00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[TK3600]

I think the real implication of China building nuclear carrier isn't the carrier itself, given the amount of investment in naval buildup China could have built one years ago if resources were more focused in that direction at the expense of other programs.

I think the real implication is China now see a need for them, and the need is global power projection.

Case in point, voyage of discovery to Australia.

I can't wait to settle on that uninhabited island.

 

[jvodan]

I can't wait to settle on that uninhabited island.

terra nullius

 

[charles18]

I think the real implication of China building nuclear carrier isn't the carrier itself, given the amount of investment in naval buildup China could have built one years ago if resources were more focused in that direction at the expense of other programs.

I think the real implication is China now see a need for them, and the need is global power projection.

In the year 1839 Britain launched a warship named "Nemesis".
It was made of iron and powered by two steam engines (a technological marvel at the time). It would eventually make its way to China "unannounced".

200 years Later by the year 2039.....I am confident the Type 004 will be paying an unannounced visit to Britain.
The mission will be purely diplomatic of coarse, just a reminder. Of course there will be more than one ship I think everybody knows what I'm getting at. *grin*

 

[no_name]

Link between aircraft carriers and power projection is postww2 copium, caused by need to justify navy somehow(and make use of it).
Just like that it wasn't airpower that killed battleships. It was lack of peers, that made them absolutely useless.

When there are equal naval opponents, carriers aren't justified by power projection or other cw Soviet propaganda(colonialism ships). They're justified by basic necessities of naval warfare.

Carrier's foremost focus should always be on fleet battle and sea space control. It only seems to be useful for power projection and land attack missions because US has been used to using it to fight weaker opponents.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Carrier's foremost focus should always be on fleet battle and sea space control. It only seems to be useful for power projection and land attack missions because US has been used to using it to fight weaker opponents.

Well, there was no one willing or capable of directly challenging USN since 1944.
USN had to adjust.

 

[iewgnem]

Link between aircraft carriers and power projection is postww2 copium, caused by need to justify navy somehow(and make use of it).
Just like that it wasn't airpower that killed battleships. It was lack of peers, that made them absolutely useless.

When there are equal naval opponents, carriers aren't justified by power projection or other cw Soviet propaganda(colonialism ships). They're justified by basic necessities of naval warfare.

This isn't about carrier vs other ships, this is about nuclear vs conventional.
You don't need nuclear if you don't plan on spending a very long time at sea.

 

[THX 1138]

This isn't about carrier vs other ships, this is about nuclear vs conventional.
You don't need nuclear if you don't plan on spending a very long time at sea.

I vaguely remember reading that the Fujian is already at the practical displacement limit for conventionally powered carriers. Any larger, and it would become too space and cost inefficient compared to nuclear powered carriers.

So the switch to nuclear power could simply be due to the PLAN's desire for larger carriers. It doesn't necessarily signal an intention to project imperialistic power in other continents.

 

[iewgnem]

I vaguely remember reading that the Fujian is already at the practical displacement limit for conventionally powered carriers. Any larger, and it would become too space and cost inefficient compared to nuclear powered carriers.

So the switch to nuclear power could simply be due to the PLAN's desire for larger carriers. It doesn't necessarily signal an intention to project imperialistic power in other continents.

Wait til you find out the tonnage of commercial ships these days

I think a lot of people invested too much in the China builds great wall part and missed the China killed everyone on the other side of the wall part

When China talk about century of humiliation, the translation missed the implied "and we must take revenge" "

 

[Tomboy]

Wait til you find out the tonnage of commercial ships these days

Commercial don't need to carry extra provision such as aviation facility, extra fuel for the jets, living facilities for a few thousand crew member for extended amount of time(Carrier deployment can be months long if not over a year in war time, while the average time to sail from China to the US for a container ship is well under a month and even the largest container ship only have a complement of a few dozen crew members due to automation), etc and all the while maintaining good maneuverability and speed(Bulk carriers usually don't exceed a dozen knots while carriers need to have dashing speed up to 30+ knots to launch aircrafts or to perform evasive maneuvers in war time)

 

[Cloud_Nine_]

I vaguely remember reading that the Fujian is already at the practical displacement limit for conventionally powered carriers. Any larger, and it would become too space and cost inefficient compared to nuclear powered carriers.

So the switch to nuclear power could simply be due to the PLAN's desire for larger carriers. It doesn't necessarily signal an intention to project imperialistic power in other continents.

A carrier is a carrier; there's no such thing as a "defensive carrier." It'd be foolish for China to continue to believe in good faith that the US Navy is going to be impartial and protect SLOC for Chinese ships.

I don't know about a cap on how large a conventional carrier can be in terms of cost-effectiveness, but according to the findings of NSIAD-98-1, a conventional carrier is always going to be much cheaper than a CVN in life cycle cost (58% actually) while providing slightly better availability. I think you mean in terms of the design of a single hull, the space efficiency of nuclear propulsion shines when the ship is large enough and there's a break-off point somewhere at 80,000~90,000 tons or sth.