CV-18 Fujian - Type 003 Aircraft Carrier News & Discussions

[Deino]

Some minor news from the construction site ... some work is going on under these new movable shelters;

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Some minor news from the construction site ... some work is going on under these new movable shelters;

View attachment 647423

These new modules could belong to the parts above the waterline to the flight deck.

 

[Figaro]

Some minor news from the construction site ... some work is going on under these new movable shelters;

View attachment 647423

I wish the picture was higher resolution

 

[Niko Zhang]

Then tell me, which conventional carrier in the history has displaced over 80,000 metric tons?

Oh I’m sorry, but there are some. 4 of the Kitty Hawk class and 4 of Forrestal Class. 8 of them in total, all have a displacement of more than 80k tons, with CONVENTIONAL power.

 

[Niko Zhang]

In order to power the Type 003, they would need to re-design a brand new steam boiler system that would be much more time consuming than the nuclear powered design.

China now has very few ships that use the steam boilers. Except the Type 001/002, all destroyers that use the steam boilers are all outdated, and the continuation of the same class of ships will not be built anymore.

To re-design a brand new steam boiler system just for 1-2 carriers will be a nightmare for the maintenance, and the cost can never be covered. It is very unlikely for the PLAN to follow that path.

Oh, so u mean those 956 destroyers are outdated? What about 051B? And 051C? Do u mean these ships are outdated?

 

[Niko Zhang]

ACP100

I think I have mentioned this before.

It is a quite mature technology, and less risky than to develop a whole new steam boiler system that powers a ship that outweighs the Kitty Hawk class by 20,000 metric tons.

And now u r claiming 003 is a ship bigger than Nimitz class, almost as big as the Ford class. Is this what u mean?

 

[LKJ86]

Via @利刃斩海飞剪艏 from Weibo

 

[Deino]

are these modules too slightly right besides these movable shelters?

 

[Deino]

are these modules too slightly right besides these movable shelters?

View attachment 647573 View attachment 647574

After a second look they are indeed there since some time and also they look more like movable halls/shelters, albeit smaller than the ones, which hide the carrier.

 

[lcloo]

May be they are here, at the staging yard beside the dry dock. Also inside the two larger white mobile shelters just to the North.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Oh I’m sorry, but there are some. 4 of the Kitty Hawk class and 4 of Forrestal Class. 8 of them in total, all have a displacement of more than 80k tons, with CONVENTIONAL power.

Metric tons wise, the Kitty Hawk class weighed about 75,000 metric tons with the full load tonnage.

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/histories/cv64-constellation/cv64-constellation.html

Those 80,000+ tons figures were in fact based on the us short tons.

So no conventional carrier in the history has weighed over 80,000 metric tons.

The earliest Nimitz class ships weigh around 88,000 metric tons, only the late ships of this class have increased its tonnage to over 95,000 metric tons with the more reinforced Kevlar armor and increased draft.

https://allhands.navy.mil/Features/Ford

Oh, so u mean those 956 destroyers are outdated? What about 051B? And 051C? Do u mean these ships are outdated?

They are indeed outdated, China's current mainstream destroyers are all gas turbines, no more steam turbines powered by the steam boilers.

And now u r claiming 003 is a ship bigger than Nimitz class, almost as big as the Ford class. Is this what u mean?

For now, it is not certain that the Type 003 can outweigh the CVN-78, but to outweigh the CVN-68 most likely yes.

Because based on the satellite images, we can be sure the waterline of the Type 003 is somewhat between 310 to 320 meters. And the waterline for the Nimitz/Ford class is around 317 meters.

If the waterline length of the Type 003 is around 310 meters, then it should weigh around 95,000 metric tons at full load. It could be a tad shorter than the CVN-68, but with more reinforced armor, wider flight deck, and increased draft.

If the waterline length is around 315 meters, then it is going to weigh over 100,000 metric tons for sure, it is about the same as the CVN-78.

 

[OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd]

And now u r claiming 003 is a ship bigger than Nimitz class, almost as big as the Ford class. Is this what u mean?

Why are you so pessimistic and behaving like a SCIENCETIFIC weakling ??

 

[Figaro]

Why are you so pessimistic and behaving like a SCIENCETIFIC weakling ??

To be fair I didn't know the 003 was larger than the Nimitz. I always assumed it was in the Kitty Hawk size range, maybe slightly larger?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

To be fair I didn't know the 003 was larger than the Nimitz. I always assumed it was in the Kitty Hawk size range, maybe slightly larger?

waterline length
Nimitz/Ford: 317 meters
Kitty Hawk: 300 meters
Type 003: 310 - 320 meters

waterline width
Nimitz/Ford: 40.8 meters
Kitty Hawk: 39.6 meters
Type 003: 40.5 - 41 meters

The Type 003 is a supercarrier designed in the 21st century with more reinforced armor, bigger flight deck, more draft than the CVN-68. So most likely heavier.

As compared to the CVN-78, not sure yet, and need more observation until the ship takes into shape.

Why are you so pessimistic and behaving like a SCIENCETIFIC weakling ??

The answer will be available by the end of this year.

 

[Figaro]

I am always ANGRY ... that there are so many Chinese Intellectual WEAKLING from CHN who
have been brainwashed by the western / Murican, and always use a double standard to judge the Murican Scientific achievement and double standard to measure Murican Global Criminal behaviors for the last 200 years.

And, these Chinese Intellectual WEAKLING always believe the Tank Man myth.

Proof:
Just quickly check this video ~ before YouTube / Google remove it:

1989 Tank Man myth: ( u can jump ahead to time = 07:30 )

===

Back to main topic.

What does this have to do with the 003 carrier?