Yep, that could very well be the edge of the deck. I'm getting the edge to be around the same spot when I use 129 m as distance from the edge of the deflector to the edge of the deck.
The Enterprise's catapults are said to have been unable to launch planes from the motionless ship.While it's possible 003 will feature shorter catapults, perhaps like those on CVN65 Enterprise, which were 109 m from deck edge to deflector - even though they operated fairly heavy planes like F-14 ...
All that may be true, but the end result may still not be a shorter catapult run.Since electromagnetic catapult should be able to specifically modulate the forces it applies to the aircraft during every meter of travel, it should be able to accelerate an aircraft more uniformly, and thus launch the aircraft at same speed over shorter distances than a steam catapult could without exceeding the maximum force the steam catapult exerts on the aircraft during the catapult run.
So if the Chinese carrier uses electromagnetic catapults then it should be able to achieve the same performance with a shorter catapult run than steam catapults on any existing carrier.
10 extra meters on the forecastle deck is one or two aircraft more parked after landing.On another note, IF those two deflector looking spots on 003 are indeed the locations of the future deflectors, and IF Chinese EM catapults are 10 meters shorter than Nimitz/Ford ones, then we'll be looking at overall likely length of the whole carrier at just 305 or so meters. Is that plausible, given the currently visible hull outline and size?