CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Pesho1991]

It looks like they have the same temp of building. I don't know if it is true, but it looks good.

 

[Richard Santos]

The difference in length and beam betweem 002 and 003 suggest the 003 carriers would displace 10% more than 002, which in turn suggest it would be well short of 85,000 tons fully loaded. Perhaps 75,000 tons.

 

[Intrepid]

A shorter ship can be heavier than a longer one. Length is one of many factors.

 

[Richard Santos]

The factors are not just dials that one turn independently as one pleases. Both length and beam are about 5% over 002, draft is unlikely to scale with length and beam Because for warship this size the draft is typically constrained. There is no compelling reason to make the block coefficient significantly higher. So The result with similar underwater hull form and about 10% heavier than 002.

 

[Mirabo]

The factors are not just dials that one turn independently as one pleases. Both length and beam are about 5% over 002, draft is unlikely to scale with length and beam Because for warship this size the draft is typically constrained. There is no compelling reason to make the block coefficient significantly higher. So The result with similar underwater hull form and about 10% heavier than 002.

Block coefficient aside, there are still plenty of other factors that could affect the ship's displacement. How about heavy equipment like EMALS? A larger overhang for more deck space?

And the propulsion system - does it use steam like 001 and 002 or does it use gas turbines? If it's gas turbines, how much extra displacement is going to come from the gearbox? Have they been able to optimize the internal layout for more water, fuel, and avgas stores without compromising hangar space or crew comfort?

I don't disagree completely with your assessment of 003's displacement. But there is not yet enough information for a meaningful answer. If they copied 002 and scaled it up, 75k tons full load is probably realistic. But for a clean sheet CATOBAR design, all that extra equipment is going to affect the displacement significantly and that's what makes it so hard to confidently call a number.

 

[steve_rolfe]

A shorter ship can be heavier than a longer one. Length is one of many factors.

Exactly.............the QE class is a good example of this.

 

[Richard Santos]

Block coefficient aside, there are still plenty of other factors that could affect the ship's displacement. How about heavy equipment like EMALS? A larger overhang for more deck space?

And the propulsion system - does it use steam like 001 and 002 or does it use gas turbines? If it's gas turbines, how much extra displacement is going to come from the gearbox? Have they been able to optimize the internal layout for more water, fuel, and avgas stores without compromising hangar space or crew comfort?

I don't disagree completely with your assessment of 003's displacement. But there is not yet enough information for a meaningful answer. If they copied 002 and scaled it up, 75k tons full load is probably realistic. But for a clean sheet CATOBAR design, all that extra equipment is going to affect the displacement significantly and that's what makes it so hard to confidently call a number.

a ship of given dimension, draft and hull form has one specific predictable displacement regardless of what equipment she carries.

 

[Intrepid]

a ship of given dimension, draft and hull form has one specific predictable displacement regardless of what equipment she carries.

The draft changes with the change in displacement. This is why Kuznetsov, Liaoning, and Shandong have different displacements with the same hull.

 

[BoraTas]

Exactly.............the QE class is a good example of this.

Also the old USS enterprise is an example too. It was 342 meters long yet its displacement was 95.000 tons.

 

[Intrepid]

Almost all larger warships got heavier over time, got more draft (if no blisters were attached) and the displacement increased. The top speed decreased.