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

[obj 705A]

2, He refuse to admit that Kitty Hawk class and Forrestal class are convention al carrier that are more than 80k tons. Indeed he quoted a source but should u spend simply 10 more minutes u will find out his source is highly questionable.

so I went to check the dimensions of Kitty hawk on the official website of the US navy, there is no URL link to the USS Kitty Hawk but there is a link to the USS Constelation, I suppose they are both exactly the same since they are both Kitty Hawk class.

displacement: 82,538 tons (74,877 metric tons) full load
length: 1,073 feet (327 meters).
beam: 130 feet (39.62 meters); extreme width: 282 feet (85.95 meters)
draft: 39 feet (11.89 meters)

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=69

Edit: I haven't noticed it before but the source that ChineseTiger used is the exact same one as mine which is the official website of the US navy so I have no idea why Niko Zhang described it as a "highly questionable" source.

 

[Niko Zhang]

so I went to check the dimensions of Kitty hawk on the official website of the US navy, there is no URL link to the USS Kitty Hawk but there is a link to the USS Constelation, I suppose they are both exactly the same since they are both Kitty Hawk class.

displacement: 82,538 tons (74,877 metric tons) full load
length: 1,073 feet (327 meters).
beam: 130 feet (39.62 meters); extreme width: 282 feet (85.95 meters)
draft: 39 feet (11.89 meters)

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=69

Edit: I haven't noticed it before but the source that ChineseTiger used is the exact same one as mine which is the official website of the US navy so I have no idea why Niko Zhang described it as a "highly questionable" source.

So what about JFK and USS America? And also, a whole bunch of other reliable source show that the displacement of USS Constellation is not the one u quote. So I will say maybe, just maybe not the whole class is more than 80k. But JFK is surely one.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... @Niko Zhang, @obj 705A & @ChineseTiger1986, please don't get angry with each other.
IMO there are arguments that favour the one and the other - aka opposite - side and at least I feel myself not in the position to decide what's the more likely option.

As such, let us enjoy the fun of controversial discussion and wait who's wrong and who's right!

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

So what about JFK and USS America? And also, a whole bunch of other reliable source show that the displacement of USS Constellation is not the one u quote. So I will say maybe, just maybe not the whole class is more than 80k. But JFK is surely one.

The USS Reagan weighs 10,000 metric tons more than the USS Nimitz, because it has increased draft and more reinforced Kevlar armor.

The USS America and JFK were pretty much same as the USS Constellation.

The 82,000 tons also means short tons for the JFK.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv-67.htm

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The fact I was talking about is:

1, Those 956, 051B, 051C are quite useful. One 956E was upgraded recently, and there is another one under modification. 051B was also upgraded couple years back. So calling these ships “outdated” is wrong. What is a outdated ship like for PLAN? Ships like those 051 and 053H1. Otherwise I will just say all the ships except 055 are outdated.

2, He refuse to admit that Kitty Hawk class and Forrestal class are convention al carrier that are more than 80k tons. Indeed he quoted a source but should u spend simply 10 more minutes u will find out his source is highly questionable.

1. China won't build any destroyer with the steam boilers, that's a fact.

2. Those 80,000+ metric tons Kitty Hawk simply never existed in the history. In order to reach that displacement, its block coefficient had to be as high as the CVN-78, a modern 21st century supercarrier with much more reinforced structure and design.

Give you an idea how fat and robust the Ford class is compared to the Nimitz class and other Cold War supercarriers.

No way that the Nimitz class or other Cold War supercarriers can have a comparable block coefficient to the Ford class.

And the most accurate figure of the full load displacement given by the shipyard is 99,201 long tons.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

so I went to check the dimensions of Kitty hawk on the official website of the US navy, there is no URL link to the USS Kitty Hawk but there is a link to the USS Constelation, I suppose they are both exactly the same since they are both Kitty Hawk class.

displacement: 82,538 tons (74,877 metric tons) full load
length: 1,073 feet (327 meters).
beam: 130 feet (39.62 meters); extreme width: 282 feet (85.95 meters)
draft: 39 feet (11.89 meters)

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=69

Edit: I haven't noticed it before but the source that ChineseTiger used is the exact same one as mine which is the official website of the US navy so I have no idea why Niko Zhang described it as a "highly questionable" source.

According to the USN, the Nimitz class only weighs 87,996.9 metric tons at full load, but this only represents the earliest three ships from CVN-68 to CVN-70. So it is impossible for the Kitty Hawk class to weigh over 80,000 metric considered it was significantly smaller than the CVN-68 with less reinforced armor.

The latest Nimitz class like the CVN-76 weighs about 98,900 metric tons according to its homeport of Yokusuka, since all ships being stationed there have to register its full load tonnage to the local authority.

 

[Niko Zhang]

1. China won't build any destroyer with the steam boilers, that's a fact.

2. Those 80,000+ metric tons Kitty Hawk simply never existed in the history. In order to reach that displacement, its block coefficient had to be as high as the CVN-78, a modern 21st century supercarrier with much more reinforced structure and design.

Give you an idea how fat and robust the Ford class is compared to the Nimitz class and other Cold War supercarriers.

No way that the Nimitz class or other Cold War supercarriers can have a comparable block coefficient to the Ford class.

And the most accurate figure of the full load displacement given by the shipyard is 99,201 long tons.

View attachment 648925

View attachment 648926

1, ture. No more steam turbine engine DDG will ever be built for PLAN. BUT like I said, those ships I mentioned are NOT outdated.

2. You really don’t understand what I say, yes? I will keep repeat what I say till u understand. I said there are conventional carrier more than 80k tons, such as Kitty Hawk class and Forrestal class. PROVE ME WRONG. Do I have to remind u that there are 8 ships I’m talking about? you kept repeating USS Constellation. I have told u to check out JFK. Come on, get onto it.

 

[Niko Zhang]

The USS Reagan weighs 10,000 metric tons more than the USS Nimitz, because it has increased draft and more reinforced Kevlar armor.

The USS America and JFK were pretty much same as the USS Constellation.

The 82,000 tons also means short tons for the JFK.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv-67.htm

Ah, see, this is where u MADE THINGS UP. On that site, there is NO single piece saying it’s short tons. It said tons. You are wasting time here come on.

Secondly, I can see that u really lack some understanding of the things u r talking about. It is well-known that JFK as a Kitty Hawk class CV, is quite different than others due to the new design and modifications. Just like those later built Nimitz.

 

[Niko Zhang]

Guys ... @Niko Zhang, @obj 705A & @ChineseTiger1986, please don't get angry with each other.
IMO there are arguments that favour the one and the other - aka opposite - side and at least I feel myself not in the position to decide what's the more likely option.

As such, let us enjoy the fun of controversial discussion and wait who's wrong and who's right!

I agree. I have no interest on talking about 003 anymore. I will stick with things that have already happened. It will make the conversation easier at least.

 

[lcloo]

Satellite photo dated 2020-07-07 from 卫星图像发烧员 Weibo. The dry dock is still empty except Xuelong II Artic exploring ship for maintenance work.

 

[samsara]

Ah, see, this is where u MADE THINGS UP. On that site, there is NO single piece saying it’s short tons. It said tons. You are wasting time here come on.

Secondly, I can see that u really lack some understanding of the things u r talking about. It is well-known that JFK as a Kitty Hawk class CV, is quite different than others due to the new design and modifications. Just like those later built Nimitz.

Btw for the case of USA, please pay attention to the terms used there:

Short Ton - Ton vs Tonne - Metric Ton

In the USA, a short ton is usually known simply as a "ton", without distinguishing it from the tonne (1,000 kilograms), known there as the "metric ton"; while the short ton or simply "ton" (as used in the US references) actually equals to 907.18474 kilograms.

Just be aware of the proper unit terms used specifically in that country.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

1, ture. No more steam turbine engine DDG will ever be built for PLAN. BUT like I said, those ships I mentioned are NOT outdated.

2. You really don’t understand what I say, yes? I will keep repeat what I say till u understand. I said there are conventional carrier more than 80k tons, such as Kitty Hawk class and Forrestal class. PROVE ME WRONG. Do I have to remind u that there are 8 ships I’m talking about? you kept repeating USS Constellation. I have told u to check out JFK. Come on, get onto it.

There is no proof that the old JFK had a significant increase of tonnage over the previous Kitty Hawk class ships except with a modified island structure.

The CVN-68 is only 88,000 metric tons, and it is about 12,000 metric tons lighter than the CVN-78 despite having the same length and beam width.

The old JFK is significantly smaller than the CVN-68, and it was also skinnier and being less armored. There is no way it can be only a couple thousand tons less than the CVN-68.

Ah, see, this is where u MADE THINGS UP. On that site, there is NO single piece saying it’s short tons. It said tons. You are wasting time here come on.

Secondly, I can see that u really lack some understanding of the things u r talking about. It is well-known that JFK as a Kitty Hawk class CV, is quite different than others due to the new design and modifications. Just like those later built Nimitz.

The CVN-68 is 97,000 short tons.

The CV-64 was 82,000 short tons.

But the CV-67 had to be 82,000 metric tons???

Who made things up?

The late Nimitz ships are much more armored than the earlier version, also with its draft being increased, hence there is a 10,000 metric tons increase.

But the old JFK only had a modified island structure, and there was no increase of armor and draft. So there was no significant increase of tonnage in the old JFK.

 

[Niko Zhang]

Btw for the case of USA, please pay attention to the terms used there:

Short Ton - Ton vs Tonne - Metric Ton

In the USA, a short ton is usually known simply as a "ton", without distinguishing it from the tonne (1,000 kilograms), known there as the "metric ton"; while the short ton or simply "ton" (as used in the US references) actually equals to 907.18474 kilograms.

Just be aware of the proper unit terms used specifically in that country.

That is a point. It likely to happen. But there is possibility that in that source the unit “ton” does mean 1000 kilograms. Because it was not clearly defined.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

That is a point. It likely to happen. But there is possibility that in that source the unit “ton” does mean 1000 kilograms. Because it was not clearly defined.

You have to aware the block coefficient of the ship.

If the CV-67 weighs over 80,000 metric tons, then its block coefficient is going to be comparable to the CVN-78.

Do you think it is possible for a Cold War conventional aircraft carrier with a relatively skinny proportion to be as robust as the most armored nuclear supercarrier of today?

 

[zhxy]

China's industrial strength surpasses that of the United States and the EU. China can build aircraft carriers> 100,000 tons.