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


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Looks very similar, this CG may produced in 2008.:oops:
In that era, it was hard to imagine the electromagnetic catapult.
View attachment 73181View attachment 73182

This just goes to show how "obvious" a "sensible" CATOBAR design really is.

The similarities between those classic CGIs (another angle below) and the real 003 as we see it, are really superficial.
Basically it just depicts an 80k+ ton CATOBAR. The only "unique" thing that is similar to 003 is that it has three catapults (but even as far back as the late 2000s, it was presumed that the first PLAN CATOBAR design would only have three catapults).

Other differences of course, include: Liaoning style island and APAR, steam catapults rather than EM cats, three elevators (rather than two), CIWS fit includes VLS, etc.

Other things like navalized Flankers, a fixed wing propeller driven AEW&C, deck configuration, etc were all just sensible educated guesses.

images_1_18.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Silkworm

New Member
Registered Member
What is your evidence?
I apologize, poor choice of words. I should have written "Given what has been observed so far"... hence the hunch or horse sense.

Plus something doesn't add up if 003 is indeed a supercarrier: 90k tons doesn't jive with 3 cats and 2 lifts.
 

Kejora

Junior Member
Registered Member
Remember the artwork from CSIC a few years ago? It had the same notch on the flight deck for CIWS deck. It also showed that the front end of the angled deck isn't as slanted as US carrier. I think we could assume this image is what the final shape will looks like.

20210611_224605.jpg
20210611_225637.jpg
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
The important thing is modern large CATOBAR carriers are all reasonably similar in layout. Also the fact that China has a Kuznetsov class carrier hull and will likely use it as basis for its own evolution is well known in 2008, or even 1998. So it is not hard for someone in 2008, or even 1998 to come up with a superficially reasonably accurate LOOKING forecast of what the first Chinese CATOBAR carrier would look like.

But once you get pass the unavoidable superficial similarity, I would say the 2008 artwork got almost everything where the Chinese designers are likely to exercise design decisions wrong.
 

Silkworm

New Member
Registered Member
The important thing is modern large CATOBAR carriers are all reasonably similar in layout. Also the fact that China has a Kuznetsov class carrier hull and will likely use it as basis for its own evolution is well known in 2008, or even 1998. So it is not hard for someone in 2008, or even 1998 to come up with a superficially reasonably accurate LOOKING forecast of what the first Chinese CATOBAR carrier would look like.

But once you get pass the unavoidable superficial similarity, I would say the 2008 artwork got almost everything where the Chinese designers are likely to exercise design decisions wrong.
I think that pic leaked from the CSIC boardroom only dates back 3 years.
 

Silkworm

New Member
Registered Member
Since we are playing Monday morning quarterback, what about this artwork published in an SCMP article in 2020? If I recall correctly it might have been used in another article dated even earlier.

The artist certainly nailed it with the 2-lifts at a time when 3-lifts was the popular consensus.

003.jpg
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yes, that’s a much better job, but then by 2020 it may be possible for a diligent snooper to determine how many elevator the carrier has by how many sets of pulleys were on some distant subcontractor’s order books. Or I suspected, the Chinese navy had already intentionally leaked this information.

The Chinese have gotten very good at communicating via unofficial leaks while keeping up a official screen of impenetrable and all covering official secrecy. That way you know what they want you to know without your naturally expecting to know more than they are willing to tell you, and they can reel back any expectation of information release later if they feel like it.
 

Paulo R Siqueira

New Member
Registered Member
I doubt they'll park any aircraft on port (left) side of the flight deck with so little room left for error to recover planes. The deck area should be larger- compare with the USN CVN:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Common sense indicates that the flight deck should be 74 to 80 meters wide. And at least 325 meters long. Out of simple necessity.
 

Top