CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
The ship 4 massive PAR and EM catobar consume a lot of electrical power.unless it was fitted with a small nuclear reactor to generate electrical power.
Nuclear reactors do not have a higher PWR (power to weight ratio) than ICE (internal combustion engines). If that were the case then we'd have nuclear powered jet planes.

Nuclear reactors give you more energy not power.
 

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nuclear reactors do not have a higher PWR (power to weight ratio) than ICE (internal combustion engines). If that were the case then we'd have nuclear powered jet planes.

Nuclear reactors give you more energy not power.
Nuclear power is like an extremely large fuel tank that lasts 20 years. Nuclear fuel contains more energy per KG compared to Oil. But that is pretty much the only difference. They could also be more expensive, more risky, and more heavy.

Add 2-3 extra tankers to your fleet per carrier, and then you solve the carrier endurance problem and thus no longer need nuclear carriers. I think nuclear is more trouble than worth, especially in the modern battlefield when carriers are vulnerable to getting sunk by missiles. So, it might be better to have conventional carriers that are cheaper, easier to maintain and even smaller to distribute the navy more.

China may eventually build Nuclear carriers for bragging rights purposes and showing that they have caught up to US in naval technology. But other than that I see no extra strategic value to having Nuclear Carriers.
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nuclear power is like an extremely large fuel tank that lasts 20 years. Nuclear fuel contains more energy per KG compared to Oil. But that is pretty much the only difference. They could also be more expensive, more risky, and more heavy.

Add 2-3 extra tankers to your fleet per carrier, and then you solve the carrier endurance problem and thus no longer need nuclear carriers. I think nuclear is more trouble than worth, especially in the modern battlefield when carriers are vulnerable to getting sunk by missiles. So, it might be better to have conventional carriers that are cheaper, easier to maintain and even smaller to distribute the navy more.

China may eventually build Nuclear carriers for bragging rights purposes and showing that they have caught up to US in naval technology. But other than that I see no extra strategic value to having Nuclear Carriers.
As for everything, there is a reason why some navies adopt nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

Nuclear powered carriers carry vastly more armaments and aviation fuel than conventional power carriers. They have more internal volume and smaller islands/large decks because there is no need for huge smoke stacks from the bottom to the top of the ship.

Furthermore, experience from WW2 showed that carriers are particularly vulnerable during refueling and unable to react quickly to developing circumstances in such a situation. When operating far from base, their oilers are a critical vulnerability and have to be operated relatively farther from the enemy, complicating logistics and planning.

Finally, a nuclear power carrier can rapidly deploy to theater as it can sustain top speed without the need to slow down and randevouz with an oiler.
 

by78

General
A rough comparison of China's carriers.

53709427569_2b9475142b_o.jpg
 
Top