Last edited:
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
I'd much rather have a GT-IPS CV the size of the Kennedy (CV-67) that's NOT based on the Type 003. Its hull and deck design is too conservative and flawed after all.
so CVN confirmed?
Given the existence of CVN, constructing another new type of CV might unnecessary due to the long build time for new designs. I think a conservative 003A is enough and also verify the minimum construction time just like 4th 075.
Given the sizes of the reactor containment box module spotted at the site, @rational314159 and @horobeyo on Twitter suggested that this ship (which is very likely to be a CVN, if people still wants to be very conservative) would be powered by only two nuclear reactors, i.e. similar to the Nimitzs and Fords.
Last edited:
-Monkeys paw curls-
You get a GT IPS CV that is the same hull as type 003, but has an island that is double the length of 003 due to the larger requirements for gas turbine downtakes and exhausts
I'd add that imo even before these images, that would have been a reasonable guess, given that Nimitz class and Ford class as truly mature CVN supercarriers have two reactors, and one would reasonably expect the PLAN to not pursue a propulsion configuration that was a complete orphan design if possible
(Original CVN-65 enterprise being an anomaly, reactor count-wise --- and CdG of course being a much smaller ship)
Wrong. The 003 is barely better than a Forrestal and worse than a Kittyhawk. It's hull design still took massive cues from the Soviets and is just... Flawed and not good. I want a hull with STRAIGHT walls with a longer deck.
It needs a clean-sheet design to flush all that Soviet DNA out. CVs which AREN'T based on Soviet designs are needed.
The Type 003 is simply too small, too conservative, too flawed, and borderline obsolete of a platform to be "mass produced" if you're actually thinking long-term. Even an improved one wouldn't be any better significantly.
They'll need a genuine clean-sheet design for a "mass-producable" CV. And the Type 003(A) is NOT future-proofed enough.
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey, but that screenshot has way too much swearing to be constructive for us.
If you want to convey a point, feel free to say it yourself rather than using a screenshot of a translated twitter post please.
(I have no problems with the user you quoted, but for the purposes of this forum please write something more substantial than "that's all I want to say, thank you")