle of the hangar length, where the hangar should be at its widest. So the 26-27m measurement of hangar width then doesn't bode well for the overall maximum hangar width, when the final product is done.
Waterline lengths for Forrestal and Kitty hawk are 300-302 m, while Nimitz's waterline figure is often cited at 317 m. So this 003 would seem to be somewhere in between, though a bit closer to Forrestal.
Of course, it doesn't say much about the overall size or displacement of the ship as hull shape might be different. Chinese designs do have a habit of being longer, compared to their width, than the US designs; likely stemming from otherwise inadequate propulsion to go for wide designs.
Using the same methods to size up and measure width of the ship, I am getting just under 39 meters at its widest. it's not quite waterline level as we know, so the waterline value might be less, perhaps 38 meters?
Based on the Type 55 180 meters length by 20 meters beam.
Which means 003 is basically around the same size as kitty hawk.
Probably because there people who don't understand the difference between waterline length vs overall hull/keel length... which tbh is not an unreasonable to make if you're new to this.