CV-XX (003 carrier) Thread I ... News & Discussions


Marjohn

New Member
Registered Member
So basically it confirms what we knew all along

80,000+ tons conventional power CATOBAR/EMALS

36 aircraft with 12 rotary
Sorry, there is no confirmation there. There are only estimates here, certainly close to reality, but with a (tiny) degree of uncertainty.
 

Biscuits

Junior Member
Registered Member
So basically it confirms what we knew all along

80,000+ tons conventional power CATOBAR/EMALS

36 aircraft with 12 rotary
That seems closer to CV-17 numbers.

At 80 000+ tons, it’s the size of Kitty Hawk, with far more efficient systems on board. That thing had up to 90 aircraft total. Granted, some of the fighters were smaller F/A-18s and only some of the airwing was J-15 sized F-14s.

A more realistic estimate would be 50 fixed wing + a dozen rotary + a handful of propeller craft.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
So basically it confirms what we knew all along

80,000+ tons conventional power CATOBAR/EMALS

36 aircraft with 12 rotary
The satellite pictures do not confirm any of that.

Of course that is very much what we expect 003 to be like as it has been rumoured for many years now, but nothing about the satellite pictures or any recent pictures of the modules being constructed "confirms" any of those rumours.
 

Totoro

Captain
VIP Professional
AFAIK, Kuznetsov had max waterline beam of 38 meters. It's empty displacement was 43 000 tons. It's full displacement was 59 000 tons and its maximum overload displacement by design was 65 000.
We can also use QE class for comparison. 39 meter waterline beam. Full displacement 65 000 tons, maximum future displacement (design allowance) 70 600 tons. We have some data available to estimate empty displacement, like the fact the ship can carry at least 4000 tons of ballast water. Without fuel, planes, crew, supplies etc the empty displacement should be around 50 thousand.
Forrestal carrier, 39.4 meter waterline beam. 57-62 000 tons empty displacement (I found different figures for it). 82 000 tons full displacement.

Hull design and length, of course, also influences the displacement. The trend in carrier design seems to be to increase the width to length ratio.

Besides the fact the resolution of the photos isn't enough to discern if we're looking at 39 or 42 meter beam, nor if we're looking at the widest part of the ship, there's the fact that we may not be looking at the waterline level.

It's very hard to get exact figures from images for that widening from waterline to hangar level but here are some rough approximations: Nimitz grew by 1%, QE by 2.5% and Kuznetsov by 4.5%.

4% increase would be enough to move a 39 m waterline beam to 40.5 meters at the level of the hangar deck.

Basically, nothing is confirmed yet. It could very well happen that this third carrier uses a hull base very much derived from the Liaoning's sistership. But with internal structure, hangar, main deck and island wholly redesigned. Or that the basis is similar but ever so slightly enlarged in some sense. Increasing the waterline beam by just a meter, from 38 to 39 (true 1 m resolution is not available to us yet in those photos) could mean 5000 tons of additional displacement. (Or a different figure, depending on length, hull shape etc)
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think the exact resolution is not clear enough for us to confidently claim the exact meter length of the beam. For you this is further compounded by having to rely on GE to get the length of another variable to try to compare it with the CSIS photo to try and calibrate it to the same visual height. All of that adds error which could very easily produce a difference of a few meters.

IMO the exact beam of it is not too important; whether it's 39m, 40m or 41m or whatever.

The use of this image and their measured distance is useful in confirming that the beam of the vessel is definitely not 32m or LHD sized, but is rather carrier sized as everyone else has been saying.

Personally I've been convinced this was a carrier since we got pictures of it in work last year, but this is for the people who are still skeptical for whatever reason.
There is an additional interesting element in the picture.

The No 4 drydock is under modification, it will be enlarged from 360 meters to 580 meters

At the moment it is too small for the largest 400m container ships .

the QE drydock is 320 meters long.

dry dock no 4.jpg
 

sealordlawrence

Junior Member
As of right now the most interesting thing about the modifications to No.4 dock is not the extension (though that is interesting) but the two pits that have been installed in the dock floor nearest to the dock gate - they match, almost identically in terms of both size and distance between them, the pits installed in the dock floor of the dry-dock in Northern China in which an 055 is currently being fitted out.
 

asif iqbal

Brigadier
The satellite pictures do not confirm any of that.

Of course that is very much what we expect 003 to be like as it has been rumoured for many years now, but nothing about the satellite pictures or any recent pictures of the modules being constructed "confirms" any of those rumours.
I disagree the opposite of what you said is true that is exactly what it is telling us
 

Top