CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
So if I understand correctly the Naval News piece was comparing apples to oranges. It used the generally accepted 77-78m width for the Ford which is its extreme flight deck width and compared it to a 73m "normal" flight deck width estimate for 003. Whereas the folks here estimate the extreme flight deck width of 003 to be at least on par with Ford and the "normal" flight deck width in the mid-70's meter range.
Okay that squares it for me, thanks.
Okay that squares it for me, thanks.
003 does not use gas turbine, so there is no point to compare its power plant with QC280. It is highly unlikely that 003 uses IEPS before it is installed on smaller ships such as 055A.
Besides, there is no reason to take IEPS into consideration of overall power demand because the difference of thermal-electric conversion loss of IEPS and the thermal-mechanic conversion loss of conventional drive is minimal. The rest of the electrical power consumption remains the same.
So it uses Steam Turbines just like Shandong and Liaoning.
I'd have loved to witness growth in GT technology along with the growth in tonnage and capabilities. Somehow I had created this idea of a ship that had GT, IEPS and that supports the EMALS and AESAs etc.
Quite happy with the pace of buildup though. I'm ready to wait some more months for IEPS with the 055A.
Sorry but I don't think the article from naval news talking about the carrier is very good tbqh. The article itself doesn't state how it get the 73 m number, unlike others who have clearly mapped out their measurements. Even more ridiculous is how it states the 73 m main beam width (which again is incorrect) is "very similar to preceding Type-001 and Type-002 carriers", which is actually not even close since we know their beams are measured at around 70 m at max and 65 m in the middle.
There are already multiple people doing measurements from different pictures and arrive at the same result of 76 m main beam width, the most convincing one to me is this one posted earlier. Naval news is the only outlier from the most recent measurement, hence why people now compare it the ford is shown instead of kitty hawk back when no clear image of 003 was available.
Really? Show us your measurement then, post it here, together with the line that you claim to be wrong would also be even better.
Considering the high probability of China goes nuclear with its CVs in the very near future, it is almost impossible for any CVs to be GT powered. Steam is the logic choice.So it uses Steam Turbines just like Shandong and Liaoning.
I'd have loved to witness growth in GT technology along with the growth in tonnage and capabilities. Somehow I had created this idea of a ship that had GT, IEPS and that supports the EMALS and AESAs etc.
Quite happy with the pace of buildup though. I'm ready to wait some more months for IEPS with the 055A.
QE class are GT powered. GT power actually offer a considerable internal layout, redundancy and damage tolerance benefits over traditional Steam turbine power for large ships with integrated electric propulsion.
Last edited:
I used 82m for the drydock width. I counted 111px, so that makes 1.354px/m. I aligned the ship principal axii with the drydock.
Overall length: 423px => 311m
Midsection width: 101.2px => 74.74m
Extreme deck width: 108.9px => 80.4m
Do we know the drydock length? The image could likely suffer from shear and horizontal and vertical pixels may not have equal dimensions. That could explain the surprisingly low length.
Good for the QE class.
What it can't offer is maintenance and logistical compatibility and commonality with upcoming nuclear carriers.
Just a quick question. If the 003 flight deck were indeed wider than 77 meters, how come there were only 3 catapults instead of USN's design of 4? Is it because the Chinese catapults are longer?