CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Silkworm]

Looking at the specs for the Kitty Hawk a few posts back I am struck how deadweight could represent some one-quarter of her fully loaded displacement.

Would that be true of 003 as well?

For the sake of argument if 003 displaced 80,000 tons fully loaded would that mean her skeleton weight would only amount to 60,000-ish tons?

Is fuel the lion share of this 20,000 tons of deadweight? What would be other major categories in percentage terms?

Since it would probably be criminal to let the fuel gauge fall to near empty for a warship like in our cars I imagine full displacement is pretty close to operating displacement.

Thanks in advance to anyone who might answer these neophyte questions. Cheers.

 

[Daniel707]

View attachment 74235



if type 003 have island closer to stern would they be able to park more jets?

003 vs Ford vs Nimitz vs Kitty Hawk (Image via wb/谈书xx)

 

[Blitzo]

Are we 100% confident the internal drydock width is 82m? The Naval News piece pretty much affirmed the estimated length of 003 at about 320m but estimated flight deck width fell well short.

I've communicated with HI over this -- his flight deck estimate was based on two differing assumptions from the estimates of 82m flight deck max width.:
1. The photo he used (the satellite picture in the Naval News piece) was taken 22nd June, before the 25th June satellite image in the Economist piece -- and you can see that the modules for the more forward parts of the landing strip/waist (and the part that we are all measuring the "widest point of the flight deck" from) has yet to be installed on the 22nd June picture. On the other hand, the satellite picture from the Economist piece shows that module is installed. That would likely add a couple of meters to the flight deck width.
2. He used the measurement of the internal drydock width as 80m rather than 82m. A small difference, but again, it adds up.

Those two factors likely led to his significantly smaller estimate of the "maximum flight deck width" compared to the 82m ones we've been getting consistently.

 

[SINCHIKI]

003 vs Ford vs Nimitz vs Kitty Hawk (Image via wb/谈书xx)
View attachment 74246

Thanks for sharing, and here is another set of comparisons (003 vs Ford vs Queen Elizabeth vs 001)

 

[Atomicfrog]

Anyone estimated how many fighter planes it can put in to the air at anyone time and how long that would take, and how that compares to the US carriers?

Numbers and reality are somewhat differrent... Presently US Navy are working hard to get to 80 % aircraft readiness. If you have more planes and you cannot make them fly... it serve you nothing.

 

[The Observer]

Does anyone know what's the use for the crane on the front starboard side and why is it positioned there? To me it just looks like a waste of space that can be used for aircraft parking.

 

[Richard Santos]

We will know from the first Chinese nuclear aircraft carrier on. With an aircraft carrier with the boiler uptakes in the island a closer position to the stern isn't possible.

it is possible, just require slightly less conventional uptake routing. The Japanese managed to build a carrier with boiler uptake that goes all the way to the stern.

 

[Richard Santos]

Does anyone know what's the use for the crane on the front starboard side and why is it positioned there? To me it just looks like a waste of space that can be used for aircraft parking.

to hoist aircraft and heavy deck equipment?

Almost all large carriers have them.

 

[SpicySichuan]

003 vs Ford vs Nimitz vs Kitty Hawk (Image via wb/谈书xx)
View attachment 74246

More spacious than the Nimitz!

 

[lcloo]

Does anyone know what's the use for the crane on the front starboard side and why is it positioned there? To me it just looks like a waste of space that can be used for aircraft parking.

There are no large cranes at the mother port.

This load could be munition ordnance, may be to be stored down the deck via the munition lifts on flight feck.