R&D on ACP100 was started in 2010, with preliminary design completed in 2018. So, not much of a difference.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Not even the length of the waterline? I know anything above is impossible yet, but my feeling is, this hull sits very much too far to the rear section of the drydock and so I ask if at least an estimation of the length from the likely front bulge up the the likely rear is doable and compare this to the Fujian or Ford.
Last edited:
Early in the year when the bow section was close to the front of the drydock some were moaning it couldn't be a carrier because it wouldn't be pointy enough, now the assembled mid section is too far back so of course it's too short for a carrier. So yeah seems some secretly wish this is not a chinese nuclear carrier.
Everything from the insiders, the leaked hull shape papers, continuous hints from the grapevine, satellite pics, converge towards CVN, 110,000 tons, so i'll put my money 100% of that.
Everything from the insiders, the leaked hull shape papers, continuous hints from the grapevine, satellite pics, converge towards CVN, 110,000 tons, so i'll put my money 100% of that.
It's better just to avoid making guesses right now, because the precise number is unknowable.
We expect this thing will be the size of a proper super carrier, so the exact numerical size isn't that important or worth quibbling over at this stage imo, considering we will have a definitive answer within a year or so.
What are you talking about?
Instead of trying to interpret motivations about people's posts, how about we take a step back and recognise that our role on this forum is to deliver some critical thinking and make grounded predictions?
We aren't here to chest thump, instead we are here to take indicators and rumours and evidence and ensure that the predictions we come up with are as solid as possible, to deliver conclusions backed by arguments that even the strongest skeptics have to be forced to accept??
What one personally wishes something to be is inconsequential, because this isn't a spectator sport.
Even now, with this hull in its state of completion and distinctive reactor compartments, while the likelihood of it being a nuclear powered carrier is growing, if we are all honest with ourselves we must accept that technically we cannot yet 100% call it definitively as a carrier.
That stage arguably can only be definitively made when we have the hangar wall modules raised over the rest of the hull (at which stage the overall length of the base hull will nearly be complete as well), or better yet, once the flight deck modules begin to be assembled.
As for the matter raised by @Deino -- what he is asking is not necessarily about challenging the idea that this is a carrier, but rather the satellite image we have is just a bit awkward in the sense that it is a canted sliver of the drydock, which makes the appearance of the hull seem odd.
I've overlaid the image, scaled onto GE, to demonstrate what the real thing looks like, and to get a grasp for what an approximate length/positioning of the completed hull in the drydock might look like.
First, is measuring the base hull at its current point of completion, about 145m long
Second, is taking the waterline length of a Nimitz class carrier (said to be 317m long) and roughly extending it out both from the bow and stern
Finally, extending the above out a little bit more at the bow to account for overall length inclusive of flight deck, using a representative length of a Ford class carrier (337m long)
In terms of dock space, they have more than enough room both to the bow and stern of the present hull to build the rest of a carrier sized hull. Yes we can see a few drydock blocks for the ship to the bow of the current hull, and no drydock blocks to the stern of the current hull, but that is potentially actively misleading because those can be easily moved/removed/repositioned, and should not be used as indicators of what the final hull geometry/length will be.
===
I encourage people to go back to this image depicting 002/CV-17 being built over time in the same drydock, to recall that the position and visual sighting drydock block positioning may be misleading with regards to the final state of a hull.
I've overlaid the image, scaled onto GE, to demonstrate what the real thing looks like, and to get a grasp for what an approximate length/positioning of the completed hull in the drydock might look like.
First, is measuring the base hull at its current point of completion, about 145m long
Second, is taking the waterline length of a Nimitz class carrier (said to be 317m long) and roughly extending it out both from the bow and stern
Finally, extending the above out a little bit more at the bow to account for overall length inclusive of flight deck, using a representative length of a Ford class carrier (337m long)
In terms of dock space, they have more than enough room both to the bow and stern of the present hull to build the rest of a carrier sized hull. Yes we can see a few drydock blocks for the ship to the bow of the current hull, and no drydock blocks to the stern of the current hull, but that is potentially actively misleading because those can be easily moved/removed/repositioned, and should not be used as indicators of what the final hull geometry/length will be.
===
I encourage people to go back to this image depicting 002/CV-17 being built over time in the same drydock, to recall that the position and visual sighting drydock block positioning may be misleading with regards to the final state of a hull.
It seems you're referring to me and my still-ongoing questions? And no, I certainly do NOT wish that this isn't an aircraft carrier; I just want to be sure because, to my gut, some things still don't quite add up!
That doesn't mean I'm hoping for or expecting anything different, but simply that I'm saving the champagne for a little longer.
And yes, as @Blitzo points out, my argument is indeed the ship's position, as we currently see it in dry dock.
I want to make it clear, that the point of my previous post in #2866 is to show that the position of the ship in the dry dock is not particularly odd, and to demonstrate the position is very compatible with the rest of a full sized carrier hull being assembled/extended to the bow and stern of it.
I.e.: I hope it is able to answer your concern, and show that the position/length "does add up".
Of course, that doesn't definitively prove this is a carrier -- I still say that the final "confirmation" should be when the hangar or flight deck modules are assembled onto the hull.
But I do think that my post above should show that there is no reason to believe the position of the current hull in the drydock, excludes it from potentially being a carrier in terms of overall completed hull size.