Type 002 (CV-18) Carrier News & Discussions

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

  1. asif iqbal
    Online

    asif iqbal Brigadier

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    So basically it confirms what we knew all along

    80,000+ tons conventional power CATOBAR/EMALS

    36 aircraft with 12 rotary
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  2. Marjohn
    Offline

    Marjohn New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2018
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    20
    Sorry, there is no confirmation there. There are only estimates here, certainly close to reality, but with a (tiny) degree of uncertainty.
     
    N00813 likes this.
  3. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    794
    That seems closer to CV-17 numbers.

    At 80 000+ tons, it’s the size of Kitty Hawk, with far more efficient systems on board. That thing had up to 90 aircraft total. Granted, some of the fighters were smaller F/A-18s and only some of the airwing was J-15 sized F-14s.

    A more realistic estimate would be 50 fixed wing + a dozen rotary + a handful of propeller craft.
     
    Yodello likes this.
  4. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,247
    Likes Received:
    15,309
    The satellite pictures do not confirm any of that.

    Of course that is very much what we expect 003 to be like as it has been rumoured for many years now, but nothing about the satellite pictures or any recent pictures of the modules being constructed "confirms" any of those rumours.
     
    taxiya and N00813 like this.
  5. Totoro
    Offline

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    1,103
    AFAIK, Kuznetsov had max waterline beam of 38 meters. It's empty displacement was 43 000 tons. It's full displacement was 59 000 tons and its maximum overload displacement by design was 65 000.
    We can also use QE class for comparison. 39 meter waterline beam. Full displacement 65 000 tons, maximum future displacement (design allowance) 70 600 tons. We have some data available to estimate empty displacement, like the fact the ship can carry at least 4000 tons of ballast water. Without fuel, planes, crew, supplies etc the empty displacement should be around 50 thousand.
    Forrestal carrier, 39.4 meter waterline beam. 57-62 000 tons empty displacement (I found different figures for it). 82 000 tons full displacement.

    Hull design and length, of course, also influences the displacement. The trend in carrier design seems to be to increase the width to length ratio.

    Besides the fact the resolution of the photos isn't enough to discern if we're looking at 39 or 42 meter beam, nor if we're looking at the widest part of the ship, there's the fact that we may not be looking at the waterline level.

    It's very hard to get exact figures from images for that widening from waterline to hangar level but here are some rough approximations: Nimitz grew by 1%, QE by 2.5% and Kuznetsov by 4.5%.

    4% increase would be enough to move a 39 m waterline beam to 40.5 meters at the level of the hangar deck.

    Basically, nothing is confirmed yet. It could very well happen that this third carrier uses a hull base very much derived from the Liaoning's sistership. But with internal structure, hangar, main deck and island wholly redesigned. Or that the basis is similar but ever so slightly enlarged in some sense. Increasing the waterline beam by just a meter, from 38 to 39 (true 1 m resolution is not available to us yet in those photos) could mean 5000 tons of additional displacement. (Or a different figure, depending on length, hull shape etc)
     
    KIENCHIN, N00813 and Lethe like this.
  6. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    269
    There is an additional interesting element in the picture.

    The No 4 drydock is under modification, it will be enlarged from 360 meters to 580 meters

    At the moment it is too small for the largest 400m container ships .

    the QE drydock is 320 meters long.

    dry dock no 4.jpg
     
    SteelBird, Tam and antiterror13 like this.
  7. sealordlawrence
    Offline

    sealordlawrence Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    31
    As of right now the most interesting thing about the modifications to No.4 dock is not the extension (though that is interesting) but the two pits that have been installed in the dock floor nearest to the dock gate - they match, almost identically in terms of both size and distance between them, the pits installed in the dock floor of the dry-dock in Northern China in which an 055 is currently being fitted out.
     
  8. asif iqbal
    Online

    asif iqbal Brigadier

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    I disagree the opposite of what you said is true that is exactly what it is telling us
     
  9. by78
    Offline

    by78 Colonel

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    25,048
    A satellite image from May 12th.

    (1366 x 622)
    [​IMG]
     
    jobjed, Bltizo, N00813 and 3 others like this.
  10. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    269
    where is it came from ?

    Looks like the basin has been drained.
     
    #2710 Anlsvrthng, May 14, 2019
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
Loading...

Share This Page