00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Lethe]

Your conclusions rest on the assumption that Chinese nuclear-powered carriers are significantly more expensive than conventional ones. This contradicts what was posted by pop3.

GAO's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

analysis estimates a nuclear-powered carrier costs about twice as much as an equivalent conventional carrier to build:

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

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

Note that the additional "investment cost" for a nuclear-powered carrier such as nuclear fuel (no idea what else is in there) pushes the short-term nuclear:conventional cost ratio well above 2:1. I don't doubt that China can build carriers cheaper than USA, but it is not clear to me why the relative relationship between types would be substantially different.

 

[SAC]

GAO's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

analysis estimates a nuclear-powered carrier costs about twice as much as an equivalent conventional carrier to build:

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

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

Note that the additional "investment cost" for a nuclear-powered carrier such as nuclear fuel (no idea what else is in there) pushes the short-term nuclear:conventional cost ratio well above 2:1. I don't doubt that China can build carriers cheaper than USA, but it is not clear to me why the relative relationship between types would be substantially different.

Came across the same info during my research for my last briefing. Even if the relevant figures for Chinese production in 2022 (CV v CVN) aren't the same, I would think they would be at least broadly similar.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

GAO's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

analysis estimates a nuclear-powered carrier costs about twice as much as an equivalent conventional carrier to build:

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

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

Note that the additional "investment cost" for a nuclear-powered carrier such as nuclear fuel (no idea what else is in there) pushes the short-term nuclear:conventional cost ratio well above 2:1. I don't doubt that China can build carriers cheaper than USA, but it is not clear to me why the relative relationship between types would be substantially different.

I thought you'd bring that up. That's a summary of American costs, and I don't think American costs (absolute or relative) have anything to do with Chinese costs. To put it simply, American military procurement is an absolute shitshow and there's no reason to think anything about it is applicable to China. Furthermore, America's nuclear industry is a failure; China is the only country (perhaps aside from Russia) with a successful nuclear industry, defined as being able to build reactors on time and on budget. Given the failure of America's civilian reactors, I don't see why their military reactors would be any more successful.

This would all be speculation - albeit very well-founded speculation - if it weren't for the confirmation we have from a PLAN insider than China has been able to lower the relative costs of CVNs such that they're now comparable to CVs.

 

[Blitzo]

I thought you'd bring that up. That's a summary of American costs, and I don't think American costs (absolute or relative) have anything to do with Chinese costs. To put it simply, American military procurement is an absolute shitshow and there's no reason to think anything about it is applicable to China. Furthermore, America's nuclear industry is a failure; China is the only country (perhaps aside from Russia) with a successful nuclear industry, defined as being able to build reactors on time and on budget. Given the failure of America's civilian reactors, I don't see why their military reactors would be any more successful.

This would all be speculation - albeit very well-founded speculation - if it weren't for the confirmation we have from a PLAN insider than China has been able to lower the relative costs of CVNs such that they're now comparable to CVs.

The procurement of CVNs in the US are one of their successful military program prior to the Ford class (and even that class, once it irons through its issues could end up being a major success much as the F-35 has).
I am also strongly against the idea of handwaving US military procurement as an "absolute shitshow". Compared to other military projects from other nations, the US does very well.

Where was there an insider suggesting that China had been able to lower costs of CVNs to be comparable to CVs?

====


My belief is that even if a CVN is twice the cost of a CV for the PLAN, it still makes more sense to buy the CVN for the superior performance it can offer in a high intensity conflict.

 

[ashnole]

Since Fujian launched, I've seen a few delusional line-of-thinking here but perhaps none's more delusional than thinking that CVNs would cost around the same as CVs.

That's like saying a Meat Lovers' Pizza would cost similar to a Pizza Margherita because apparently the Chinese meat industry has reached a level where meat costs around the same as basil leaves.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

Eh, I think there's a fair enough chance of chinese CVNs not costing double that of a CV (total lifetime that is).

Although I don't think it be about equal (50% more might really be doable).

At the end of the day, we can't conclude anything though, just gotta wait for things to show up (or insider rumours/leaks)

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

The procurement of CVNs in the US are one of their successful military program prior to the Ford class (and even that class, once it irons through its issues could end up being a major success much as the F-35 has).

"Successful" by US standards of success. No one claims China delivered every single system it conceived with 100% success, but until it has a debacle like the Zumwalt I will always believe Chinese military procurement is simply in a different league from America's.

I am also strongly against the idea of handwaving US military procurement as an "absolute shitshow". Compared to other military projects from other nations, the US does very well.

Not compared to China, which is the only relevant comparison here.

Where was there an insider suggesting that China had been able to lower costs of CVNs to be comparable to CVs?

00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

Uranium is 1000 times more energy dense than oil. So just consider the amount of space you will save. The nuclear reactor isn't that large. Here is a picture of a 175MWt nuclear reactor for ships. With people next to it for comparison. You would need like four of these to have equivalent power...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

No, pop3 doesn't explicitly mention that the costs of CVNs are now comparable to CVs, you have to read between the lines. It's certainly true that a nuclear reactor costs more than an oil-fired boiler, but the fuel costs over the lifetime of the ships more than makes up for it.

My interpretation of what pop3 said might be wrong, or he himself might be wrong, but I don't accept the cost differential of these technologies in the US as some kind of universal constant. My conclusion will always be American incompetence and failure until proved otherwise.

 

[henrik]

China only need CVs outside 1st island chain and Indian ocean and beyond.

That is exactly what they need.

 

[OppositeDay]

Another factor to consider is that China produces significantly more nuclear engineering graduates than what can be absorbed by civilian nuclear industry alone. Building nuclear carriers seems to be a good stimulus/employment program. Much better than building giant tourist attractions in remote villages.

 

[tphuang]

Keep in mind that WTI price in the late 90s were around $20 and now they are at $110. It's certainly possible that the era of high gas price is here with no retreating to even $60 a barrel. Therefore, the operating cost for a conventionally powered carrier that's built today should be higher than that of a nuclear powered one. Also on top of this, there is a certain factor that would favor the theory of lower ratio in Chinese construction cost of CVN vs CV. China has the largest active program of SMR in the world for civilian power and will rapidly ramp up its nuclear submarine construction in the next 20 years. As such, it might be able to achieve economy of scale on small nuclear reactors that other countries who have used marine nuclear reactors have been unable to do. I think it's reasonable to assume that a Chinese CVN would be more expensive, larger and more capable than a conventional powered CV. I just don't know if we can get an accurate gage of how much more expensive. I think if the lifetime costs are 25 to 50% more expensive, it would still be worth it.

I also think it's a bad idea to believe that somehow USN have had higher CVN cost because it's stupid or wasteful. USN carrier is the golden standard that PLAN has been learning from.

Aside from being able to carry more aircraft, more aviation fuel and generally have more space than conventional aircraft, there are also a lot of general operational advantages for CVN. You don't have to worry about refueling them on a long deployment or in a war scenario, so they can sustain operation even if China get its energy route cut off from Middle East or foreign ports refuse to allow them to be refueled.