00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Equally likely as the previous paper given the specs lines up with the current ship in the drydock as of right now.
I remember one of the main arguments for the "10,000 TEU container ship" being a CV was that it’s a vessel with a 4-shaft & 4-screw propulsion system.
But the chart Captain posted doesn't actually specify the propulsion type. Maybe he just thought it’d be fun to dig through academic papers on container ships to find potential carrier hull designs, and that's how he stumbled onto this.
Personally, I think both of those designs are either a bit too big or too small. I once tried adding a stern to the 'carrier building' mockup based on the Ford-class island-to-stern spacing, and it put the total flight deck length at around 344m or less.
But the chart Captain posted doesn't actually specify the propulsion type. Maybe he just thought it’d be fun to dig through academic papers on container ships to find potential carrier hull designs, and that's how he stumbled onto this.
Personally, I think both of those designs are either a bit too big or too small. I once tried adding a stern to the 'carrier building' mockup based on the Ford-class island-to-stern spacing, and it put the total flight deck length at around 344m or less.
Well, that ought to embarass those who were having a hissy fit whenever someone (who either had inside info or just good at calculating based on available info) was saying this is something like 110-120,000 tons. Just like even if from day one people in the know said this is 004 and certain people kept harassing those saying that on various forums. A lesson for us about who has credibility and who has not.
The J-15 takes up less space than an F/A-18 when folded(and you have monsters like the A-5), and the issue becomes one of height, if anything. Its probably the other way around and can be argued that american aircraft carriers haven't been able to grow because the shipyards, associated handling facilities and logistics haven't gotten big enough to handle anything too different from the existing Nimitz hulls.
In that regard, there is far more potential for more (r)evolutionary designs from Chinese shipyards when it comes to aircraft carriers in the future.
Yup, this video may argue the 100k tons is the goldilocks state, but read between the lines, the limits are really the things you mentioned.
lcloo
Major
Yes that is very true. US aircraft carriers have to be built to be compatible with legacy infrastructure like existing dry docks, canals (especially Panama canals) and other infrastructure.
While it is the other way around for China. They are building new infrastructure that are designed to accommodate future bigger ships of wider beams. i.e. They are building new infrastructure to be compatible with future large size ships.
Side note: width of waterline beam of an aircraft carrier is not directly associated with aircraft type because the hangar floor deck is way above the waterline.
Meanwhile, the official Chinese line is still: CVN? What CVN? Is that a new boba tea flavor?
Apologize if this has been asked before but has anyone measured the drydock at Sanya's dimensions yet?