CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[FairAndUnbiased]

Do we even know for sure this ship uses IEPS? I know the PLAN research group working on EMALS was also working on electric drive but I never heard confirmation of the IEPS being used in the carrier.

The thing with nuclear reactors is typically the bigger you make them the cheaper they will be. Since you will need to produce less components. So using a bunch of smaller nuclear reactors from a submarine really isn't feasible. At least not on a carrier of this size.

The Charles de Gaulle is the only active nuclear carrier with reactors from submarines. But it is a large reactor from a large strategic submarine.

What about Kirov style CONAS with IEP? Use a SMR instead of diesel or low pressure steam for hotel load and cruise, turn on full fossil boilers for dashing.

Steam doesn't care about heat source since there's no contact between fuel and turbine, all it needs is heat source. SMR can be built on fundamentally different design than larger reactors optimized for modularity and ease of maintenance.

Fossil carriers have high uptime, it took Kitty Hawk only 6 months for refurbish at the most and can repair within 1 week. CVNs go down for 18+ months every 2 years.

 

[antiterror13]

Do we even know for sure this ship uses IEPS? I know the PLAN research group working on EMALS was also working on electric drive but I never heard confirmation of the IEPS being used in the carrier.

The thing with nuclear reactors is typically the bigger you make them the cheaper they will be. Since you will need to produce less components. So using a bunch of smaller nuclear reactors from a submarine really isn't feasible. At least not on a carrier of this size.

The Charles de Gaulle is the only active nuclear carrier with reactors from submarines. But it is a large reactor from a large strategic submarine.

IEPS is almost certain, but nothing is 100% sure of course as China normally don't make a bombastic statements like some countries do

 

[56860]

The naming is based on major naval battles/wars and their aftermath in Chinese history - Liaoning for the major naval battle of the first Sino-Japanese war (decisive Chinese naval defeat, destruction of the Beiyang fleet, lost control of all surrounding seas), Shandong for the Siege of Weihaiwei and Lushun massacre (decisive Chinese army defeat, major Japanese army presence in Shandong peninsula, 20-30K civilian murdered, Beijing directly threatened, Korea peninsula lost, Taiwan ceded to Japan); Fujian for Battle of Fuzhou (decisive French victory, complete destruction of the Fujian fleet with 0 French ship losses, Taiwan strait blockaded, Penghu Islands and Keelung ceded). 004 will likely be Guangdong for the first and second opium wars (HK ceded for 150 years, first major sign China was a fish and not a butcher in the Imperialist 19th century, kicked off century of humiliation). 005 will likely be Jiangsu for the Treaty of Nanjing.

It's easy in the excitement of new strength to forget the bloody and painful lessons that were a mainstay not that long ago. There's still a long road ahead, and we are all witnesses.

It's important to remember history but we should also be conscious of the circumstances that led to up to it. It was under the rule of the Qing that China gradually devolved into a semi-colonial state through unequal treaty after unequal treaty. China suffered intense humiliation and the Chinese people were subject to great pain during this dark period because of the ruling dynasty's weakness, corruption, backwardness and incompetence.

I like to think of these carriers as muscles that grew in the place of past scars.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't people don't fully understand what IEPS means, and are just assuming that 003 has IEPS because of a preconceived notion that a conventionally powered carrier with EM catapults needs IEPS to power its catapults.


It isn't the case.
And there is no indication that 003 uses IEPS either.

 

[asif iqbal]

Both questions have been answered multiple time here since yesterday…

where ?

 

[Tam]

I think we know what 1 and 2 are: S-band and X-band radars, respectively. Would anyone care to speculate what function the panels marked as 3 and 4 perform? 5 should be the CEC antennae.

Another thing I noticed is the absence of the rectangular arrays above the Type 346 radar. I think it was @Tam who speculated that these are IFF interrogators and possibly missile uplink/downlinks. Is the IFF antennae location already visible identifiable , or are they yet to be installed?

3 should be ECM. Same size and proportions as the panels under the bridge wing of the 055.

4 is I don't know yet. This wasn't on the Wuhan mockup so it's a new design and addition.

5 should be a new IFF system, this time shaped as a ring. In a way more conventional looking as Western designs use ring shaped IFF such as on Arleigh Burke. Bar shaped IFF first appeared in Kuznetsov and Kiev class and set above its Mars Passat PESA.

CEC not installed yet but should be on the crown or neck below the IFF along with the ESM. Both these are systems from the 055.

1 and 2 are radars we have seen before on the 055.

 

[Nx4eu]

where ?

so basically, work is still being done on them and it's better with the covers as it also protects the equipment from the weather, and perhaps stops others spying on the work while the catapults are still being installed.

 

[Tam]

Wait what?

About the EW AESA though, is that saying the radar can double as a jammer? I imagine it wouldn't be able to use the radar in that mode. Could the EO system guide the gun while the panel is jamming?

No. It has no need to act as ECM given it was large ECM arrays on the island itself.

More importantly the new 1130 may potentially appear in new 052D, 055 and 054A unless their 1130 has already been built and warehoused..

Also important is the new radar can replace Type 347G as the 054A's gunnery radar for its 76mm gun. If you don't know yet, the 054A uses the same radar for its gunnery set as a stand alone as the same radar fitted on 730/1130.

 

[Tam]

It has been speculated for a while now that a AESA radars with enough power can focus their beams on a target, frying the electronics on board.

In theory the F-22 could do that, but like I said, it was mostly speculation.

It's garbage speculation since the bandpass radome on the target can physically absorb and block any RF beams and you need to be on the specific frequency band used by the target radar for the radome to allow the beam to pass through.

 

[Helius]

It's garbage speculation since the bandpass radome on the target can physically absorb and block any RF beams and you need to be on the specific frequency band used by the target radar for the radome to allow the beam to pass through.

Which is rather logical to anyone who has watched Star Trek -