00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

H2O

Junior Member
Registered Member
Dalian should have 100% confidence building the 100,000-ton, nuclear-powered CATOBAR carrier now. Much of the potential challenges and risks would be in design (701 Institute) and subsystems (EMALS, nuclear reactor, power plant , etc.). Construction of the hull and integration of the subsystems are much less of a challenge now. Dalian has everything it needs to do so.
It would be interesting to see if Dalian will follow the same modular method of building the hull as the one in Shanghai.
 

lcloo

Captain
It would be interesting to see if Dalian will follow the same modular method of building the hull as the one in Shanghai.
I believe they will study the construction methods used by JNCX shipyard in building PLANS Fujian and improve their previous experience on building CV17. The most obvious advantage of using large module blocks construction is less time would be spent in the dry dock.

For reference, this is CV17's 2016 module construction CG by 大包。
b3.jpg
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
personally I hope DL builds another 003 CV

and then JNCX builds a CVN which DL later starts after true 003 is completed

this way they have 3 Classes of Carrier's in duplicates

2 x STOBAR, CV-16 and CV-17 with 24 x aircraft each
2 x CATOBAR, CV-18 and CV-19 with 36 x aircraft each
2 x CVN-20 and CVN-21 with 48 x aircraft each

would simply the operations, logistics and operations

thats 216 naval aircraft able to fly in the sky far from home shores

that would be full Chinese Naval Strength of 6 x Carrier Strike Groups (CSG)

in time of war the USN forward deployed Carriers will be first to suffer a loss

this means USN can only really deploy 6-7 x CSG in the Pacific
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Yes. But that's about it. PLA watching is mostly about collecting and interpreting signs over years. If you see models on defense industry expos, see patents or media articles that suggest a system is being developed, see prototypes through people who spot it coincidently or in media releases, etc, you can conclude that something is coming.

So:
- If we keep seeing a similar CGI ship on PLA or defense industry related material
- See patents or auctions that conform with a new destroyer
- See something hinting at a new destroyer in shipyard commercial statements
- Global times, etc talking about a new destroyer
- See new radars getting trialed

We can conclude that a new destroyer is coming. So the ship we see in these images is a sign we need to record but we can't say a new destroyer is coming.
I think there needs to some adjustment to methodology these days. Before if we saw a leaked image like this we could say with 70-90% certainty it represented something that was coming down the pipe. These days I think they have the budget to be exploratory so I think we can only say there’s a 70-90% certainty that they’re looking at a concept.
 

sunnymaxi

Captain
Registered Member
Has this photo been shared here before?

Allegedly a Linglong One reactor for marine use. Unsure if true.

View attachment 110846
well. today my friend send me this picture with some details.

The marine-type nuclear power device Linglong No. 1 has made progress, and China's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is coming!

China has made significant progress in the miniaturization of high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors, and some media have exposed the marine model of Linglong One.

The nuclear reactor has a diameter of 10 meters and a height of 15 meters, and its parameters are completely suitable for being equipped on an aircraft carrier. The output power reaches 125 megawatts, which is 25 megawatts higher than the 100 megawatts output power of the current US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Nimitz..

don't have any link. so can't confirm this information. waiting for more details.
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACP100 (Linglong One) is not a naval propulsion reactor.
 
Last edited:

Fergus

New Member
Registered Member
There is a marine variant of ACP100. Called ACP100S. It is meant for floating power plants. The main issue with ACP100 for military naval purposes is it requires refueling every 2 years.
Don't military marine reactors use highly enriched fuel to give them long endurance as opposed to the civil ones which use lower grade fuel. I'm not a nuclear physicist but could they not use highly enriched fuel in the ACP100S reactor? I'm guessing it would require a more in depth rework of the reactor design to be able to control the reaction.
 
Top