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


Totoro

Captain
VIP Professional
Yeah, I too think it's about as good measurement/guesstimate as can be done right now. Assuming the bulkhead in the drydock is in the exact same place. Not sure its exact waterline measurement, as we should already be seeing floor of the hangar, or at most one deck below hangar level. Which could add a few meters to the bow section.

Also, for reference's sake, Forrestal carrier waterline length is 300 m.
 

Orthan

Junior Member
If my baseline and calculation is not too far off I come to a length of about 285 m.

Hard to say at this point. If it were a clear satellite picture like the one we got on august 15, we would have a better ideia. But TBH, if this carrier will have a 80000t displacement, i would expect a bigger length than that. About 300 meters.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
What do you think? Given the latest - albeit quite low quality - images I tried to estimate the Type 003 aircraft carrier's waterline length (albeit minus the very front end):
If my baseline and calculation is not too far off I come to a length of about 285 m.

Any comments and especially corrections are welcome.

View attachment 64711
Is it a camera effect or are your lines not straight? I would assume the projection of a rectangle would be some kind of parallelogram
 

para80

New Member
Registered Member
Hard to say at this point. If it were a clear satellite picture like the one we got on august 15, we would have a better ideia. But TBH, if this carrier will have a 80000t displacement, i would expect a bigger length than that. About 300 meters.
Displacement is not easy to calculate, if at all, purely from waterline length. Forrestal class at 60,000 tons was 300 metres at WL. QE-class carriers are somewhere south of 280/284 metres for a higher displacement. Frankly for the ballpark estimate of 75-85k tons a WL length of 285 metres would IMO be perfectly reasonable. I suspect this measurement is still slightly off and we are probably closer to 290 or 295 metres, but either way, it works.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
In that case, won't a linear estimate be not very accurate? Rectangle -> parallelogram is a linear transform, Rectangle-> Trapezoid will involve unequal stretching.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Displacement is not easy to calculate, if at all, purely from waterline length. Forrestal class at 60,000 tons was 300 metres at WL. QE-class carriers are somewhere south of 280/284 metres for a higher displacement. Frankly for the ballpark estimate of 75-85k tons a WL length of 285 metres would IMO be perfectly reasonable. I suspect this measurement is still slightly off and we are probably closer to 290 or 295 metres, but either way, it works.
Indeed and it is surely off since at least the very front section with the bulbous bow is missing. Given the fact (?) that the small gap equals bout 6.9m so I assume about another 20-25 m added, which would result in the often claimed length of about 300-310m.
 

Top