00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

There could be many reasons on how those rumors come about that we could speculate on, but I feel PLAN might want to validate this clean-sheet design with conventional propulsion before going ahead with nuclear propulsion. We have seen such incremental approach with 001->002->003 so I am not convinced there would be a huge jump when it comes to 004.

I agree with you there, but given how prominent the noise has been in characterizing the construction of a "definitive" CVN and a "possible" additional CV are, I think trying to fit what we see with those rumours makes sense.

Option C: we should interpret this as extra space added ahead of the island on the new design rather than the island shifting aft. The 003 has its stern extended compare to 002 as this was the only way to lengthen the ship without making major modification to the rest of the hull. With a clean-sheet design, this lengthening could be done on the hull forward of the island, and we should see this being reflected on the mock-up.

That's fine and can exist alongside both of the prior positions A) and B). The important thing is that the position of the island on the mockup (keeping in mind the mockup is almost certainly missing a bit of additional stern hull length and deck length) is more aft relative to the new overall hull and deck length and design, than the island on 003 is relative to 003's overall hull length.

Option D: they made enough change to the internal arrangement to allow the island to shift. For example, they could place the boiler rooms/nuclear compartments directly ahead and aft of the rear turbine-compartment, which would allow them to shift the island by 20~30m. However, I see this as very unlikely as it goes against what I call "design heritage". It would be more likely for the internal arrangement to be near-identical to 001/002/003 aside from modification needed to support nuclear propulsion.

That is plausible, and would be an explainer for B).
That said I also consider it unlikely for the same reasons you described.


The key point is that there are multiple reasonable ways in what we are seeing could reflect a desire to test the maximal permutations possible for island placement and island configuration.

 

[no_name]

Will China navy eventually transition to an all nuclear carrier force or will she keep a number of conventional carriers and now is just them trying to standardise a common bridge design for both?

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Will China navy eventually transition to an all nuclear carrier force or will she keep a number of conventional carriers and now is just them trying to standardise a common bridge design for both?

China will not retire Fujian or Shandong until their service life is complete, that is likely 30-40 years, could even go to 50 years similar to Nimitz. These are very new ships and can be useful for many many years to come. Yes, Nuclear carriers can take the frontline position while these carriers work more on second line duty.

We also don't know how useful nuclear carriers will be in the future. If anti-ship missiles get so good that carriers get too hard to defend. Then super expensive nuclear carriers could become obsolete and "distributed lethality" with smaller carriers becoming more useful since they are less expensive and more attritable.

 

[Cloud_Nine_]

Will China navy eventually transition to an all nuclear carrier force or will she keep a number of conventional carriers and now is just them trying to standardise a common bridge design for both?

Disregarding the obvious fact that PLAN will be operating Liaoning and Shandong for at least decades, new additions will probably include both CVs and CVNs.

Nuclear carriers definitely still has its own niche but are significantly more expensive. Besides, Fujian is already larger than the largest conventional CV USN had built by the time GAO completed the NSIAD-98-1 report. GAO had commented that much of CVN's advantage in terms of av gas and munition storage comes from simply being larger than conventional carriers. We don't really know how a 100,000 ton CV compares to a 100,000 ton CVN in operation simply because we've never seen a 100,000 ton CV.

We'll just have to wait and see. But it's safe to say PLAN will almost definitely not be pursing a USN like CVN only fleet.

 

[4Tran]

I think that it's going to be a question of how successful China nuclear designs are. Technically, China doesn't need any nuclear power carriers, and probably won't do so for quite a while. But if the results are good with their nuclear designs, then that's going to be advantageous for future needs.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Technically, China doesn't need any nuclear power carriers, and probably won't do so for quite a while

i don't think so.

Chinese shipyards layout the plan for Marine nuclear propulsion for future ships. from nuclear icebreaker to floating power nuclear ship to nuclear powered container ship. JG shipyard even officially announced..

 

[no_name]

I think the fact that China's CV uses EM cat, which significantly reduce size under deck, as well as not needing fresh water tanks for steam generation, may mean much better endurance compared to traditional US CVs even if they are of the same size.

 

[charles18]

...
Nuclear carriers definitely still has its own niche but are significantly more expensive. Besides, Fujian is already larger than the largest conventional CV USN had built by the time GAO completed the NSIAD-98-1 report. GAO had commented that much of CVN's advantage in terms of av gas and munition storage comes from simply being larger than conventional carriers. We don't really know how a 100,000 ton CV compares to a 100,000 ton CVN in operation simply because we've never seen a 100,000 ton CV.

We'll just have to wait and see. But it's safe to say PLAN will almost definitely not be pursing a USN like CVN only fleet.

I don't know....
The Chinese can build a Hualong One nuclear power plant at an average cost of $2.5 billion per installed GW ........ or $2.5 per watt
Let's assume a marine nuclear reactor costs double at $5 per watt
With prices that Low, in the near future, you might see nuclear reactors installed in everything that floats on water and weighs over 10,000 tons: cruisers, LHD, container ships, so on ....

You may feel skeptical but I believe the idea of marine nuclear propulsion becoming mainstream is actually a very conservative prediction. An argument can be made that the 1986 Chernobyl accident and society's wholesale rejection of all things nuclear led to 30 years of global technological stagnation. Had this mini "dark age" not happen, we'd have nuclear powered civilian cargo ships today. However we are in the middle of a nuclear renaissance, I think Chinese nuclear engineers are going to do some Amazing things in the near future.

 

[uguduwa]

I‘ve read some German article saying that this thing could be the biggest aircraft carrier in the world. How likely is that statement?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

I‘ve read some German article saying that this thing could be the biggest aircraft carrier in the world. How likely is that statement?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

We don't know how big the carrier will be, so it is far too early to say based on evidence thus far, especially given we do not yet have definitive confirmation that it is definitely 100% an aircraft carrier.

A random article from an outlet of dubious credibility is also not really somewhere I would put much stock in overall.