CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[li450274625]

What's 003 is missing now.

 

[Max Demian]

The article says that the two sister ships Liaoning and Shandong are of different lengths (304.5 to 315 meters). Throw away the article, it has not been properly researched! Who knows what else is inapplicable in the article.

This is a logical fallacy. Just because there is a mistake in a piece of work does not imply that the whole piece is wrong/unusable.

The inverse is also not correct: just because there is no apparent error does not imply the article is truthful.

 

[Max Demian]

The CSIS photo was shot on 08/18, at which time there was one module missing from what it is now:

View attachment 63672

The new module was added earlier Sep. Adding that module, waterline length should be 310m - 315m, 100k tons boy with no doubt.

It's also interesting to see CSIS always mentioned Conventional propulsion along with Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, but not this time.


I was wrong, mentioned in the table.

As others have pointed out, waterline length and beam are not enough information to estimate a ship’s displacement. A big factor is the finesse of the hull (block coefficient). Nimitz and Ford have less fine hulls compared to Kitty Hawk.

A Chinese paper I linked a while ago discussed an optimized Kitty Hawk hull of dimensions very close to what we are witnessing now: 320m waterline length and 40m beam. Its full displacement was 87000t, even though it is longer than both Nimitz and Ford.

 

[Max Demian]

There are a lot of unknown factors with regards to 003. Like what is the total power consumption. In the case of the Ford-class it has two 700 MWt reactors while the previous Nimitz class had two 550 MWt reactors. Which makes it seem that EMALS and other electric systems have actually increased the power requirements versus steam. After all electric systems might be more compact, lower maintenance, have performance which leads to less aircraft airframe stress on launch, but they led to more power generation losses because you are converting heat into electricity instead of using the steam directly. Because it was unknown, when 003 was designed, which catapult system would be available, and there is no known Chinese naval nuclear reactor with the required power, it is quite likely they simply decided to go with boilers. I think it is unlikely they went for gas turbine technology because steam allows them to gain experience with the future nuclear reactor, which will also output steam, and in case EMALS turns out not to work in practice having steam boilers allows the PLAN to backpedal into the steam catapults just in case. Also the Chinese have limited experience with high enough powered naval gas turbines. The Ford class EMALS so far has not proven to work all that well. It simply does not have enough reliability and the medium time between failures is too low.

Ford class needed more powerful reactors at least in part because it displaces substantially more than Nimitz: around 112kt. The EMALS is actually working quite fine. The catapult is not a very complicated machine: it’s just a scaled up amusement park linear motor. The major innovation is in the compact power delivery system, something you don’t have to bother with on land. Major problems for the class are/were in the advanced arresting gear and the advanced weapon elevators.

 

[asif iqbal]

so all indications are we are looking at 300m+ length

I would still say its not quite a super carrier over 100,000+ tons

I will still say 80,000+ tons

I will also give it the EMALS fine but not a CVN

 

[Arienai]

With the latest photo, you are right. What missing now is the bulbous bow module. Ford class waterline was only 293 meters when it lacked bulbous bow module. Ford's waterline was 317 meters long, which means that the waterline of bulbous bow module is 24 meters for Ford.

But don't forget the width at the end of Ford's bulbous bow module is 9m, for 003 it's about 7m. Thus I would't expect 003's bulbous bow module to be as long as Ford's.

Anyway, I feel like the conversation for waterline length and tonnage are getting too much. The most important measurement for a carrier is the size of it's flight deck, and then it's hanger. We still have to wait and see on those.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Is there any good picture for sizing about the floating dock that was built in the dry dock occupied at the moment by the blocks ?

The size and the timing make it probably that will be used to lift the half finished / finished carrier.

So the size of the floating dock could give clues about the size .

 

[Andy1974]

Is there any good picture for sizing about the floating dock that was built in the dry dock occupied at the moment by the blocks ?

The size and the timing make it probably that will be used to lift the half finished / finished carrier.

So the size of the floating dock could give clues about the size .

As China is now operating semi-submersibles as helicopter carriers, does this means that they actually built an aircraft carrier, exactly where and when we predicted they would and that we never noticed it or realized it?

 

[Intrepid]

As China is now operating semi-submersibles as helicopter carriers, does this means that they actually built an aircraft carrier, exactly where and when we predicted they would and that we never noticed it or realized it?

No, China is building an aircraft carrier exactly as we have expected it. And we are observing and discussing every single step for years.

 

[Appix]

so all indications are we are looking at 300m+ length

I would still say its not quite a super carrier over 100,000+ tons

I will still say 80,000+ tons

I will also give it the EMALS fine but not a CVN

That's exactly what I have expected since May 2019. The same displacement as the Kitty Hawk: around 80.000 tons. Conventional, CATOBAR, displacement of 80.000 tons. That's fine for a third carrier.