Future PLAN orbat discussion

[Engineer]

Yes, US went with an all-nuclear supercarrier fleet. You just proved our point! Yes, they are so great, that's why all US aircraft carriers have nuclear propulsion.

Whether a dinghy boat or littoral ship lacks nuclear propulsion is a red herring argument and irrelevant to carrier propulsion discussion at hand.

Except they didn't go with an all-nuclear fleet, not even an all-nuclear carrier fleet (if we were to include LHAs), and that is not red herring but the actual point. The same arguments being used to explain why China's aircraft carriers should have nuclear propulsion are the same old ones used that turned out poorly in practice. Imagine the US at its zenith where money was no object and still found something too expensive. As to why US has an all-nuclear supercarrier fleet, read what I've wrote again which you conviently left out:

The US sticks with nuclear carriers not because nuclear propulsion is wonderful, but because of entrenched interests, essentially suffering from 体制问题 and not something that China should emulate.

China is not a dirt poor country anymore, it can afford luxury items like nuclear carriers without blinking an eye. GAO points out diminishing returns, but GAO also recognizes US can absorb the costs ten times over, so it's almost a rounding error as far as Pentagon is concerned.

GAO report was written when US was at its zenith, and even then GAO recommended conventional carrier fleet. Clearly, it wasn't a rounding error and it still isn't. You offer no argument as to why China's aircraft carrier should be nuclear powered other than because US does it, and the reason US does it is on shaky foundation to begin with. China no longer being dirt poor doesn't mean China is now free to set money on fire, as there are always areas that could use more funding even within a military.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Except they didn't go with an all-nuclear fleet, not even an all-nuclear carrier fleet (if we were to include LHAs), and that is not red herring but the actual point. The same arguments being used to explain why China's aircraft carriers should have nuclear propulsion are the same old ones used that turned out poorly in practice. Imagine the US at its zenith where money was no object and still found something too expensive. As to why US has an all-nuclear supercarrier fleet, tead what I've wrote again which you conviently left out:



GAO report was written when US was at its zenith, and even then GAO recommended conventional carrier fleet. Clearly, it wasn't a rounding error and it still isn't. You offer no argument as to why China's aircraft carrier should be nuclear powered other than because US does it, and the reason US does it is on shaky foundation to begin with. China no longer being dirt poor doesn't mean China is now free to set money on fire, as there are always areas that could use more funding even within a military.

i have read all your massages.

your first statement, lack of overseas naval bases can only be resolved by building oversea naval bases.

now you are saying, that doesn't mean China is now free to set money on fire, as there are always areas that could use more funding even within a military.

i m sure, you know pretty well. it is way easier and cheaper to build CVNs than build a new military base far away from mainland. no political backlash , economically and technological feasible as well.

that is contradicting with your own statement. China better not to waste money on CVN but to build more naval base.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this news has nothing to do with CVN but this is Nuclear marine propulsion we are talking about right now.

JiangNan shipyard has been granted civilian nuclear safety handling by the government.




necessary preparation have completed and JG is all set to build first nuclear powered civilian ship. most likely a ice breaker.

localized supply chain , master the key technologies and sufficient infrastructure made this possible. they can build nuclear ice breaker , floating reactor but it is WaStE of mOnEy to build CVN. zero logic

 

[Engineer]

The false equivalency exists in the sense that CVNs, SSNs and SSBNs continue to exist in service in the world's preeminent navy while past nuclear surface combatants no longer are.

In that case, I believe you might be the one who introduced the false equivalency as you formed a mental image of my argument, by being overly focused on contradiction of "why ships X, Y, and Z still exist when U, V, W are gone". My argument is more like "problems causing U, V, W to disappear might very well still exist on X, Y, and Z".

From memory, the GAO outcome was that CVNs have higher life cycle costs than CVs and have higher maintenance requirements than CVs, but CVNs can sustain longer distance transits at higher speeds than CVs, with better acceleration, and transit indefinitely without having to replenish its own propulsion fuel, but all else is held equal assuming the CVN and CV alternative designs are equal.
There are also certain factors that the GAO looked at which are not quite as material to the PLAN, such as USN operating their carriers in relatively permissive environments even say, in the Gulf War, as well as having a larger refuelling fleet that was able to be comprehensively operated and defended with minimal risk of targeting which the PLAN may not have the benefit of in a high end conflict.

...

The CVN CSG had fuel to steam for 34 days vs CV CSG for 29 days, aviation fuel for 23 days vs 17 days, ordnance of 41 days vs 30 days.

How much of that can be accounted for by holding design consistent is a different question (such as ordnance and aviation fuel, as USN CVNs were designed a bit larger than their largest CV counterpart), as we would have to consider whether the PLAN could build a conventionally powered ship with the same footprint as a CVN as well.... in which case the most significant difference would be the "fuel to steam" difference of 34 vs 29 days.
Is that difference of 5 days worthwhile? For a LIC, I would say it probably isn't. For a HIC, I am less sure.

Forgive me as I couldn't address your post point-by-point. The gist is that replenishment of a carrier's own fuel is not as big of a burden as people imagine it to be. The logistical burden of everything else: ammunitons, aviation fuel, escorts needs are a lot higher. As you pointed out, replenishment ships would be primary targets, and after these are gone one might see the so called "benefits" of nuclear propulsion start appearing after two weeks mark. However, whether there would even be a task force left after two weeks of HIC is debatable.

 

[Engineer]

i have read all your massages.

your first statement, lack of overseas naval bases can only be resolved by building oversea naval bases.

now you are saying, that doesn't mean China is now free to set money on fire, as there are always areas that could use more funding even within a military.

i m sure, you know pretty well. it is way easier and cheaper to build CVNs than build a new military base far away from mainland. no political backlash , economically and technological feasible as well.

that is contradicting with your own statement. China better not to waste money on CVN but to build more naval base.

There is no contradiction. The issue isn't whether nuclear carriers are cheaper than oversea naval bases. The issue is that naval bases and nuclear carriers are fundamentally different, with the former being logistic supporters and latter being logistic consumers. The problems due to lack of oversea bases would not disappear because of nuclear carriers. Highlighting this fact does not mean I am advocating for foreign military bases — I have no strong opinion one way or another.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this news has nothing to do with CVN but this is Nuclear marine propulsion we are talking about right now.

JiangNan shipyard has been granted civilian nuclear safety handling by the government.


necessary preparation have completed and JG is all set to build first nuclear powered civilian ship. most likely a ice breaker.

localized supply chain , master the key technologies and sufficient infrastructure made this possible. they can build nuclear ice breaker , floating reactor but it is WaStE of mOnEy to build CVN. zero logic

Are you trolling or are you really that uneducated? How does a floating civilian nuclear powerplant even remotely comparable to nuclear powered military vessel? Is everything nuclear just the same to you?

 

[sunnymaxi]

There is no contradiction. The issue isn't whether nuclear carriers are cheaper than oversea naval bases. The issue is that naval bases and nuclear carriers are fundamentally different, with the former being logistic supporters and latter being logistic consumers. The problems due to lack of oversea bases would not disappear because of nuclear carriers. Highlighting this fact does not mean I am advocating for foreign military bases — I have no strong opinion one way or another.


Are you trolling or are you really that uneducated? How does a floating civilian nuclear powerplant even remotely comparable to nuclear powered military vessel? Is everything nuclear just the same to you?

how old are you uncle ??

nuclear reactors on icebreakers and aircraft carriers generally use the same fundamental technology and engineering methods, specifically Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) and high power density.. it is just the operational requirement that different for both ships. its about fuel enrichment. Low or High

go back to school please.

 

[Engineer]

how old are you uncle ??

nuclear reactors on icebreakers and aircraft carriers generally use the same fundamental technology and engineering methods, specifically Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) and high power density.. it is just the operational requirement that different for both ships. its about fuel enrichment. Low or High

go back to school please.

So you know they are not comparable yet you made a stupid comparison anyway? Thank you for outing yourself for trolling.

 

[sunnymaxi]

So you know they are not comparable yet you made a stupid comparison anyway? Thank you for outing yourself for trolling.

it is not. stop embarrassing yourself uncle.

From a design and engineering perspective both LEU and HEU reactors shared same philosophy but the actual difference lies in core and density. HEU reactors allow for more compact cores due to higher fissile content that's why preferable for naval ships. also both reactors have same upstream supply chain in components, particularly in the stages of mining, milling, conversion, and enrichment.

this is the basic knowledge. don't act like a kid.

 

[Engineer]

it is not. stop embarrassing yourself uncle.

If you want to hear embarrassment, just read your own post out loud, kiddo:

From a design and engineering perspective both LEU and HEU reactors shared same philosophy but...

"They are same but..."

the actual difference lies in core and density.

"different."

So is it same or different? You can't even make up your mind because you don't know! Words have meanings, and if you couldn't even grasp the concepts of "same" vs. "different" in this context, you are not in a position to participate in this discussion.

HEU reactors allow for more compact cores due to higher fissile content that's why preferable for naval ships. also both reactors have same upstream supply chain in components, particularly in the stages of mining, milling, conversion, and enrichment.

This has nothing to do with high or low enrichment or supply chain. This has to do with you having no clue on what distinguishes a floating civilian nuclear powerplant from a nuclear powered military vessels. Go flip through a dictionary if you don't know the differences of "civilian" vs. "military" or "powerplant" vs. "propulsion". Your attempt at showing off neither proves nuclear propulsion to be advantageous, nor refutes my statement about military bases. Now that you had your one minute spotlight, I ask that you stop polluting this discussion with your "wisdom".

this is the basic knowledge. don't act like a kid.

So why are you lacking basic knowledge while acting like a kid at the same time?

 

[sunnymaxi]

If you want to hear embarrassment, just read your own post out loud, kiddo:


"They are same but..."

"different."

So is it same or different? You can't even make up your mind because you don't know! Words have meanings, and if you couldn't even grasp the concepts of "same" vs. "different" in this context, you are not in a position to participate in this discussion.


This has nothing to do with high or low enrichment or supply chain. This has to do with you having no clue on what distinguishes a floating civilian nuclear powerplant from a nuclear powered military vessels. Go flip through a dictionary if you don't know the differences of "civilian" vs. "military" or "powerplant" vs. "propulsion". Your attempt at showing off neither proves nuclear propulsion to be advantageous, nor refutes my statement about military bases. Now that you had your one minute spotlight, I ask that you stop polluting this discussion with your "wisdom".


So why are you lacking basic knowledge while acting like a kid at the same time?

you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your mistake. uncle i have now serious doubt on your education. please go back to school and do read.

From a design and engineering perspective both LEU and HEU reactors shared same philosophy but the actual difference lies in core and density. HEU reactors allow for more compact cores due to higher fissile content that's why preferable for naval ships. also both reactors have same upstream supply chain in components, particularly in the stages of mining, milling, conversion, and enrichment.

i have read your all old massages even on other threads as well. this time i won't let you run away.

 

[Engineer]

you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your mistake. uncle i have now serious doubt on your education. please go back to school and do read.

Huh? Why should I acknowledge mistakes when you are the one making them? Is this some sort of uneducated joke that I am too educated to understand?

From a design and engineering perspective both LEU and HEU reactors shared same philosophy but the actual difference lies in core and density. HEU reactors allow for more compact cores due to higher fissile content that's why preferable for naval ships. also both reactors have same upstream supply chain in components, particularly in the stages of mining, milling, conversion, and enrichment.

i have read your all old massages even on other threads as well. this time i won't let you run away.

This has nothing to do with high or low enrichment or supply chain. This has to do with you lacking a basic idea on what distinguishes a floating civilian nuclear powerplant from a nuclear powered military vessels. Go flip through a dictionary if you don't know the differences of "civilian" vs. "military" or "powerplant" vs. "propulsion".