00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Nx4eu]

I drew a graphic to better describe the issue, if anyone isn't familiar with ship hulls, just know that in my artistically stretched version of the research institute, in the lime circle, the ship needs to contract to form the stern. This leads to zero volume for anything other than ship machinery for the rudders and propellers.

The orange box describes where the engine room of any ship, even a carrier would be generally located, the 'citadel' If this were a conventionally powered ship, the island must sit near directly above this section of the ship in order for the exhausts to work. This is why the Queen Elizabeth has two islands, and cannot use 1. It has 1 island far forward for the intakes, while the second island isn't actually very far back, it actually sits in the middle of the ship for the exhaust uptakes.


The reason why ford is capable of a optimally far rear island, is because of nuclear propulsion, the reactor's don't require exhaust cooling, and thus the island is nearly completely free to be placed anywhere upon the deck.

The illustration below includes the ship required to fit a conventionally powered engine deck where the island is located on the research institute. The drawing below is 480m long, and simply ridiculous. Oh and I calculated the displacement for fun, it'd be 175,000 tons.

 

[Blitzo]

I drew a graphic to better describe the issue, if anyone isn't familiar with ship hulls, just know that in my artistically stretched version of the research institute, in the lime circle, the ship needs to contract to form the stern. This leads to zero volume for anything other than ship machinery for the rudders and propellers.

The orange box describes where the engine room of any ship, even a carrier would be generally located, the 'citadel' If this were a conventionally powered ship, the island must sit near directly above this section of the ship in order for the exhausts to work. This is why the Queen Elizabeth has two islands, and cannot use 1. It has 1 island far forward for the intakes, while the second island isn't actually very far back, it actually sits in the middle of the ship for the exhaust uptakes.
View attachment 162173

The reason why ford is capable of a optimally far rear island, is because of nuclear propulsion, the reactor's don't require exhaust cooling, and thus the island is nearly completely free to be placed anywhere upon the deck.

The illustration below includes the ship required to fit a conventionally powered engine deck where the island is located on the research institute. The drawing below is 480m long, and simply ridiculous. Oh and I calculated the displacement for fun, it'd be 175,000 tons.
View attachment 162172

I would add that the Kitty Hawk class is an example of a ship with a relatively rear placed island/smoke stack in comparison to the position on the hull, but we can see how with the subsequent Enterprise, Nimitz and now Ford classes, the island gradually is able to be moved back for the reasons you described.

For the mockup, given how long the ship probably will be (adding on an additional bit of aft hull/flight deck as you depict well), the island and smoke stack will still be quite far back relative to the Kitty Hawk.

 

[Nx4eu]

I would add that the Kitty Hawk class is an example of a ship with a relatively rear placed island/smoke stack in comparison to the position on the hull, but we can see how with the subsequent Enterprise, Nimitz and now Ford classes, the island gradually is able to be moved back for the reasons you described.

For the mockup, given how long the ship probably will be (adding on an additional bit of aft hull/flight deck as you depict well), the island and smoke stack will still be quite far back relative to the Kitty Hawk.

Even have a look at the Kuznetsov, liaoning, and shandong, with their quite aftwards islands. Still within a reasonable distance from the center and most importantly, nearly straight above the engine rooms.

 

[Shimakazerun]

I drew a graphic to better describe the issue, if anyone isn't familiar with ship hulls, just know that in my artistically stretched version of the research institute, in the lime circle, the ship needs to contract to form the stern. This leads to zero volume for anything other than ship machinery for the rudders and propellers.

The orange box describes where the engine room of any ship, even a carrier would be generally located, the 'citadel' If this were a conventionally powered ship, the island must sit near directly above this section of the ship in order for the exhausts to work. This is why the Queen Elizabeth has two islands, and cannot use 1. It has 1 island far forward for the intakes, while the second island isn't actually very far back, it actually sits in the middle of the ship for the exhaust uptakes.
View attachment 162173

The reason why ford is capable of a optimally far rear island, is because of nuclear propulsion, the reactor's don't require exhaust cooling, and thus the island is nearly completely free to be placed anywhere upon the deck.

The illustration below includes the ship required to fit a conventionally powered engine deck where the island is located on the research institute. The drawing below is 480m long, and simply ridiculous. Oh and I calculated the displacement for fun, it'd be 175,000 tons.
View attachment 162172

In fact, the chimneys of the two islands provide air intake and exhaust for the two gas turbines respectively. The two gas turbines are placed directly below the two islands, that is, on the right side of the hangar.

 

[by78]

Two more images of the mockup.

 

[lcloo]

There is one question nobody asked.

What kind of tests will they do after this new building mode is completed, and how or will the funnel building affect the testings, or the funnel building will have no effect on the next stage of testings on this site?

Also, what you see on this site may not be exactly what the next aircraft carrier's island structure will look like.

 

[Blitzo]

There is one question nobody asked.

What kind of tests will they do after this new building mode is completed, and how or will the funnel building affect the testings, or the funnel building will have no effect on the next stage of testings on this site?

We never had specific answers to those questions when the mockup was put up to simulate CV-16, CV-17, or CV-18, so it is normal that we don't expect to have answers to those questions for the new mockup either.

In other words, it's not worth asking the question because realistically we aren't going to get any answer for it, just based on over a decade of past experience.

Also, what you see on this site may not be exactly what the next aircraft carrier's island structure will look like.

Yes, that has also been accepted when the mockup was configured for CV-16/17/18 as well.

However there is enough detail on the mockup (in particular the island) for us to note specifics about what they chose to include when they built this new island mockup (specifically the smokestack like structure) to question its role in context of what the mockup is likely depicting.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Speculations from SOYO based on CV-67 Kennedy and some existing assumptions (the pink thin line indicates the length of the land based facility with the island in the respective location):

Based on the publicly available blueprints of CV-67 Kennedy, an estimate can be made for the new CVN’s flight deck dimensions.

According to the scale shown in the drawing, Kennedy’s flight deck is about 322 m long and approximately 74 m wide (excluding the angled-deck overhang at its widest point).

The domestically developed electromagnetic catapult system installed on the Type 003 Fujian has a total length—from the aft end of the deflector panel to the end of the catapult track—of roughly 132 m +, based on a rough measurement by GE. For now, 132 m is taken as the reference length for the existing EM catapult system (see the red line in Figure 1).

Since the new CVN’s island does not require a smokestack, it can be positioned much farther aft. Using the Ford-class CVN as reference, if the distance from the aft end of the island base to the flight-deck stern is assumed to be 68 m (cyan short line in Figure 1), then the total length from the island base’s forward edge to the outboard end of the starboard overhang can reach about 144 m (green line in Figure 1)—a substantial increase over Fujian.

With the island placed farther aft, the two starboard deck-edge elevators can also be shifted rearward, freeing up more layout space for the C1 + C2 systems (dark blue + orange lines in Figure 1).

If the flight deck (excluding the angled-deck overhang) is widened to around 78 m, this further optimizes placement of the C3 + C4 systems and the port-side elevator (vertical dark-blue line in Figure 1).

Thus, a 326 m-long, 78 m-wide heavy CVN could already accommodate four 132 m-class EM catapult systems, providing more forward and mid-deck parking areas than Fujian and significantly improving aircraft handling and launch efficiency.

However, on the Ford-class, the distance from the island base’s forward edge to the starboard overhang reaches roughly 150 m, longer than the 144 m figure (orange-red line at the bottom of Figure 1), so its aircraft-parking capacity remains greater than that of a 326 m CVN.

Given that the new large carrier’s waterline beam reaches over 42 m, even applying Fujian’s waterline length-to-beam ratio of 7.4–7.5 yields a waterline length of at least 315 m, supporting a flight-deck length around 330 m.

By aligning the island-base position of the land-based test facility with that of the Kennedy (pink thick line at the bottom of Figure 1), the simulated deck proves noticeably longer than Kennedy’s. Combining that with the aft-island-to-stern section gives a total flight-deck length of about 340–341 m.

Therefore, the conclusion is that while the new CVN could theoretically be built smaller, doing so would make it incompatible with the layout of the land-based test facility. Assuming the distance from the island base’s aft end to the deck stern is 64–68 m, the new CVN’s flight-deck length is expected to fall between 337 and 341 m, with an overall width (excluding the angled-deck overhang) no less than 78 m.

 

[Blitzo]

Speculations from SOYO based on CV-67 Kennedy and some existing assumptions (the pink thin line indicates the length of the land based facility with the island in the respective location):

Based on the publicly available blueprints of CV-67 Kennedy, an estimate can be made for the new CVN’s flight deck dimensions.

According to the scale shown in the drawing, Kennedy’s flight deck is about 322 m long and approximately 74 m wide (excluding the angled-deck overhang at its widest point).

The domestically developed electromagnetic catapult system installed on the Type 003 Fujian has a total length—from the aft end of the deflector panel to the end of the catapult track—of roughly 132 m +, based on a rough measurement by GE. For now, 132 m is taken as the reference length for the existing EM catapult system (see the red line in Figure 1).

Since the new CVN’s island does not require a smokestack, it can be positioned much farther aft. Using the Ford-class CVN as reference, if the distance from the aft end of the island base to the flight-deck stern is assumed to be 68 m (cyan short line in Figure 1), then the total length from the island base’s forward edge to the outboard end of the starboard overhang can reach about 144 m (green line in Figure 1)—a substantial increase over Fujian.

With the island placed farther aft, the two starboard deck-edge elevators can also be shifted rearward, freeing up more layout space for the C1 + C2 systems (dark blue + orange lines in Figure 1).

If the flight deck (excluding the angled-deck overhang) is widened to around 78 m, this further optimizes placement of the C3 + C4 systems and the port-side elevator (vertical dark-blue line in Figure 1).

Thus, a 326 m-long, 78 m-wide heavy CVN could already accommodate four 132 m-class EM catapult systems, providing more forward and mid-deck parking areas than Fujian and significantly improving aircraft handling and launch efficiency.

However, on the Ford-class, the distance from the island base’s forward edge to the starboard overhang reaches roughly 150 m, longer than the 144 m figure (orange-red line at the bottom of Figure 1), so its aircraft-parking capacity remains greater than that of a 326 m CVN.

Given that the new large carrier’s waterline beam reaches over 42 m, even applying Fujian’s waterline length-to-beam ratio of 7.4–7.5 yields a waterline length of at least 315 m, supporting a flight-deck length around 330 m.

By aligning the island-base position of the land-based test facility with that of the Kennedy (pink thick line at the bottom of Figure 1), the simulated deck proves noticeably longer than Kennedy’s. Combining that with the aft-island-to-stern section gives a total flight-deck length of about 340–341 m.

Therefore, the conclusion is that while the new CVN could theoretically be built smaller, doing so would make it incompatible with the layout of the land-based test facility. Assuming the distance from the island base’s aft end to the deck stern is 64–68 m, the new CVN’s flight-deck length is expected to fall between 337 and 341 m, with an overall width (excluding the angled-deck overhang) no less than 78 m.

Thanks for the translation.

They did good reasoning, and overall the estimate range is fair.

That said I'm confused as to why they used CV-67 as the basis for the imagery comparison; was it because it was the only ship they managed to find a "blueprint" for?

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Thanks for the translation.

They did good reasoning, and overall the estimate range is fair.

That said I'm confused as to why they used CV-67 as the basis for the imagery comparison; was it because it was the only ship they managed to find a "blueprint" for?

The translation was just ChatGPT with minor edits, haha.

It’s probably because the blueprint happened to exist, and the use of it as a "size floor". They made a similar estimate for a future CV, for which the CV-67 would be a suitable basis. The conclusion here is much simpler: to have a more efficient CV, its size needs to be bigger. (pictured below is plan for a 326m carrier, probably in the 90k tons class)

If the new generation of heavy conventional carriers (CVs) aims to achieve higher operational efficiency, it must further increase the length and width of the flight deck.

The presence of smokestacks prevents the island on a CV from being positioned as far aft as on a CVN, which significantly limits the size of the starboard parking area and the entire triangular deck zone.

However, by extending the ship to 330–332 meters, the forward and midship parking area could at least match that of the Nimitz-class carriers. Combined with the CV’s lower lifetime cost, this would represent a cost-effective “super carrier” design solution.

---

Edit: He also made one for a hypothetical "nuclear 003" (assuming the deck is 316m long, but it's not hard to see it with a 320m length)