Niko Zhang
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
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.
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.
You want to make “speculation” on a futuristic thing. Okay, in time we will find out.
But now seems like you are so crazy about denying everything that is against your opinions EVEN if it’s fact. One denying after another. Keep this in mind, your source is NOT the absolute truth. Be open-minded for god sake. After all we didn’t built these ships
Plus your whole point is about the displacement and power system of 003. I am very sure that you will also deny the fact when there is one. So I’m out. You can enjoy your imaginary victory. Like those Indian people.