CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[foxmulder]

I've showed two images which, to me, clearly show the hangar width. Can you show exact images that you have in mind, which, according to you, show that hangar "is clearly wider by a very significant margin"?

1) We are not 100% sure what you shared in the pictures is the hangar, It can be part of engine (reactor ) room, too.
2) The hangar does not have to be a "perfect" rectangle so some section can be wider/narrower.
3) Waterline beam is *10* meters wider than 002. (This is what I referred as satellite pictures, I know it was not clear)
4) Ship is around 35% heavier.
5) Expected to have 50% more aircraft.

 

[Totoro]

002/Kuznetsov waterline beam is ~35 m.
Width at the hangar deck level of both is some ~38 m.

003's width at the hangar deck level is some 39.5 m.
Which would make the likely waterline beam of 003 around 36 to 37 m.

 

[Mirabo]

1) We are not 100% sure what you shared in the pictures is the hangar, It can be part of engine (reactor ) room, too.

002/Kuznetsov waterline beam is ~35 m.
Width at the hangar deck level of both is some ~38 m.

003's width at the hangar deck level is some 39.5 m.
Which would make the likely waterline beam of 003 around 36 to 37 m.

The photo is 100% showing the hangar as that is a module with the upper four decks (hangar 3 decks tall + gallery deck over the hangar). Lower hull assembly was completed months ago.

But in my opinion, @Totoro got his measurement a little bit off. First, we must remember that this is well above waterline level. If waterline beam is 39 m, then the width at hangar deck should closer to 42 or 43 m due to the incline.

The waterline beam must be around 39 m if we expect 003 to displace 10k - 15k tons more than 002 full load, unless it has a very high block coefficient. All satellite and eyeball estimates since the first sighting of the modules had estimated 39 or 40 m at the waterline so I'm more confident to go with this ballpark figure anyway. And all the 75k - 80k ton designs have ~40 m waterline beams, including the Forrestals, Kitty Hawks, and Ulyanovsk.

A quick check with a ruler gives me a thickness of 6.5 m for the hangar wall modules assuming the hull at hangar deck is 42 m. So the hangar here should be around 29 m wide.

There are 2 main considerations for error:

1. I do not believe this section of the ship is amidships. On the right side, you can see that the wall module is not connected smoothly with the rest of the ship (look at the bump at flight deck level). And there is a huge opening in the wall. This is almost certainly where the aft elevator will be installed, hence why the closest wall module is recessed towards the centerline.

2. We cannot clearly see the true width of the hangar from these pictures as it's too dark or blurry. Even a small measurement error means a signifiant deviation in estimate. Considering that this section is towards the stern, I believe the modules shown here are a little thicker than they would be midships. If the wall modules amidships are only 5 m thick, the hangar would be 32 m wide.

Taking these observations into account, I'd say that the hangar width here is 29 m, but the maximum width could reasonably be 30 - 32 m.

 

[Intrepid]

1) We are not 100% sure what you shared in the pictures is the hangar, It can be part of engine (reactor ) room, too.
2) The hangar does not have to be a "perfect" rectangle so some section can be wider/narrower.
3) Waterline beam is *10* meters wider than 002. (This is what I referred as satellite pictures, I know it was not clear)
4) Ship is around 35% heavier.
5) Expected to have 50% more aircraft.

You cannot be helped, you will be disappointed.

 

[Totoro]

The thing is, we don't really have clear photographic evidence that 003 waterline beam is 39 m. What we do have is photos during construction where hangar deck level width can be measured. And that's what's usually estimated to be 39 to 40 m wide. Personally, I'm getting 39.5 m most often so that's why I am going with that figure.

But the waterline beam is still some meters below that. Some carriers, like US ones, don't have a hull whose lines flare out very much from the waterline level to hangar deck. But some, like Kuznetsov and 002, do flare out.
Observe these images:


There are some issues due to perspective and shape of the stern, but still, Nimitz' hull flares out less than Kuznetsov's. So, if 003 is closer to 002 in hull design, then it may have a waterline beam that's a few meters narrower than observed 39.5 m of hangar deck level.
If it's closer to US carrier design, then may indeed have waterline beam that's not that much narrower. Possibly as wide as 38 to 39 meters.

Kuznetsov seems to have a waterline beam of some 35 m. Which various texts online do corroborate. GE images of 002 building can also confirm that the hangar deck level width was some 38 m.


Anyway, on another note, here's a rough guesstimate of what the final deck layout of 003 may look like. As we get more images, I'll probably change this estimate. It's not complete and some details feature more guesswork than others. Like most of the sponsons, the crane position, etc.

 

[Mirabo]

The thing is, we don't really have clear photographic evidence that 003 waterline beam is 39 m. What we do have is photos during construction where hangar deck level width can be measured. And that's what's usually estimated to be 39 to 40 m wide. Personally, I'm getting 39.5 m most often so that's why I am going with that figure.

But the waterline beam is still some meters below that. Some carriers, like US ones, don't have a hull whose lines flare out very much from the waterline level to hangar deck. But some, like Kuznetsov and 002, do flare out.
Observe these images:

[image]

There are some issues due to perspective and shape of the stern, but still, Nimitz' hull flares out less than Kuznetsov's. So, if 003 is closer to 002 in hull design, then it may have a waterline beam that's a few meters narrower than observed 39.5 m of hangar deck level.
If it's closer to US carrier design, then may indeed have waterline beam that's not that much narrower. Possibly as wide as 38 to 39 meters.

Kuznetsov seems to have a waterline beam of some 35 m. Which various texts online do corroborate. GE images of 002 building can also confirm that the hangar deck level width was some 38 m.


Anyway, on another note, here's a rough guesstimate of what the final deck layout of 003 may look like. As we get more images, I'll probably change this estimate. It's not complete and some details feature more guesswork than others. Like most of the sponsons, the crane position, etc.

[image]

I understand where you're coming from, just wanted to point out some inconsistencies in your argument. The idea of 003 having a waterline beam of only 36 - 37 m rests mostly on the assumption that the hull flares out significantly from the waterline. But it does not, and neither does 002.

As you noted, the beam looks narrow from the stern due to the hull form, but if we look at 002 from the front (as we should, like with your photo of Nimitz) then there is very little difference between waterline beam and hull width at hangar deck level.

If the hangar deck was measured to be 38 m across, then 36 m waterline beam seems reasonable for 002.

We have some photos of 003's lower hull and it does not flares much at all. The nearest module in the below photo show that the outer hull gradient from waterline to hangar deck is almost vertical. But you are right, the 40 m measurements from before were made for the hangar deck level (the modules here all reach hangar deck), so I imagine the waterline beam should be 38 - 39 m.

Regarding the hangar width, I think the main uncertainty is the thickness of the wall modules. If you look at an American carrier like the Ford, the wall modules are really thin, maybe 4.5 m, not even 5 meters wide at the hangar deck. That gives the Ford a hangar width of 32 meters.

If 003's wall modules are really 6.5 m thick amidships, then the hangar would only be 26 - 27 m wide. How is it that China, with so much shipbuilding experience, could end up with a carrier 2 m narrower than the Ford, but the hanger is 6 m narrower? That's 4 meters of wasted space, which is a lot!

Everything considered, I have to revise my estimates a little.

1. The 39 - 40 m measurement was made at hangar deck level, not waterline. A waterline beam of 38 - 39 m is reasonable for 003 considering its expected displacement.

2. With a width of 40 m at hangar deck, and assuming the walls are 6.5 m thick, that leaves us with a hangar width of 27 m. But that's a highly conservative estimate and I really see no reason for the walls to be that thick, other than having to account for the exhaust, but the smokestack can just go straight up through the module, where it won't contribute to any extra width in the hangar walls.

Overall, a maximum hangar width of 29 m makes plenty of sense, with a hull width 40 m at the hangar deck level and walls 5 - 6 m thick, and a waterline beam of 38 m. Between 28 and 30 m for the hangar width is reasonable but any estimate of more than 31 m is highly questionable.

 

[Totoro]

Thanks for finding that frontal 002 image. I absolutely agree it's much better to use that one. And we agree on the methodology as well. I am getting 507 pixels for the waterline level beam and 531 pixels with for where you set the upper line. But I am actually not sure if that's the hangar deck level. it may be that hangar sits lower, where there's that opening on the left side of the hull. If so, width there is only 518 pixels. GE images of 002 being built suggest 37.5 m wide hangar level deck. (sadly, this is just estimated value as resolution issues might mean real figure is half a meter off) If one applies that figure to 531 pixels, and then applies it to waterline beam - one gets 35.8 meter waterline beam. If one uses the 518 pixel figure then one gets 36.7 m waterline beam. Both figures are a bit over the usually cited figures for Kuznetsov beam. Though it's perfectly possible those figures are either rounded down or even inaccurate. (While 002 might have a different hull from 001, I find that doubtful) Certainly, the higher, wider point measuring 531 pixels does seem to fit the official 35 m waterline beam narrative better. Still, what is that opening on the left side of the hull, then?
GE image of 002 being built show 25 m wide hangar. Which is a meter less than sometimes quoted Kuznetsov figures. So, what to believe there?

Anyway... due to lack of better info, I am inclined to use the same hull flare out ratio observed from this 002 image to the 003. And IF indeed the hangar deck on 003 is 39.5 wide, then the waterline beam might be anywhere between 38.6 meters wide and 37.7 m wide.
Of course, talking about decimal points when observed image resolutions might yield half a meter or more of error is kind of silly.

While we may discuss WHY does 003 have thicker structure around hangar, those images earlier on do show that they're indeed thicker.
And while we don't have many images, so it's possible we were looking only at a specific part of the hangar that just happens to be more narrow, Occam's razor principle would suggest it's not prudent to count on that.

Ford is around 41 to 42 m wide at its hangar deck level. Again, sadly the resolution is not there on GE to get a better assessment. But likely closer to 42, is the 134 ft waterline beam figure is to be trusted. Hangar width can also be observed in later images and it's indeed between 32 and even close to 33 meters at its widest. Though it does taper off by a few meters forward and back.

002 has great thickness of those walls, so why not 003 as well? Talking about 002, and using a 25-26 m wide hangar for 001/002 lineage in relation to 36.7 to 37.5 m wide hangar deck, then we get 11.6 meters for walls.

Ford class however suggests there's 9 meters allowed for walls.

Evidently the smaller ship does not translate to thinner walls as there are other issues in the equation. Protection might be one of those, but who knows what else might be as well.

If all other things are equal, and if we don't use those images of 003 hangar walls that suggest 26-ish m wide hangar, but just apply the same ratios to 003 that were used in 002 we finally get - 38.15 m hangar level deck minus 11.6 meters equaling 26.55 m wide hangar.

If we go the Ford class ratio route, we get 38.15 m minus 9 meters for a total of 29.15 m wide hangar.

While 003 may be in some respects closer to Ford class than to 002, I also don't see why certain aspects would still not be similar to 002. After all, that's the best and most accurate model to use as a base Chinese builders have.

So, to conclude, hangar is likely between 26 and 29 meters wide, though personally, due to those prior images, I am inclined to believe it's closer to 26.

I hope the other members will excuse me for all these ramblings. I am quite aware that it's a bit pointless trying to get a meter precision out of resources which aren't so precise to begin with. But everyone has hobbies.

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

The thing is, we don't really have clear photographic evidence that 003 waterline beam is 39 m. What we do have is photos during construction where hangar deck level width can be measured. And that's what's usually estimated to be 39 to 40 m wide. Personally, I'm getting 39.5 m most often so that's why I am going with that figure.

But the waterline beam is still some meters below that. Some carriers, like US ones, don't have a hull whose lines flare out very much from the waterline level to hangar deck. But some, like Kuznetsov and 002, do flare out.
Observe these images:
View attachment 72470

There are some issues due to perspective and shape of the stern, but still, Nimitz' hull flares out less than Kuznetsov's. So, if 003 is closer to 002 in hull design, then it may have a waterline beam that's a few meters narrower than observed 39.5 m of hangar deck level.
If it's closer to US carrier design, then may indeed have waterline beam that's not that much narrower. Possibly as wide as 38 to 39 meters.

Kuznetsov seems to have a waterline beam of some 35 m. Which various texts online do corroborate. GE images of 002 building can also confirm that the hangar deck level width was some 38 m.


Anyway, on another note, here's a rough guesstimate of what the final deck layout of 003 may look like. As we get more images, I'll probably change this estimate. It's not complete and some details feature more guesswork than others. Like most of the sponsons, the crane position, etc.

View attachment 72471

I will use this blue estimate of yours to check with the final result, once it becomes available.

 

[Intrepid]

In contrast to US Navy aircraft carriers, Kuznetsov / Liaoning / Shandong and the ship 003 under construction do not have a vertical but a slightly sloping side wall.

The main deck is wider than the waterline.

 

[Deino]

A recent but blurry one