00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[taxiya]

Allegedly a tender, and.. well

(don't mind the AI watermark, it has nothing to do with the tender, as well as the weird text warps)

I can't trust these measurements.

What texts are from the original tender, what are added by the poster?

From the look, the measurement figures are not from the tender but added by the poster and with errors. For example, the yellow marked texts both stated right sides, that can't be right. The green marked texts says "Left side CSIC", that certainly makes no sense.
This all makes me think that the figures are made by the poster, then why does he/she bother to put these figures (regardless being acurate or not) on an unrelated official document? The document can not be used to prove or disprove anything that the poster is trying to say.

Is the diagram even part of the tender?

Even more, why a tender for some electric power conversion devices need to show diagram of the cross-section of ship WITHOUT even marking where the devices are supposed to be installed?

I may be "too" harsh on the poster but the way he/she does this makes me down-rate his/her credibility very much. For all I know, he/she could be just trying to gain attetion by pretending the figures being somehow reliable using the tender.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

I can't trust these measurements.
View attachment 170238
What texts are from the original tender, what are added by the poster?

From the look, the measurement figures are not from the tender but added by the poster and with errors. For example, the yellow marked texts both stated right sides, that can't be right. The green marked texts says "Left side CSIC", that certainly makes no sense.
This all makes me think that the figures are made by the poster, then why does he/she bother to put these figures (regardless being acurate or not) on an unrelated official document? The document can not be used to prove or disprove anything that the poster is trying to say.

Is the diagram even part of the tender?

Even more, why a tender for some electric power conversion devices need to show diagram of the cross-section of ship WITHOUT even marking where the devices are supposed to be installed?

I may be "too" harsh on the poster but the way he/she does this makes me down-rate his/her credibility very much. For all I know, he/she could be just trying to gain attetion by pretending the figures being somehow reliable using the tender.

I think it’s fairer to assume the figures were deliberately distorted for OPSEC reasons or to avoid censorship, rather than out of ill intent. The original video where this came from clearly used AI, and this isn’t the first time they’ve used AI to distort what they post.

From what I can tell, the poster seems rather nonchalant about how much attention they get. In fact, I assume they want to avoid attention (hence why I haven't mentioned their name here), because more attention means a higher likelihood of censorship. They've also been rather consistent with their postings and I have not seen anything that makes me question them beyond the usual uncertainty faced by PLA watchers.

For our purposes, without the full tender, I think the 83m figure is likely the important takeaway. It was mentioned explicitly by the poster.

Edit: they explicitly said the reason why they use AI is to avoid censorship.

 

[lcloo]

I can't trust these measurements.
View attachment 170238
What texts are from the original tender, what are added by the poster?

From the look, the measurement figures are not from the tender but added by the poster and with errors. For example, the yellow marked texts both stated right sides, that can't be right. The green marked texts says "Left side CSIC", that certainly makes no sense.
This all makes me think that the figures are made by the poster, then why does he/she bother to put these figures (regardless being acurate or not) on an unrelated official document? The document can not be used to prove or disprove anything that the poster is trying to say.

Is the diagram even part of the tender?

Even more, why a tender for some electric power conversion devices need to show diagram of the cross-section of ship WITHOUT even marking where the devices are supposed to be installed?

I may be "too" harsh on the poster but the way he/she does this makes me down-rate his/her credibility very much. For all I know, he/she could be just trying to gain attetion by pretending the figures being somehow reliable using the tender.

This looks like fishing for information. By posting a diagram with obvious wrong info on purpose will attract some people to feed correct information. This is a very common technique.

A diagram like this, coupled with correct info would be a classified document.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

After thinking it some more, I think the skepticism is very valid.

Although the poster has posted various tenders in a similar fashion before, it is still possible for the original tender to be doctored before it was shared with the poster in a QQ groupchat or some place. There have been a few cases of similar nature with regards to this ship; some people are being really weird about wanting the ship to be big.

So it's probably best to disregard the figures. If they proven to be right, then ok.

 

[wssth0306]

has the reactors for the 004 showed up on satalite yet ? or it is too early for it ?

 

[henrik]

I think there are more aspects than just the availability of HEU. China is experienced with LEU naval reactors. A clean sheet nuclear powered carrier and now the new generation submarines already carry significant developmental risk all by themselves. Putting an unproven HEU reactor into such designs adds to risk, and PLAN tends to be very risk-averse in developmental efforts.

Maybe a decade or two down the road this is going to be a different story. Just my two cents.

How come there is always some compromise when building each of 002, 003 and now 004? There is always something lacking like, no catapult, not nuclear powered, and now not using HEU?

 

[sunnymaxi]

How come there is always some compromise when building each of 002, 003 and now 004? There is always something lacking like, no catapult, not nuclear powered, and now not using HEU?

bro why you always ask silly questions..

003 have CATAPULT.. please read before comment.

LEU and HEU both are nuclear reactors and do perform similar task. it is just operational requirements that differ. and we don't even know that 004 has LEU or HEU.

 

[henrik]

bro why you always ask silly questions..

003 have CATAPULT.. please read before comment.

LEU and HEU both are nuclear reactors and do perform similar task. it is just operational requirements that differ. and we don't even know that 004 has LEU or HEU.

002 does not have catapult and some people complained and now 003 has catapult they complain it is not nuclear powered. Some are now saying 004 will use LEU, because the Chinese are being careful.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

002 does not have catapult and some people complained and now 003 has catapult they complain it is not nuclear powered. Some are now saying 004 will use LEU, because the Chinese are being careful.

Unless those people know better than the PLA Navy and the researchers, engineers, technicians and workers of Chinese R&D institutes who are directly involved in the design, development, construction and operation of those warships - Then how do their voices even matter in any of these?

 

[jospence]

Incremental naval progress is the correct way to introduce technologies to ships and has been for over 100 years. Making a ship where absolutely everything is new and state of the art always causes problems and for things to break. Look at the problems faced by the USS Gerald R. Ford. The US Navy tried to make every aspect of the ship new, and have paid the price. This is why in the past, there were pretty big design differences between the same class of U.S. carrier.