CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Totoro]

One can actually scale the place up using the width of the access roads and sizing them up via Google Earth. I am getting the following:
Size of the construction hall: 153 by 56 meters
Width of the small crane: 80 m
Width of the large crane: 166 m

width of the module that's outside the hall: 48 m
length of the module that's outside the hall: 22 m
Width of said module close to the ground: 33-35 m (hard to tell where it ends, since it's possibly not sitting on the ground)

 

[asif iqbal]

I would like to see how they are going to get these round to the dry dock

Not impossible

 

[Mirabo]

One can actually scale the place up using the width of the access roads and sizing them up via Google Earth. I am getting the following:
Size of the construction hall: 153 by 56 meters
Width of the small crane: 80 m
Width of the large crane: 166 m

width of the module that's outside the hall: 48 m
length of the module that's outside the hall: 22 m
Width of said module close to the ground: 33-35 m (hard to tell where it ends, since it's possibly not sitting on the ground)

Someone on the Chinese boards measured the modules and got 40m for the outside module, 38m for the inside module.

To be fair, it's incredibly hard to tell how big they are with any kind of accuracy until we get better objects for reference. If someone can find the specifications for the crane, we could refine our estimate further. I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find information on the gantry crane, as Chinese shipyards are known for having some of the largest in the world.

 

[Intrepid]

I would like to see how they are going to get these round to the dry dock

Google for Ingalls shipbuilding and you see a modern yard.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you can see a swimming dock without one wall ready to get the ship moved on it.

And

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

a swimming dock with both walls errected. Notice the rails on the ground to move the big modules.

 

[Sczepan]

One can actually scale the place up using the width of the access roads and sizing them up via Google Earth. I am getting the following:
....

width of the module that's outside the hall: 48 m
length of the module that's outside the hall: 22 m
...

Someone on the Chinese boards measured the modules and got 40m for the outside module, 38m for the inside module.
....

huh? The module in Shanghai was ~51 m and everybody said, its to small for a 1 : 1 part

 

[Orthan]

Also:

This photo seems to be taken from a kind of "backward" position relative to this photo from this post from deino. The cranes have deslocated to this position. However i wonder if this module outside the hangar is the same as the photo from deino´s post, and if its not, then where is the "old" module?

View attachment 49268

huh? The module in Shanghai was ~51 m and everybody said, its to small for a 1 : 1 part

Perhabs thats because the beam of an aircraft carrier varies a lot betwen waterline and flight deck. ford carriers have 41m-78m respectively. Taking into accout that what we are seeing are probably the modules at waterlevel, those 38-40 meters are not far-fetch IMO.

 

[Intrepid]

huh? The module in Shanghai was ~51 m and everybody said, its to small for a 1 : 1 part

51 meters over the flightdeck are much smaler than 40 meters at the waterline. With 40 meters at the waterline the flightdeck may have 70 meters.

 

[asif iqbal]

I would like to see simultaneous construction of 2 x carrier

one at JNCX and one at DL

003 and 004

both done within 3 years

 

[Mirabo]

huh? The module in Shanghai was ~51 m and everybody said, its to small for a 1 : 1 part

51 meters over the flightdeck are much smaler than 40 meters at the waterline. With 40 meters at the waterline the flightdeck may have 70 meters.

If we use the Forrestals as a yardstick, they were 39.4m widest at the waterline, and 77m for the flight deck.

The estimate that the JN modules are 38-40 metres wide, are in line with the dimensions of a 80,000-ton carrier.

For reference, the 55,000-ton Kuznetsov is 36-38m wide at waterline and 72m flight deck, and the 100,000-ton Fords are 41m wide at waterline and 78m flight deck.

 

[Blitzo]

huh? The module in Shanghai was ~51 m and everybody said, its to small for a 1 : 1 part
View attachment 49980 View attachment 49981

Others have already written this, but the 51m measurement for the JNCX demo module is too small because for the demo module the 51m would be for flight deck width.

By contrast, the overall width of Kuznetsov class is 72m and Nimitz class is 77m, that is including the flight deck.

In other words, the actual waterline beam of the hull of the JNCX demo module is only 50-60% of its overall width, meaning its waterline beam is something like 25-30m

By contrast, the 003's module that we see right now is only of its main hull (without flight deck), and the main hull width (aka waterline beam) is 38-40m.

The actual waterline beam say, of Nimitz class is 40m.