00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
if the starboard elevator was further back does that mean the island is still in between the two elevators like with the Fujian rather than behind both as with Ford's layout?
The way I see it, either there is indeed a cutout amidships which accounts for the no.2 starboard elevator, which currently is inconveniently hidden from view by the annoyingly placed crane and roof, and so in the absence of a more unobstructed photo or an alternate angle on the hull there's really not much basis to draw a conclusion other than the common expectation that this would be similar in layout to the Ford class, hence in a 3-elevator config it stands to reason the no.2 starboard elevator would be as indicated a la the Ford class i.e. with both starboard elevators forward of the island;

Or this just isn't a Ford-pattern at least where elevator placements is concerned, where a starboard elevator which is positioned further aft a la the Nimitz class's no.3 elevator near the stern may be the placement PLAN designers have decided on -

starboard-side-view-of-the-us-navy-usn-nimitz-class-aircraft-carrier-uss-john-d8785c-1024 mod.jpg

... which would also be more or less consistent with previous PLAN configs of each elevator forward and aft of the island in between like you said.

Personally though, from a hangar operations standpoint, if one takes into consideration the possibility that 004 may retain the use of turntables for aircraft conveyance like 001, 002 and 003 before it -

PLAN Type 001 50278727121_7e194edfa4_o.jpg

... then I can see an argument where having a more rearward starboard elevator that aligns (or near-aligns) with the port elevator could be a more efficient and space-saving layout, as only two turntables would then be required where the rear one can serve both elevators -
CVN01b.jpg
... as opposed to 3 turntables for 3 distantly located elevators, which could result in less aircraft accommodations and more complex handling -
CVN01a.jpg
And since the Nimitz has been invoked, then there's the improbable albeit not-impossible proposition of it being a 4-elevator config, like the Nimitz class. In any case all we can do is still speculate for now.


Wdym of "Not sure where you got your reference from"? Didn't you see my picture?
This is the original image of my last post. Don't bring up a blurrier one.
I dunno, that picture of yours looks to be artificially filtered to heck, assuming it hasn't also been so adulterated, seeing as how garbled the text on the red crane looks -

IMG_4383 mod.jpg

It should correctly be 'DALIAN SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY CO., LTD.' instead -

dalian.jpg

There may indeed be an elevator opening amidships as I explained, but personally I wouldn't rely on that specific image of yours as evidence.
 

Chaos314159

New Member
Registered Member
... then I can see an argument where having a more rearward starboard elevator that aligns (or near-aligns) with the port elevator could be a more efficient and space-saving layout, as only two turntables would then be required where the rear one can serve both elevators -
First, I must tell you that your so-called E4 position is offset from, rather than continuous with, E3 on the port side. This would explain the existence of four turntables, if you believe this is possible. Or unless you're trying to say that the E3 section isn't an opening, but just hasn't been installed yet—which I don't agree with.IMG_4387.jpeg
I dunno, that picture of yours looks to be artificially filtered to heck, assuming it hasn't also been so adulterated, seeing as how garbled the text on the red crane looks -
Second, I don't agree with the claim that AI-enhanced images are unreliable; this is a classic case of discussing toxicity without considering dosage. Furthermore, even if my image is AI-enhanced, you can see that the angle is completely different from the other image. In your image, E2 is obscured by the shed section, while mine isn't, and the color boundary is extremely clear. Combined with cross-verification from my other image, it completely confirms that that position is indeed E2.
 

Chaos314159

New Member
Registered Member
Incidentally, this is a comparison diagram of 004 and Ford drawn by a friend in my Weibo group based on available information. As you can see, the possible E2 or E4 position you mentioned is extremely far back and may conflict with the landing runway, using this position would be extremely inefficient for aircraft scheduling. I completely don't understand why it would be placed in that position.IMG_4388.jpeg
 

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
First, I must tell you that your so-called E4 position is offset from, rather than continuous with, E3 on the port side.
Did I say it wouldn't be offset?

This would explain the existence of four turntables,
How so? Do elaborate.

if you believe this is possible. Or unless you're trying to say that the E3 section isn't an opening, but just hasn't been installed yet—which I don't agree with.
I don't "believe" anything, I speculate. You're welcome to disagree on anything I say.

View attachment 175489

Second, I don't agree with the claim that AI-enhanced images are unreliable;
Well I do think AI-enhanced images, esp. ones as badly composed as yours, are unreliable.

this is a classic case of discussing toxicity without considering dosage.
I don't agree, but okay.

Furthermore, even if my image is AI-enhanced, you can see that the angle is completely different from the other image. In your image, E2 is obscured by the shed section, while mine isn't, and the color boundary is extremely clear. Combined with cross-verification from my other image, it completely confirms that that position is indeed E2.
Which is why I posited my reservations regarding the positioning of E2 which you seem so sure of based on your unreliable AI-enhanced image. It may be enough proof for you, but not for me.

To be clear, if you actually read carefully my replies I'm not against the no.2 starboard elevator being so situated as you so adamantly claim, but you'll need to produce better images than the AI-enhanced garbage you have right now to be as conclusive as you sound.

Incidentally, this is a comparison diagram of 004 and Ford drawn by a friend in my Weibo group based on available information. As you can see, the possible E2 or E4 position you mentioned is extremely far back and may conflict with the landing runway, using this position would be extremely inefficient for aircraft scheduling. I completely don't understand why it would be placed in that position.View attachment 175490
starboard-side-view-of-the-us-navy-usn-nimitz-class-aircraft-carrier-uss-john-d8785c-1024 mod2.jpg

I guess this "conflicts with the landing runway" as well?
 

00CuriousObserver

Senior Member
Registered Member
By 伏尔戈星图

315 waterline
334 flight deck

pG4xA5S.png

gjqtN25.png
 
Top