00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Gleaning from the following academic paper, and if the values presented in the paper are accurate to real life:
1. The propulsion-electrical system architecture on the 004 CVN will be similar to those on the Nimitz and Ford CVNs, namely featuring 4x steam turbines which drive 4x propulsion shafts and propellers, alongside 4x turbine generator sets serving as the CVN's main power generation units.
2. The total electrical power output of the marine nuclear reactors will be no less than 200MW. That means:
- If a two-reactor design is adopted, every reactor will have an electrical power output of no less than 110-115MW.
- If a four-reactor design is adopted, every reactor will have an electrical power output of no less than 55-60MW.
3. The current maximum power output value of domestically produced turbine generator sets is only at the 20MW level, which still falls short of the 24MW units used in the Ford CVNs. Therefore:
- The main power generation capacity of the 004 CVN is expected to be around 80MW, compared to the Ford CVN's 96-100MW.
- If further improvements can be made to shaft-driven power generation, the total power generation capacity of the 004 CVN could potentially be raised to the 90-95MW range, narrowing the gap with the Ford CVNs.

 

[charles18]

2. The total electrical power output of the marine nuclear reactors will be no less than 200MW. That means:
- If a two-reactor design is adopted, every reactor will have an electrical power output of no less than 110-115MW.
- If a four-reactor design is adopted, every reactor will have an electrical power output of no less than 55-60MW.

Call me weird but I've always "wanted" the Chinese to build a carrier with 4 nuclear reactors.
why?
This would open the possibility to creating a nuclear powered version of the Type 055.
If a carrier has 4 reactors each rated at 75,000 hp then 2 reactors would provide the right amount of power for the Type 055.
The PLA navy can create a modular design where the exact same reactors are used for both their aircraft carriers and cruisers.
This would lower construction costs.
carrier == 4 reactors == 300,000 total hp
cruiser == 2 reactors == 150,000 total hp
However
If the PLA navy builds an aircraft carrier with only 2 reactors then I think a decision has been made (from very high up) to completely give up on the idea of nuclear powered cruisers.

 

[Iron Man]

Call me weird but I've always "wanted" the Chinese to build a carrier with 4 nuclear reactors.
why?
This would open the possibility to creating a nuclear powered version of the Type 055.
If a carrier has 4 reactors each rated at 75,000 hp then 2 reactors would provide the right amount of power for the Type 055.
The PLA navy can create a modular design where the exact same reactors are used for both their aircraft carriers and cruisers.
This would lower construction costs.
carrier == 4 reactors == 300,000 total hp
cruiser == 2 reactors == 150,000 total hp
However
If the PLA navy builds an aircraft carrier with only 2 reactors then I think a decision has been made (from very high up) to completely give up on the idea of nuclear powered cruisers.

The USN already tried surface combatants with nuclear reactors and found them to be exorbitantly expensive to build and maintain. And if a navy that has 11 nuclear carriers and dozens of nuclear subs thinks that a nuclear cruiser is "too costly", I would believe it.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Call me weird but I've always "wanted" the Chinese to build a carrier with 4 nuclear reactors.
why?
This would open the possibility to creating a nuclear powered version of the Type 055.
If a carrier has 4 reactors each rated at 75,000 hp then 2 reactors would provide the right amount of power for the Type 055.
The PLA navy can create a modular design where the exact same reactors are used for both their aircraft carriers and cruisers.
This would lower construction costs.
carrier == 4 reactors == 300,000 total hp
cruiser == 2 reactors == 150,000 total hp
However
If the PLA navy builds an aircraft carrier with only 2 reactors then I think a decision has been made (from very high up) to completely give up on the idea of nuclear powered cruisers.

maybe a follow-on class. 055 is still in the tonnage regime where combustion engines are OK.

 

[charles18]

The USN already tried surface combatants with nuclear reactors and found them to be exorbitantly expensive to build and maintain. And if a navy that has 11 nuclear carriers and dozens of nuclear subs thinks that a nuclear cruiser is "too costly", I would believe it.

In 1964 the US navy sent 3 nuclear powered warships on an around the world cruise known as "Operation Sea Orbit".
All 3 of these warships the Long Beach, Bainbridge, and Enterprise used different nuclear reactors.
I think this is a very different than the idea I proposed with using the exact same reactors.
Secondly technology has advanced since the 1960's. Thanks to automation maybe a nuclear powered ship using today's technology will be cheaper?
And finally it has been pointed out previously that a mid-life refueling can be expensive because it practically requires cutting a ship open. This can be solved by using 90% enriched weapons grade uranium and using reactors large enough to carry a lifetime supply of uranium. The Ford class carrier for example requires no mid-life refueling. Why can't a nuclear powered cruiser also carry a lifetime supply of uranium?

Of course this is all speculation, until we get more info about the Type 004's reactors tech specs.

 

[Iron Man]

In 1964 the US navy sent 3 nuclear powered warships on an around the world cruise known as "Operation Sea Orbit".
All 3 of these warships the Long Beach, Bainbridge, and Enterprise used different nuclear reactors.
I think this is a very different than the idea I proposed with using the exact same reactors.
Secondly technology has advanced since the 1960's. Thanks to automation maybe a nuclear powered ship using today's technology will be cheaper?
And finally it has been pointed out previously that a mid-life refueling can be expensive because it practically requires cutting a ship open. This can be solved by using 90% enriched weapons grade uranium and using reactors large enough to carry a lifetime supply of uranium. The Ford class carrier for example requires no mid-life refueling. Why can't a nuclear powered cruiser also carry a lifetime supply of uranium?

Of course this is all speculation, until we get more info about the Type 004's reactors tech specs.

Yes, some money would be saved by sharing a reactor design, some money would be saved by automation, and some money would be saved by no midlife refueling. Would all that mean that a Chinese nuclear cruiser is financially sensible or even tactically needed? I don't think either of us know.

 

[dingyibvs]

In 1964 the US navy sent 3 nuclear powered warships on an around the world cruise known as "Operation Sea Orbit".
All 3 of these warships the Long Beach, Bainbridge, and Enterprise used different nuclear reactors.
I think this is a very different than the idea I proposed with using the exact same reactors.
Secondly technology has advanced since the 1960's. Thanks to automation maybe a nuclear powered ship using today's technology will be cheaper?
And finally it has been pointed out previously that a mid-life refueling can be expensive because it practically requires cutting a ship open. This can be solved by using 90% enriched weapons grade uranium and using reactors large enough to carry a lifetime supply of uranium. The Ford class carrier for example requires no mid-life refueling. Why can't a nuclear powered cruiser also carry a lifetime supply of uranium?

Of course this is all speculation, until we get more info about the Type 004's reactors tech specs.

If we're thinking about using more advanced technologies then why not use say pebble bed reactors? The HTR-PM is already operational since 2023, refueling wouldn't be much of an issue then.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Some speculation about that yard:

Why is it said that the vessel in the north must be CVN-A04 and not a civilian ship? In images 1 to 5, the civilian ships in the dock are all positioned along the edge, whereas in image 6, the location of the keel blocks is right in the center of the dock. The main reason is that civilian ships don’t have significantly overhanging flight decks, while both CVs and CVNs do. Another factor is the construction timeline—civilian ships are built much faster than CVs or CVNs. Judging by the rate of progress shown in image 6, if this were a civilian ship, the builder would be losing a fortune.

 

[mack8]

So basically Captain is saying that what we are seeing is 004, do i understand it correctly?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

So basically Captain is saying that what we are seeing is 004, do i understand it correctly?

Something like that.

The construction of that particular ship in that drydock progresses too slowly, which is rather uncharacteristic for commercial/civilian vessels that Dalian typically builds.

Tracing back on Copernicus, the last ship (or assembled ship hull module) was launched from that drydock all the way back immediately before or around the J-36 and J-XDS's first flights. Since then, that drydock has remained empty until mid-February 2025. Some of the objects seen inside that drydock right now have been there for over a month (particular the ones closest to the inner edge of the drydock).

It's certainly prudent to keep an eye out on this Dalian drydock.

(The following screenshot isn't from Copernicus. I obtained it from Bilibili.)