And which one of these does this (CVN-68) matches with?
Remember, all of them have a BULB sticking out for the bow to be called
bulbous bow. The design line of CVN-68 lacks that bulb. Also these drawings are in 2 dimension. The bulb is a 3-d shape.
For a comparison, here is Battleship Yamato which has a typical bulb associated with thick Faired-in Bulb and Ram bow. CVN-68 lacks that.
Here is another scale model to see how thick and swollen up the bulb needs to be.
CVN-68 Bow lack this thick bulb and is a V-shaped blunted clipper bow.
Need more evidence that Nimitz class before CVN-76 did not have bulbous bows? Read on...
Here is another document from US Navy Dock construction that calls out that last two ships (CVN-76 and CVN-77) had bulbous bows.
Here is a page from the technical report published by RAND corporation (
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR480.pdf) which again identifies that CVN-76 and CVN-77 (unlike their predecessors) incorporated a bulbous bow design.
Need more evidence for me prove that CVN-68 did NOT have a bulbous bow? I can cite many more books and journals. Problem is most of them will not be available to you.
Eg. There is a book called Aircraft Carrier : History by Haskew which also covers various Nimitz class carriers and identifies which had what design feature. It also identifies this shift in bow design in Nimitz class.
If you are really interested in learning about how bulbous bow bulbs are designed and what their volume should be to be effective, I invite you to read
https://www.amazon.ca/Practical-Ship-Design-D-G-M-Watson/dp/0080429998. Especially chapter 5 (Volume based ship design) and Chapter 8 (Design of lines) to understand how Hull and Bow is designed.