CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Kich]

The boilers are right there and you're still hoping that 003 will be nuclear? Despite everything up to now suggesting that it will not be nuclear? This ship started construction in 2017, Jiangnan is only just starting to build nuclear handling facilities and there is zero evidence that China has developed the large marine reactors needed to power a ship this size.

Nuclear 003 is possible but it's an extreme hypothetical that goes against all common sense. So yes, the notion is quite retarded, though not necessarily incorrect. If the island appears without a smokestack I'll ban myself for a month.

and then create another account and unban yourself in the meantime.

But I agree with you that those claiming 003 will be nuclear are thinking illogically. I've been watching PLAN for a while to notice they take increment steps in their programs, which is why 003 will be conventional and in fact 2 will be built before they proceed to 004--nuclear powered.

 

[kriss]

which is why 003 will be conventional and in fact 2 will be built before they proceed to 004--nuclear powered.

Nothing is indicating there will be 2 003 before CVN. When talking about taking small cautious steps many people blindly apply 2 ship iteration from destroyer and frigate evolution to any circumstance in this case carriers. If they build 2 003 it would be them not ready to build a CVN at the time or they need one more carrier earlier than a CVN could be delivered.

Carrier is such a costly project in all aspects of monetary, material, personnel, and time. There is no way they build 2 to "take it steady". 2 destroyer are just a fraction of dozens more in service. Or even just a fraction of those under construction. Yet 2 003 means half the total carrier force, and all production capacity occupied for nearly double the time. Carrier is so expensive it's not something you just add another one for conserve and caution.

 

[AndrewS]

I've been giving this some more thought, and I'm not sure if nuclear powered carriers are better nowadays.

I think it works out cheaper to build a conventionally powered carrier and add extra replenishment ships to make up the difference.

So this model results in carriers with the same capabilities (EMALs, speed, aircraft capacity, munitions load, etc)
But the biggest difference is more frequent resupply from replenishment ships.
The accompanying replenishment ships (carrying inexpensive fuel) can also act to shield the carrier during torpedo or missile attacks, or host some helicopters.

Unmanned aircraft are also set to make up the majority of the carrier air wing, which also means carriers don't need to conduct as many flight operations during training and deployments. That reduces the need for a carrier to burn fuel at full speed.

And a nuclear reactor has significant development/maintenance/decommissioning costs which offsets fuels savings.

 

[Blitzo]

I've been giving this some more thought, and I'm not sure if nuclear powered carriers are better nowadays.

I think it works out cheaper to build a conventionally powered carrier and add extra replenishment ships to make up the difference.

So this model results in carriers with the same capabilities (EMALs, speed, aircraft capacity, munitions load, etc)
But the biggest difference is more frequent resupply from replenishment ships.
The accompanying replenishment ships (carrying inexpensive fuel) can also act to shield the carrier during torpedo or missile attacks, or host some helicopters.

Unmanned aircraft are also set to make up the majority of the carrier air wing, which also means carriers don't need to conduct as many flight operations during training and deployments. That reduces the need for a carrier to burn fuel at full speed.

And a nuclear reactor has significant development/maintenance/decommissioning costs which offsets fuels savings.

Depending on how much upfront money you have to sink into the development of the requisite technologies for a nuclear powered carrier, and whether you have enough money for the infrastructure to support the maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear powered carriers, as well as depending on how big of a carrier fleet you want, one can certainly argue if conventionally powered carriers may be more cost effective.

But the benefits of a nuclear powered carrier in being able to maintain higher speeds without requiring refuelling, as well as having more fuel and munitions capacity for your aircraft, are all not insignificant factors to consider which is a clear and definitive advantage that nuclear carriers have over conventional.


Buying more replenishment ships of course is one "solution" to make up the "difference". But it's only a partial solution, because at the end of the day your carrier will need that time to replenish fuel more often if it steams faster and/or if it conducts more sorties requiring more aviation fuel for your airwing, and that is additional time and periods of tactical vulnerability that you simply do not have with a nuclear powered carrier.



It will depend on how the costs fall.
I'm sure there's a goldilocks zone for both the nuclear and conventional options depending on how much a navy is willing to spend.


But at this stage, it seems like the PLAN are still actively developing their nuclear carrier program, and I suspect in five or so years we will have clearer rumours as to how many they end up procuring.
I'd say that any questions as to whether conventionally powered carriers are more cost effective than nuclear is really an academic issue and for the PLAN's future carrier purposes it's not really that important from our pov because we aren't privy to what their internal assessments of costs, carrier fleet size, and technology and money are.

 

[kentchang]

I've been giving this some more thought, and I'm not sure if nuclear powered carriers are better nowadays.

I think it works out cheaper to build a conventionally powered carrier and add extra replenishment ships to make up the difference.

So this model results in carriers with the same capabilities (EMALs, speed, aircraft capacity, munitions load, etc)
But the biggest difference is more frequent resupply from replenishment ships.
The accompanying replenishment ships (carrying inexpensive fuel) can also act to shield the carrier during torpedo or missile attacks, or host some helicopters.

Unmanned aircraft are also set to make up the majority of the carrier air wing, which also means carriers don't need to conduct as many flight operations during training and deployments. That reduces the need for a carrier to burn fuel at full speed.

And a nuclear reactor has significant development/maintenance/decommissioning costs which offsets fuels savings.

I am adding a few more reasons to skip CVN's.

1. How soon before DF-26 level technology proliferates to other countries? 30 years? 40 years? Once China presents a real carrier threat to the U.S. or India, their DF-26 clones can be ready before China even commissions its first CVN. Better to spread the risk.

2. Triple down on the 076's. Isn't that what the U.S. is contemplating also?

3. China doesn't need CVN's benefits in the Pacific. If OBOR is successful in providing overland access or the Northern Passage opens up, where are the SLOC choke points?

4. Arsenal ships anyone? Whatever happened to those semi-submersible proposals?

5. A conventional carrier can have a second life as museum ship and be a revenue generator for decades.

-------------------

I pasted 1998 cost comparisons from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Nuclear-powered carriers cost more than conventionally powered
carriers to acquire, operate and support, and inactivate. GAO
estimates that over a 50-year life, the costs of a nuclear-powered
carrier is about $8.1 billion, or about 58 percent, more than a
conventionally powered carrier (see
table 2). Historically, the acquisition cost for a nuclear-powered
carrier has been about double that of a conventionally powered
carrier. Midlife modernization\4 for nuclear-powered carriers is
estimated to be almost three times as expensive as a conventionally
powered carrier--about
$2.4 billion versus $866 million (in fiscal year 1997 dollars).\5

Table 2

Life-Cycle Costs for a Conventionally
Powered Carrier and a Nuclear-Powered
Carrier (based on a 50-year service
life)

(Fiscal year 1997 dollars in billions)

Conventionally
powered Nuclear-
Cost category carrier powered carrier
------------------------------------- -------------- ---------------
Investment cost\a $2.916 $6.441
Ship acquisition cost 2.050 4.059
Midlife modernization cost 0.866 2.382
Operating and support cost 11.125 14.882
Direct operating and support cost 10.436 11.677
Indirect operating and support cost 0.688 3.205
Inactivation/disposal cost 0.053 0.899
Inactivation/disposal cost 0.053 0.887
Spent nuclear fuel storage cost n/a 0.013
======================================================================
Total life-cycle cost $14.094 $22.222
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

\a CVN investment cost includes all nuclear fuel cost; CV fuel is
included in operations and support activities.

Source: GAO's analysis.

GAO estimates that nuclear-powered carriers have cost about 34
percent more than conventionally powered carriers to operate and
support because personnel and maintenance costs are higher and
nuclear-powered carriers require unique support organizations and
activities. Personnel costs for nuclear carriers are greater because
more personnel are required for a nuclear-powered carrier,
nuclear-qualified personnel receive greater total compensation, and
they are required to complete additional training. For example, a
nuclear-powered carrier needs about 130 more personnel in its
engineering and reactor departments than are needed in the
conventionally powered carrier's engineering department. Also, each
year, nuclear-qualified officers receive up to $12,000 and nuclear
qualified enlisted personnel receive about $1,800 more than personnel
do in nonnuclear jobs.

Nuclear-powered carriers are also more costly to maintain because the
scope of work is larger and considerably more labor hours are
required. Because of the complex procedures required to maintain
nuclear power plants, shipyard workers must be specifically trained
to maintain nuclear carriers. Additionally, the materials used in
nuclear carriers must meet exacting standards and the shipyards must
have the facilities needed for the specialized work. Also, these
projects cost more because of the unique industrial base, specialized
nuclear suppliers, and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program's
exacting and stringent environmental, health, and safety standards.
Shipbuilders must follow �non-deviation� plans (i.e., no deviation
from the approved plans without government approval). An unavoidably
high cost overhead structure (engineering, quality assurance, and
production control) and costly production work are required in the
naval nuclear propulsion industry. Based on the Navy's maintenance
plans, GAO estimates that over a 50-year life, nearly 40 percent more
labor hours are needed to maintain a nuclear-powered carrier than are
required to maintain a conventionally powered carrier.

The Navy estimates that it will cost between $819 million and $955
million to inactivate and dispose of the first Nimitz-class
nuclear-powered carrier. This is almost 20 times more costly than
the $52.6 million that is estimated it will cost to inactivate and
dispose of a conventionally powered carrier. Most of the costs can
be attributed to removing contaminated nuclear equipment and
material, including the highly radioactive spent fuel.

 

[Temstar]

1. How soon before DF-26 level technology proliferates to other countries? 30 years? 40 years? Once China presents a real carrier threat to the U.S. or India, their DF-26 clones can be ready before China even commissions its first CVN. Better to spread the risk.

This isn't a good reason. Over that kind of time horizon ABM systems might become viable due to development in lasers or directed energy weapon or what have you.

 

[silentlurker]

This isn't a good reason. Over that kind of time horizon ABM systems might become viable due to development in lasers or directed energy weapon or what have you.

No defence system will ever be cost effective versus a concentrated missile strike, that's the natural consequence of putting so many expensive planes in one place.

Even directed energy weapons can't deal with saturation strikes. Lets say 003 costs $5 billion, thats 100 ICBM-type missiles at 50 million (Minuteman-III costed 20 million adjusted for inflation)

 

[eprash]

There will definitely be a nuclear powered carrier, The Chinese carrier program's third phase called for it

Phase 1 (50K Ton)
Type 001 (Kuznetsov class, Operational protocols)
Type 001A/002 (Kuznetsov class, Construction expertise)

Phase 2 (85K Ton)
Type 003 (Forrestal class, Steam Catobar operations and construction expertise)
Type 004 (Kitty hawk class, EM catapult and Future Nuclear carrier subsystems testing)
We are here now!

Phase 3 (100K Ton)
Type 005 ( Nimitz class carrier, Nuclear marine propulsion, Sea endurance and logistics expertise)
Type 006 ( Ford class carrier, The end goal and will gradually replace rest of the class at least 4 to be built)

If anything the program is moving quicker than anticipated type 004 is now 003 which means the EM catapult is matured enough to be put on a carrier a tech arguably more difficult to master than Nuclear propulsion, They might even skip the 005 and go straight for 006 and call it 004

 

[Intrepid]

... The end goal and will gradually replace rest of the class at least 4 to be built ...

I'll bet 12 will be built in the next 40 years and all other aircraft carriers will be given to allies.

 

[eprash]

I'll bet 12 will be built in the next 40 years and all other aircraft carriers will be given to allies.

It's possible, China's economy does have the potential to be 4 times larger than US ergo operating 48 Nimitz class carriers at the same time without burning a hole in the pocket.