From Horobeyo. That’s one big ship. Wider than Ford by a decent margin at all areas of the flight deck.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Could you please explain which is the length and which is the width of the elevators.
Given the estimated displacement, a better comparison is the Kitty Hawk:
Waterline beam: 39.6 meters
Length overall: 326 meters
Extreme width: 86 meters
Full displacement: 83000 tons
As we can see, the Kitty Hawk was quite a bit wider than this carrier and significantly wider than the Nimitz class despite having a 4ft narrower waterline beam.
Yeah, my figures were based on both the dock and the shelter width, was getting the same number for both. As said, with such low resolution end results likely do contain some errors.
If for example I use 82 m as drydock width, I will of course get bigger figures for width. 81 m wide deck at its widest. And 77 m wide deck at its mid point.
I was getting bigger difference in waterline beam than 0.5 m before, compared to Nimitz, but that's not a topic I can repeat discussing right now.
In my context, width is bigger than length. Elevator Length is parallel to ship's width. And Elevator width is parallel to ship's length. So i guess it can be a bit confusing the way I wrote it.
Why do you think that propulsion power output was the limiter in making the ship 5% longer?
| General Characteristics: Kitty Hawk | Keel Laid: December 27, 1956 |
| Launched: May 21, 1960 | |
| Commissioned: April 29, 1961 | |
| Decommissioned: May 12, 2009 | |
| Builder: New York Shipbuilding Corp., Camden, NJ | |
| Propulsion system: eight Steam Boilers | |
| Main Engines: four Steam Turbine Engines | |
| Propellers: four | |
| Blades on each Propeller: five | |
| Aircraft elevators: four | |
| Catapults: four | |
| Arresting gear cables: four | |
| Length, overall: 1046,5 feet (319 meters) | |
| Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters) | |
| Area of flight deck: about 4,5 acres | |
| Beam: 129,6 feet (39.5 meters) | |
| Draft: 35,8 feet (10.9 meters) | |
| Displacement: approx. 82,200 tons full load | |
| Speed: 30+ knots | |
| Cost: about $400 million (1961) | |
| Planes: approx. 85 | |
| Crew: Ship: 2,900 Air Wing: 2,480 | |
| Armament: two Mk 29 NATO Sea Sparrow launchers, two 20mm Phalanx CIWS Mk 15, two Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Systems |
My data comes from the , the goto reference for USN vessels. The source you referenced has bad data for the overall length and flight deck width.
If you analyze the satellite photo below, you can convince yourself that the USNVR data is correct. My estimate for the extreme flight deck width is 82.5m. The width of the flight deck between elevators is 72.3 meters (not including the safety extensions). This is less than the 76m for 003, estimated by @Totoro, but very close to the 73m estimated by Naval News.
Last edited:
Extrem bean or width, is not fly deck width. The parameters have to be the same to be able to be compared.
I measured the same region where the flight deck reaches its extreme that @Totoro measured for 003. The parameters are the same. I've no idea what your German source measured. Do you?
Red = extreme flight deck width = 82.5m
Blue = flight deck width between elevators = 72.3m
If you weren't lazy you would've done the measurement yourself and saw that it checks out.
Anyway, I used the same image @Totoro used, with his pixel size estimates, but I got 74.5m for the middle section width of the flight deck for 003. The line he drew was not parallel with the lateral axis.
Last edited: