Type 002 (CV-18) Carrier News & Discussions

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

  1. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,247
    Likes Received:
    15,309
    For those wanting the original source and picture:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rd-and-largest-aircraft-carrier-idUSKCN1SD0CP

    The article isn't very useful as it doesn't add much that we already know, and it still makes the mistake of calling it 002 rather than 003.

    Otherwise the key reason it's useful for us is the satellite picture where we get a good estimate of its beam. 41m is a bit bigger than expected but it's within bounds of what some of us have estimated in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being closer to 38-39m. But we know that it isn't something like 32m.

    csis 003 jn.jpg
     
  2. Totoro
    Offline

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    1,103
    Actually they're being a bit conservative, I think. There appears to be some tapering going on on that particular piece of hull. Measuring width more towards the gantry yields closer to 42 meters. (of course this is not the waterline level anymore) The gap that appears to be the hangar section is fairly narrow, though. I am getting 27 or so meters, not more.

    Still, great photo and great addition to our intelligence dataset by CSIS, they've been doing some nice, informative articles over the years.
     
    Deino likes this.
  3. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,247
    Likes Received:
    15,309
    I don't think that the gap in the module you're looking at is for the hangar, rather it's just the middle of the hull module that has yet to be "filled in". The hangar's dimensions should only be apparent later on once some additional "side" modules are added. Right now we should only be looking at just above the waterline.
    Or rather, I would guess that the highest part of the modules we've seen so far, is probably at the level of the floor of the hangar deck. In time we will probably see the "wall" modules added on top of the super block (either at the current location or in drydock) to make the hangar.

    The satellite photos they have are good (though that's more a reflection of being able to contract out imagery), the information they write up is sometimes accurate, sometimes not.
     
    Appix, duncanidaho, by78 and 2 others like this.
  4. KIENCHIN
    Offline

    KIENCHIN Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    1,071
    So Blitzo with these new details at hand, any guess how big this carrier is going to be.
     
  5. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    269
    My calculation gives 39 meters.

    The journalist measured the side as well, not only the top element.
    The satellite made the picture from angle, not perpendicularly .

    And the 41 meters width could put this carrier to the same class like the Nimitz.

    But the 39 meters is closer to the nimitz than to the type 001 . (35m by wiki)

    reference carrier.jpg china carrier.jpg
     
  6. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    269
  7. Deino
    Online

    Deino Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    9,617
    Likes Received:
    24,312
  8. ZeEa5KPul
    Offline

    ZeEa5KPul Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    607
    Your previous measurements and calculations were 32 metres:

    https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-002-cv-18-carrier-news-discussions.t8048/page-267#post-552695

    So your measurements and calculations don't count for much.
     
    Bltizo, duncanidaho, taxiya and 3 others like this.
  9. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    269
    Check the end of the arrow on the picture I linked...

    And what does matter is the method of calculation, I published that, so you can check the results.

    Not complicated....
     
    #2699 Anlsvrthng, May 7, 2019
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
  10. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,247
    Likes Received:
    15,309
    I think the exact resolution is not clear enough for us to confidently claim the exact meter length of the beam. For you this is further compounded by having to rely on GE to get the length of another variable to try to compare it with the CSIS photo to try and calibrate it to the same visual height. All of that adds error which could very easily produce a difference of a few meters.

    IMO the exact beam of it is not too important; whether it's 39m, 40m or 41m or whatever.

    The use of this image and their measured distance is useful in confirming that the beam of the vessel is definitely not 32m or LHD sized, but is rather carrier sized as everyone else has been saying.

    Personally I've been convinced this was a carrier since we got pictures of it in work last year, but this is for the people who are still skeptical for whatever reason.
     
    N00813, Jono, KIENCHIN and 3 others like this.
Loading...

Share This Page