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


Totoro

Captain
VIP Professional
Is this the front end of the flight deck?
View attachment 71151
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.

When I measure the distance from the bow edge to some imaginary line right after the stern edge (Estimate of just a few meters of overhang of the currently visible stern edge) I get the following figure for the overall length: 316 m.

Now, the important thing there is that the same catapult lengths were used on 003 estimate as we can see both on Ford and Nimitz class.

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, I am somehow doubting Chinese ones will be that short. While they don't have to be quite as long as ones on Ford/Nimitz, J-15 and likely KJ600 do need quite a bit of catapult run. And future proofing the design for heavy aircraft is always prudent, as the carrier might have to operate for the next 40 years.

If the bow-to-deflector distances are 120 m from the deck edge to the deflector, and if we're indeed looking at the deck cut out locations for deflectors, then that might suggest overall carrier length of just 306 m.

Of course, all that is give or take a few meters. As the stern overhang isn't even know. It might be very miniscule.
 

Intrepid

Captain
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 ...
The Enterprise's catapults are said to have been unable to launch planes from the motionless ship.
 

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
 

H2O

Junior Member
Registered Member
Since we're pointing out modules of the ship, there is the module for the fantail. The module in question is right next to the blue colored part. Notice the slant?

unbenannt-png.71146
 

Totoro

Captain
VIP Professional
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.
All that may be true, but the end result may still not be a shorter catapult run.

As we see on Ford carrier, its EMALS features identically long catapult run (deflector to edge of bow) as steam catapults on Nimitz. So whatever extra power is there in the design was not used to make the catapult shorter but was likely used in other ways. Perhaps diluting that extra power over the same span so the wear and tear on the catapult itself is less. Or the wear and tear on the planes is less.

Or simply all that power is kept in reserve for future proofing, if and when heavier planes appear.

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?
 

Intrepid

Captain
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?
10 extra meters on the forecastle deck is one or two aircraft more parked after landing.
 

Top