CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

A

antiterror13

Brigadier
Richard Santos said:
Yes, they do. Their first domestic submarine reactor reached criticality in 2003, and their domestically built nuclear submarine powered by it had been undergoing sea trail since 2014 and in commission since 2016. Admittedly it is a rather anemic 10,000 hp unit, and even with improvement in power output resulting from further development 8 seem insufficient to power a 60,000 ton carrier to 30+ knots.
Click to expand...

well, I had never heard that, ok, I admitted I missed that Indian SSN. But heyyy, it was only commissioned a few months ago compared to China first SSN over 40 years ago.. and also I am not sure whether the Indian sub is in active duty or just sit in the dock most of the time

You first brought up India equation in this thread ... please STOP it ... there is no comparison
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Jura said:
LOL about two (?) years ago I tried to find info about the new USN reactor, the one which by now is on the Ford (CVN 78), and I didn't even figure if it's U or Pu burning ... I doubt we'll ever know what the Chinese use or don't
Click to expand...
Naval reactors are (with a few Russian submarine exceptions?) U burning pressurized water reactors. Nearly half a century ago there was a proposal to build a fast attack craft with a Pu burning fast reactor. It was published in a monthly of which I have forgotten the name, because that name was changed a couple of times, but that I remember as 'Hovering Craft and Hydrofoils'. But I must point out that it was the April edition.;)
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Richard Santos said:
The big benefit of nuclear power to carriers is not really strategic mobility from theater to theater so long as the escorts remain fossil fuel powered. The biggest benefit is all the bunkerage space otherwise would be filled with fuel oil for the boilers can now hold jet fuel and thus increase the operational persistence of the carrier.

I would not be surprised if the Liaoning's total fuel capacity for its own engines are well in excess of 5,000 tons. In a nuclear carrier all that can be devoted to aviation fuel.
Click to expand...
Yes Sir ! and in addition CVNs represent a lesser logistical burden for Repl. Ships and carry fuel for escort by example Charles de Gaulle have in more Fuel Aviation ofc 1000 tons for 2 - 3 FFGs then possible for a short period leave the repl Ships less fast and the TF move more fast if the need is there.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Smaller island also means larger flight deck. CVN is really the way to go. Me thinks the RN made a mistake with the QE class. She should've been nuke instead of boilers but that's just my personal opinion.

PLAN will most certainly be building CVNs in the near future ... only question is when.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
nope, it would be #3
Click to expand...

Carrier #3 would be the first 002, and it definitely won't be nuclear. (Carrier #1 being Liaoning and carrier #2 being 001A)

To be honest I doubt carrier #4 would be nuclear either, I suspect #4 would be a second 002. Carrier #5 I think will probably be the first nuclear carrier.
 
D

Daniel707

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
Carrier #3 would be the first 002, and it definitely won't be nuclear. (Carrier #1 being Liaoning and carrier #2 being 001A)

To be honest I doubt carrier #4 would be nuclear either, I suspect #4 would be a second 002. Carrier #5 I think will probably be the first nuclear carrier.
Click to expand...

Why you 100% (definitely) insist Type 002 AC not a Nuclear one?

Until this day, there is no official statement regarding power of Type 002 AC.

IMO, The Probability of Type 002 AC will use Nuclear is 50%, same with Conventional powered probability (50%).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top