Type 002 (CV-18) Carrier News & Discussions

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Jeff Head, Aug 1, 2016.

  1. Totoro
    Offline

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,177
    Likes Received:
    930
    These images are pretty high res and elements of them are nicely visible in GE, allowing size correlation and measurements. Still, I am getting some weird numbers.

    The part that is lying on the rail in front of the shelter, and which seems to be turned perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the future ship is rather wide. 43 meters. But the part which is barely visible, sticking a little out of the shelter and which seems to be positioned normally (not perpendicular) is only 34 meters in width.

    These parts should very likely be the base parts of the hull, meaning their width should be the waterline beam of the ship. I've no idea why such discrepancy between two parts. Unless the smaller part is somehow not complete? The issue is NOT in perspective as I was careful to measure from two sides, the width of two roads at the intersection, and correlate each part to its respective position. And GE is also not wrong as the measurements there correlate to some known real-world measurements. 052D for example is very much to scale as it should be.

    For reference, CdG carrier has waterline beam of 32 m, Kuznetsov has 35 m and Forrestal has 39 m.
     
    bruceb1959 and Intrepid like this.
  2. Intrepid
    Offline

    Intrepid Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Bowsections may be smaler.
     
  3. Totoro
    Offline

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,177
    Likes Received:
    930
    Very much true. (Though it's weird that the smaller section would be positioned where it has in relation to the larger section. What do they plan to do, lift the large section and position it all the way to the back of the shelters?)

    Also, IF taken at face value, those measurements would suggest a much larger carrier than previously thought. 43 m waterline beam is huge. Which is I believe there's bound to be some measurement errors there, or perhaps I am simply looking at wrong parts of the hull and misinterpreting their position within the ship. In all likelihood, i expect the max waterline beam to be anywhere from 35 to 39 meters.
     
    Intrepid likes this.
  4. Intrepid
    Offline

    Intrepid Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    I still miss the way out for the modules to their assembly place (drydock or something else).

    And this place was established in less then one year. Will they build more such places?
     
  5. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    252
    The exact dimensions of this ship haven’t ever been officially revealed have they?

    43m is very wide, but the ship might be shorter? Or it’s outright big.

    85 000 tons is just a guess based on the size of the largest conventional carriers. With so many advances in propulsion, a conventional carrier (especially one with IEP) could be made larger.

    Maybe it’s designed to be equivalent to later carriers or even larger than them, so that when suitable nuclear power plants appear, they can be retrofitted into the ship, or so that multiple submarine sized reactors can be shoved into it.

    The Enterprise was designed like that. Despite being less advanced than follow on ships, it was physically larger.

    The point of building a “white elephant” carrier with CATOBAR and conventional propulsion is kinda lost on me. If the 002 is similar to the 003, it will allow them to perform one set of missions and the 001s to perform another set.

    Is there official confirmation that it will have those specs on globalsecurity etc.? If so, disregard this post.
     
  6. Intrepid
    Offline

    Intrepid Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    R08 Queen Elizabeth has a hull 280 * 39 meters. If 003's hull has the same shape, it could be 310 * 43 meters.
     
    Biscuits likes this.
  7. Higgle
    Offline

    Higgle Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2015
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    990
    This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the new module is the section below the waterline, towards the stern, where the propeller shafts are supposed to run through. Considering that bits can still attach to either side of the new sloping module, it's safe to assume that 34m will not be the final width of that section when it is moved into later-stage assembly.

    As for the carrier's dimensions, the main hull sections on the rails (43m) must be representative of the waterline width, or close to the waterline width (which actually should be less than 43m width because torpedo bulges account for extra). So a 43m wide hull below the waterline is fine, but 43m beam at the waterline is very optimistic if not downright unrealistic. Even the 100k-ton Nimitzs do not exceed 41m at the waterline, let alone 43m.

    I believe that the modules are 38m-40m wide based on estimates from the Chinese boards, with 43m being an inaccurate result of satellite photography. In fact, one of your posts from last November even measured the modules as being 48m wide based on GE, which just isn't possible. Remember that an extra 1-2 metres of beam can mean an extra 10,000-15,000 tons of ship.
     
  8. Intrepid
    Offline

    Intrepid Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    CV-41 Midway had 44 meters at the waterline after "Extended Incremental Selected Repair Availability".
     
    #2548 Intrepid, Jan 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
    Biscuits likes this.
  9. Richard Santos
    Offline

    Richard Santos Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    942


    Where the hell did you get this?

    To add 15,000 ton by adding 1-2 meter to beam would require the added volume to consist of over 50% solid steel. Even filling it entirely with oil will only add around 3000 tons.
     
  10. Higgle
    Offline

    Higgle Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2015
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    990
    Simple inductive reasoning. If, assuming that:

    \

    CDG measures in a 42k tons full load, the Kuz at 60k tons full load, and Forrestal at 80k tons full load. Each metre of beam added correlates to an extra 5,000-6,000 tons in displacement. So, 10,000-15,000 more tons for every extra 2m of beam is fully realistic, especially for larger ships where a small increase in width means a lot of additional volume.

    Remember that as the beam gets wider, you can also expect the ship to get longer and the draft deeper.

    So, if one assumes that the carrier will have a 43m beam at the waterline, then it's logical to also assume that it will be 330m to 350m long... Which would put the displacement solidly around the 120,000-ton mark. In other words, quite unrealistic for the 003, or even the 005, or any carrier for that matter.
     
Loading...

Share This Page