00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread


Jesuan

New Member
Registered Member
Disagree. USA and EU are out in the war. That leaves majority of trade with ASEAN and east Asia. Energy trade with Russia and Iran can be done by rail. African trade and South America is about the only issue affected by naval.
Just the USA, and maybe Canada and Australia. EU values trade with China and has long been part of the belt road initiative.
 

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
You are correct, the combat radius would be 20,000 km
I was unclear.
The round trip distance would be double or 40,000 km
I meant you need 40,000 km to reach your target and also get back home.

South America is a good example of a place that is really far away from China. It is almost 20,000 km away. If China ever gets cut off from the continent there is very little the PLA navy can do.
You were talkng ... 'China needs a weapon system' ... If its weapons once released that is the end of it, why should there be a return trip of 20,000KM!!!!! Sorry, I can't undersatnd your logic.
You said you need 40,000 km to reach your target and also get back home. What sort of weapon system you are talking about.
 

charles18

New Member
Registered Member
You were talkng ... 'China needs a weapon system' ... If its weapons once released that is the end of it, why should there be a return trip of 20,000KM!!!!! Sorry, I can't undersatnd your logic.
You said you need 40,000 km to reach your target and also get back home. What sort of weapon system you are talking about.
I think this topic is getting too far. I'm stopping it.
Anyways...

Getting back to the nuclear vs. conventional discussion, maybe China will build 2 carriers at the same time one nuclear and one conventional. Why 2 different designs?
A: The conventional carriers can be used for "short distance" deployments of under 8,000 km
B: The nuclear carriers can be used for "long distance" deployments beyond 8,000 km

I'm of the opinion that if we're talking about distances of less than 8,000 km from the mainland, you don't really "need" a nuclear powered carrier.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Colonel
Registered Member
I think this topic is getting too far. I'm stopping it.
Anyways...

Getting back to the nuclear vs. conventional discussion, maybe China will build 2 carriers at the same time one nuclear and one conventional. Why 2 different designs?
A: The conventional carriers can be used for "short distance" deployments of under 8,000 km
B: The nuclear carriers can be used for "long distance" deployments beyond 8,000 km

I'm of the opinion that if we're talking about distances of less than 8,000 km from the mainland, you don't really "need" a nuclear powered carrier.
the most important region in the world is the region within 3000 km of China. More than 50% of the global population and energy resources lie within this distance. It is the most geopolitically important place in the world. IMO CVNs are a huge luxury in the short term.
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
the most important region in the world is the region within 3000 km of China. More than 50% of the global population and energy resources lie within this distance. It is the most geopolitically important place in the world. IMO CVNs are a huge luxury in the short term.
The actually valuable part of this region is adjustent to sea/ocean... carriers are needed to make a balanced, fully-capable sea superiority force. Shore-based airpower is incapable of the feat.
 

jvodan

New Member
Registered Member
Now we can guess the maximum size of future carriers

An overview of the Yulin naval base, including the new large dry dock under construction that will be used for maintaining carriers.

52538770928_dc13610ea3_k.jpg
 

Feima

New Member
Registered Member
The Malacca Strait being the closest most obvious sea lane bottle neck.

I think the Brits have just signed or about to sign a free trade deal with Singapore (not sure if that includes rebuilding/extending the British naval base there)

Off topic for this thread, so not gonna discuss, but there hasn't been a British naval base in Singapore since 1970. The Brits sold the base to the Singapore government for a symbolic $1 (or 1 GBP) when they withdrew from east of Suez.
 

charles18

New Member
Registered Member
the most important region in the world is the region within 3000 km of China. More than 50% of the global population and energy resources lie within this distance. It is the most geopolitically important place in the world. IMO CVNs are a huge luxury in the short term.
I agree.
In the short term as in now and the next 15 years I believe CVN's are totally unnecessary.
However...
The Americans were the first to invent nuclear marine propulsion. Despite over 70 years of R&D the Americans have never figured out how to make nuclear power "cheap". Call me crazy but I believe the Chinese will ultimately figure out a way to make nuclear power "cheap". No, I don't mean we'll be driving nuclear powered cars in the future. I do believe in the future the PLA-Navy will basically become a nuclear powered navy, meaning every ship that weighs more than 10,000 tons will be nuclear powered. There will also be nuclear powered commercial ships.

Some people believe nuclear power is inherently flawed. I disagree. The reason nuclear power never became cheap is because it was never mass produced. If something is manufactured at a rate of 1 unit per year then it will always be expensive, regardless of what it is. A coal fired power plant, a diesel engine, or a jet engine would be expensive if it was built like that. If nuclear reactors can be consistently built at a rate of say 10 per year then that would change the cost equation. If 50 per year can be built that would create an energy revolution. I believe the Chinese will do this, in the future.
 

lcloo

Senior Member
I agree.
In the short term as in now and the next 15 years I believe CVN's are totally unnecessary.
However...
The Americans were the first to invent nuclear marine propulsion. Despite over 70 years of R&D the Americans have never figured out how to make nuclear power "cheap". Call me crazy but I believe the Chinese will ultimately figure out a way to make nuclear power "cheap". No, I don't mean we'll be driving nuclear powered cars in the future. I do believe in the future the PLA-Navy will basically become a nuclear powered navy, meaning every ship that weighs more than 10,000 tons will be nuclear powered. There will also be nuclear powered commercial ships.

Some people believe nuclear power is inherently flawed. I disagree. The reason nuclear power never became cheap is because it was never mass produced. If something is manufactured at a rate of 1 unit per year then it will always be expensive, regardless of what it is. A coal fired power plant, a diesel engine, or a jet engine would be expensive if it was built like that. If nuclear reactors can be consistently built at a rate of say 10 per year then that would change the cost equation. If 50 per year can be built that would create an energy revolution. I believe the Chinese will do this, in the future.
This is really off topic and thus it will be one post only from me, I am not going to have any "to and fro" discussion. Below is an article from Stanford university.

How much is nuclear waste costing American taxpayers?

The two categories of waste are separated in the budget. At the moment, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for the Department of Energy is about $30 billion. Of that budget, about $12 billion is for the nuclear weapons programs. That leaves us $18 billion to use for all things related to energy — nuclear power, fossil fuel, wind, and solar. About $6 billion, one third, is used to deal with the legacy high-level waste from the Manhattan Project. We as taxpayers pay $6 billion every year to address that problem, a huge cost that we will incur for many decades into the future. The projected total cost of clean-up after the Manhattan Project is well over $300 billion. That’s more than the original cost of the weapons programs and the actual total will be even higher. That’s just the defense waste.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top