CV-XX (003 carrier) Thread I ... News & Discussions


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Wouldn't you use gas turbines for power if your carrier doesn't use steam catapult?

Not necessarily.
If you have the requisite steam turbine technology already available, it makes sense to go for that solution if you don't have gas turbines that are sufficiently powerful for a carrier.

A steam powered carrier can have steam catapults, EM catapults or no catapults.
 

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
I wouldn't take the author of that thread seriously, reading through the posts, he is quite combatively defensive and seriously leans toward the Type 003 being guaranteed to use nuclear propulsion. Despite some obvious and logical responses on why Type 003 WILL NOT be nuclear powered, he gives off the impression of a person who thinks he's always right and others are always wrong.

Although personally, I believe Chinese shipbuilders can absolutely be able make 003 use nuclear propulsion instead of conventional using current available technologies. I just do not think the navy will invest in a such a ship that has not gone through the necessary technical verifications. Doing so would lead China creating its own version of the USS Enterprise.

I expect the very first CVN of China's navy to be analogous to the Nimitz class and not the Enterprise class. There is a reason why only one Enterprise was built, the US Navy was clearly not satisfied enough in the design and a new one has to be considered. The Enterprise's nuclear propulsion system was not a fully mature development. There is a reason why Nimitz uses only two reactors instead of eight submarine reactors on the Enterprise.

It took 14 years after Enterprise for US Navy to commission it's second CVN, the first Nimitz class CVN. And in between that period, the US did use the time to build numerous nuclear powered cruisers and even built one nuclear powered civilian ship called the NS Savannah before the first Nimitz carrier enter service.
And like what previous posters said, it is too risky to use existing technologies on nuclear powered aircraft carriers.
It is strongly in my opinion that for such a strategic vessel and for China, all major technologies must be entirely developed and proven before construction of such a vessel commence. China's first nuclear aircraft carrier must be at least like the Nimitz with all systems matured and developed. It is the only logical step, hence a nuclear powered icebreaker needs to be built before the first Chinese CVN.

The fact that only 1 Enterprise class CVN was built had absolutely nothing to do with the immaturity of her nuclear power plants. Originally 5 Enterprise class ships were planned. But as the Enterprise was being built, the main strategic nuclear role of the USN navy in the Global contest with The Soviet Union shifted from Lunching nuclear attack bombers from carriers to Lunching Polaris ballistic missiles from nuclear ballistic missile submarines. This led to a massive realignment of the USN navy’s budget priorities From the surface fleet to the ballistic missile submarine fleet to facilitate adding 41 planned ballistic missile submarines over the next 13 years. This led to all sorts of surface ships, surface ship weapon projects, and technology programs to support future surface combat to be cancelled or cut. One of those cuts was the 4 remaining Enterprise class carriers. They were to be replaced in Navy’s plans by just 2 more of the previous, cheaper Kitty Hawk class Conventional carriers.
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Not necessarily.
If you have the requisite steam turbine technology already available, it makes sense to go for that solution if you don't have gas turbines that are sufficiently powerful for a carrier.

A steam powered carrier can have steam catapults, EM catapults or no catapults.
Developing two different power train is very expensive.

Gas turbine needs a matched design gearbox system for the given type, and both of them needs to be integrated into the ship.
Takes time and lot of development effort and money.
 

taxiya

Colonel
Registered Member
...
It took 14 years after Enterprise for US Navy to commission it's second CVN, the first Nimitz class CVN. And in between that period, the US did use the time to build numerous nuclear powered cruisers and even built one nuclear powered civilian ship called the NS Savannah before the first Nimitz carrier enter service.
And like what previous posters said, it is too risky to use existing technologies on nuclear powered aircraft carriers.
It is strongly in my opinion that for such a strategic vessel and for China, all major technologies must be entirely developed and proven before construction of such a vessel commence. China's first nuclear aircraft carrier must be at least like the Nimitz with all systems matured and developed. It is the only logical step, hence a nuclear powered icebreaker needs to be built before the first Chinese CVN.

Your basic point is that the numerous reactors for cruisers are steps that helped in realizing a proper sized CV reactor. But you do know that these reactors ARE NO bigger than a submarine counterpart? Making them are just repeating the same level of technology in building nuclear subs. China has been doing that part in the past many decades. How long do you think is needed to repeat this work before China is able to move to the next step? 10 years, 20? or forever?

I just don't get why people are so fixated on an icebreaker? Is that the only way to go from a submarine sized reactor to a carrier sized reactor? It is as strange an argument as the "China must build steam catapult before moving onto EM catapult" which has been proven to be wrong.

I don't argue for 003 being nuclear, but I have seen too many counter arguments that are as weak as the pro arguments.
 
Last edited:

Josh Luo

Senior Member
Registered Member
Interesting read

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a waterline dimension of 297.25 meters x 40. This is very much the same as those of the Kitty Hawk class. It is why I have predicted that the 003 will likely be a Sino John F. Kennedy (CV-67), but with electromagnetic launchers and dual-band AESA radars. The only unknown is whether the 003 will have 3 or 4 catapults. CG images we have seen so far indicate 3, but maybe the PLAN could decide to add one more. Ultimately as long as the width of the deck is 76-80 meters, it is not that difficult to fit four electromagnetic catapults. The waterline beam of 40 meters indicate that the carrier could have a deck width of 76-80 meters.
 

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
There are a lot of unknown factors with regards to 003. Like what is the total power consumption. In the case of the Ford-class it has two 700 MWt reactors while the previous Nimitz class had two 550 MWt reactors. Which makes it seem that EMALS and other electric systems have actually increased the power requirements versus steam. After all electric systems might be more compact, lower maintenance, have performance which leads to less aircraft airframe stress on launch, but they led to more power generation losses because you are converting heat into electricity instead of using the steam directly. Because it was unknown, when 003 was designed, which catapult system would be available, and there is no known Chinese naval nuclear reactor with the required power, it is quite likely they simply decided to go with boilers. I think it is unlikely they went for gas turbine technology because steam allows them to gain experience with the future nuclear reactor, which will also output steam, and in case EMALS turns out not to work in practice having steam boilers allows the PLAN to backpedal into the steam catapults just in case. Also the Chinese have limited experience with high enough powered naval gas turbines. The Ford class EMALS so far has not proven to work all that well. It simply does not have enough reliability and the medium time between failures is too low. While the Chinese might not have these problems with their EMALS because they did more ground testing with actual aircraft, they might run into similar issues. I suspect the EMALS on the Ford class will have to be completely replaced in a decade or less for an improved system and only then will it have the required performance, if it is possible to refit it at all without a new ship.

Using submarine naval reactors is implausible because of the displacement of the 003 which is much larger than, say, the Charles de Gaulle. Purchasing the technology abroad is also implausible because the closest reactor to the requirements is the Russian RITM-400 reactor which is supposed to have 315 MWt but it is still not in production. The smaller RITM-200 with half the power has only recently started naval propulsion tests on the Arktika Project 22220 icebreaker. While the Chinese nuclear industry should have know-how to make their own reactor they have limited experience with such large naval reactors and such a project in itself might take like 8 years to achieve if you compare it with other nuclear reactor programs. Contrary to what others said here though I do not think the nuclear icebreaker is a pre-requisite. The Chinese nuclear industry has enough expertise to directly design the required reactor and test it and its components in ground test stands I think. It would still be useful to do subscale testing on another platform but it doesn't need to be an icebreaker. They could simply use a modified hull of some other ship they can build quickly like the Type 071 hull if they do need to perform actual ship testing I think. Anyway I see little reason to think the Chinese have deviated from the supposed plan where they build two conventional powered EMALS carriers first and only afterwards build two nuclear powered EMALS carriers.
 

li450274625

New Member
Registered Member
The CSIS photo was shot on 08/18, at which time there was one module missing from what it is now:

F44F77F3-A4A0-469B-AB84-6527C6C8067A.jpeg

The new module was added earlier Sep. Adding that module, waterline length should be 310m - 315m, 100k tons boy with no doubt.

It's also interesting to see CSIS always mentioned Conventional propulsion along with Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, but not this time.

It's also interesting to see CSIS always mentioned Conventional propulsion along with Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, but not this time.
I was wrong, mentioned in the table.
 

Kich

New Member
Registered Member
The CSIS photo was shot on 08/18, at which time there was one module missing from what it is now:

View attachment 63672

The new module was added earlier Sep. Adding that module, waterline length should be 310m - 315m, 100k tons boy with no doubt.
100K tons for CV?

By comparison, USN first CVN, Enterprise was 90K+. Nimitz class (and probably Ford class as well) are slightly above 100K+

100K tons is overkill but maybe just like how the 055 had to be enlarged to accommodate all PLAN requirements, maybe same is true here.

Expectations might be raised for it if this size is accurate such as having 4 catapults instead of 3. But just like how some expected 055 to have more than 112 VLS for its size, some expectations might not be met here as well with this carrier. But what I do I know, I'm just guy browsing through forums.
 

li450274625

New Member
Registered Member
100K tons for CV?

By comparison, USN first CVN, Enterprise was 90K+. Nimitz class (and probably Ford class as well) are slightly above 100K+

100K tons is overkill but maybe just like how the 055 had to be enlarged to accommodate all PLAN requirements, maybe same is true here.

Expectations might be raised for it if this size is accurate such as having 4 catapults instead of 3. But just like how some expected 055 to have more than 112 VLS for its size, some expectations might not be met here as well with this carrier. But what I do I know, I'm just guy browsing through forums.

I always believe it is nuclear powered.
 

Top