Oops, yeah my mistake. It’s hard keeping track…
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I don't think so. They already installing the elevator so this picture should be recent.
I think this picture comes from here.
CV-XX (003 carrier) Thread I ... News & Discussions
Funny enough. There is a a running joke among Chinese netizens: 操导弹的心,吃火箭弹的命 That while Taiwan media constantly worry about the development of DF series missile, they should really be worried about massed PLA rocket artillery instead. nah. They are worried about the DF series because it...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
I see, my mistake
I agree with you. Also I think the submarine reactor needs to have lower self-noise.
submarine reactors can have much lower output than full sized carrier reactors.
Lethe
Captain
I do think PLAN should be ramping to produce 2-3 nuclear submarines per year, so it's good that they've invested in the facilities to do that. But I am skeptical of the budgetary side of things. I don't see how PLAN is going to accomodate massively increased spending on building and operating submarines (say, at least a fourfold increase over current spending) plus an even more dramatic increase in the budgets for carriers and naval aviation, plus maintaining high levels of spending and growth across other areas (surface combatants, amphibs and auxiliaries) that folks seem to take for granted. I don't see it working unless the plan is to increase the defence budget comparable to US levels, i.e. ~3.5% of GDP.
So far as I can see, PLAN is still very resource constrained and will remain so for the forseeable future, and in a strategic environment where peer conflict is a live possibility (as opposed to the more benign strategic environment of the previous generation) then it becomes very important to maximise return on investment in terms of delivering capabilities that can deliver victory and avert defeat. Aircraft carriers are certainly valuable, but the enormous costs required to realise a credible capability puts them towards the bottom of such RoI calculations in my view, and nuclear-powered carriers even moreso.
Last edited:
One of the space constraint on the sub is the diameter of the inner hull. For steam generator and heat exchange it is better to put them as high above the core as possible. Surface ship like a CV is naturally advantages/easier than a sub.
I don't see as much in the way of financial constraints for nuclear submarine construction. It's more ramping up the skills, experienced workers and the supply chain.
Surface warship construction is running at a high level, but it looks lower than the average in the past 5 year planning period.
Amphibs and auxiliaries are actually fairly cheap. A Type-071 is likely $200 Million (Thai export price) and a Type-072 only $13 Million (price of the equivalent Indonesian LST). On carriers, I expect to see a measured progression and development of a mature nuclear carrier design without a mad rush to get many carriers in service quickly.
So there should be enough money to increase SSN production from 1 to 3 per year, particularly since the Chinese is still growing in excess of 5% per year.
Remember that you are advocating a saving of just $1 Billion to go with a conventional carrier design versus a nuclear one, but this would delay the development of a mature nuclear carrier design by 4+ years.
That $1 Billion is equivalent to the cost of a single Type-055, but there are already 8 launched and another 8 ordered for the current 2021-2025 period. So if you really need $1 Billion, there is actually much practical difference between having one less Type-055?
Last edited: