00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Ayi is saying the vessel in DL is not a CVN. Maybe other nuclear-powered things.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He didn't say that the ship is not a CVN.

What he actually meant is that while the presence of the reactor housing/containment structure confirms that Dalian is building a nuclear-powered ship, said nuclear-powered ship may not necessarily be a CVN.

You need to rephrase your sentences more accurately.

 

[Tomboy]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"What exactly is this ship in the south? I think there are several possibilities:

1. A deeply upgraded variant of the 003, whose relationship to the 003 is similar to that between the 054B and 054A. The 003's final design was likely finalized around 2018, making it at least 7 years old now. During the 14th Five-Year Plan period, there would have been enough time to address the 003's weaknesses and develop a significantly improved variant.

2. A minor upgrade variant of the 003, whose relationship to the 003 is like that between the 054A and the 054AG (100mm gun version). This would be the safest and quickest solution, but the actual gains might be smaller compared to a deeply upgraded 003, making it less cost-effective overall.

3. A newly designed large conventional-powered CV, whose relationship to the 003 is akin to that between the Kitty Hawk/Kennedy class and the Midway class. Such a project could indeed exist, and some supporting evidence (not the "carrier mockup building") has emerged. However, the implementation challenges are significant, so this remains to be seen.

4. The second hull of the northern CVN—i.e., the new CVN project being split between northern and southern shipyards for hulls 1 and 2, respectively. This possibility isn't zero, but there’s no corroborating evidence yet, so it seems unlikely.

5. A new-type DDH/LHA. Such vessels typically wouldn’t require Jiangnan Shipyard to build them—Hudong could handle it—so this is the least likely scenario.

In short, unless there’s definitive, authoritative, and pointed information confirming it, we shouldn’t label the southern ship as '003A' just yet. At least hold off on conclusions for now. Of course, if you’ve already received explicit information from the PLAN and the 701 Institute, that’s another matter."

@bsdnf
Crossposted from 003 thread

 

[AndrewS]

I believe for ships, it's cubed. So a doubling of speed requires eight times the power.

Ah yes, what I was thinking. It is 8x

 

[AndrewS]

CVNs can't be built as fast due to extremely high upfront cost and nuclear safety issues/regulations. Large GT CVs could be cheap enough to be built 2 at a time while also utilizing preexisting supply/maintenace production lines as the rest of the fleet for faster construction time and lower costs. It's not unrealistic that once mass production started such a ship could be built from steel cutting to commission in 3.5-4 years' time while JN is also realistically capable of building two of these ships at once due to lower cost and part standardisation with the rest of the fleet(Powerplants, IEPS components, etc), it's also realistic that China could afford to build two of these ships(Likely less than half the cost of a CVN upfront while also having much cheaper lifetime costs even when compared to Type 003/002/001 with COSAS due to using the same propulsion/fuel as the rest of the fleet) at once while also building another CVN at DL.

As some people mentioned before if China wants to dominate the seas and/or have extensive expeditionary warfare capability capable of rivaling/beating US forces anywhere(except for CONUS obviously) by 2049 without a large network of overseas bases then a massive number of carriers with a few strategically placed nodes or bases to resupply the fleet around the world is the way to go.

Assuming there isn't a major war in the next 15 years, I think a CVN only fleet is the way to go as there is time for a higher, steady construction tempo.

---

But if the Chinese Navy do need an emergency naval construction programme (like when US shipyards launched 9 Essex-class carriers in 1943 during WW2), then it would be useful to have a conventionally-powered carrier design ready for mass production

 

[00CuriousObserver]

del

 

[BoraTas]

You'll need twice the number of auxiliary mechanisms for 4 reactors, even if the core is smaller, it'll still take up more space just because of all the ancillary equipment needed, even if they could make it smaller it'll definitely still cost much more than dual reactors.

As said, you can not know that. The Nimitz was built with two reactors because of affordability reasons. Apparently USN was OK with the technical penalties of a quad reactor design. Also as said, you cannot know the volume and weight of the auxiliaries while theorizing from here. Because the number of steam turbines would be the same. But you would need a lot of extra plumbing to route the steam around. Furthermore, the choice of a propulsion system is far more complicated than a comparison of weights.

If Type 004 is using IEPS(IMO, pretty likely), then you don't need 2 turbines per reactor you only need a single power turbine per reactor since there's no mechanical connection with the actual propeller shafts.

No. IEPS is not likely. IEPS systems are much heavier and volume consuming by default. So it is weird how you suggest it as a weight saving and compact measure. Adding four 50 MW motors and two 100+ MW generators isn't a trivial task.

China should have no issue developing a reactor that is both small enough to fit into Type 004's hull and also providing enough power with a dual reactor arrangement(Ford's current hotel load only uses half of what's available, Type 004 should have more installed power due to be being larger hence have an even larger margin even with dual reactors).

You are making way too many confident statements on things you cannot know. You should be observing more. I am not even saying the 004 certainly has quad reactors. I am saying it could and stating why that isn't necessarily a bad thing. You are somehow convinced about what carrier fleet PLAN should field all the way to the propulsion systems of the vessel classes.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

-

There are two related topics at hand: whether the PLAN will pursue more CVs, and whether this JN ship will use a "deeply improved" 003 design.

For the former, the notion of "this JN CV being the last CV and PLAN transitioning to CVNs only" as the default assumption is certainly not a consensus among a few CN PLA watchers. SOYO is an example and there have been previous discussions. To put it briefly, their argument is that future CVs may be beneficial enough and suitable enough to PLAN's needs, and thus the possibility is high enough to not discount them.

The possibility of future CVs would thus partially justify a "deeply improved 003". Another consideration is that we ultimately don't know for certain what PLAN deems "risky" and "worthy". It's possible for a "deeply improved 003" to not be seen as that risky to the PLAN, and perhaps the PLAN considers some amount of risk a cost-effective investment. Carriers are resource-intensive platforms with service lives of half a century, and a more capable design may pay dividends over the long term.

 

[Blitzo]

There are two related topics at hand: whether the PLAN will pursue more CVs, and whether this JN ship will use a "deeply improved" 003 design.

For the former, the notion of "this JN CV being the last CV and PLAN transitioning to CVNs only" as the default assumption is certainly not a consensus among a few CN PLA watchers. SOYO is an example and there have been previous discussions. To put it briefly, their argument is that future CVs may be beneficial enough and suitable enough to PLAN's needs, and thus the possibility is high enough to not discount them.

The possibility of future CVs would thus partially justify a "deeply improved 003". Another consideration is that we ultimately don't know for certain what PLAN deems "risky" and "worthy". It's possible for a "deeply improved 003" to not be seen as that risky to the PLAN, and perhaps the PLAN considers some amount of risk a cost-effective investment. Carriers are resource-intensive platforms with service lives of half a century, and a more capable design may pay dividends over the long term.

Until a few heavy hitters straight come out and argue against it as the default assumption, I think we have no reason yet to change that belief.

Essentially the identity of what JN's CV will be (a 003 mod, or a deeply improved CV with new propulsion) is dependent on what the actual projection of future CVN/CV production projections may be. Of course it's very possible even now the PLAN doesn't know what it wants for the future and is hedging its bets, so in theory the possibility of a deeply improved CV with new propulsion is not off the table and could still occur even if they end up going for an all CVN production/procurement model in the future.

But I think it's also important for us to recognize just what the lay of the land is.


Putting it another way, at this stage I see no reason to not view the prospect of "DL 1 CVN, JN 1 CV" to be have its most likely explanation be a high risk/low risk option (or hedge) that the PLA usually likes to do, until clearer indicators or arguments emerge otherwise.

 

[GTI]

Until a few heavy hitters straight come out and argue against it as the default assumption, I think we have no reason yet to change that belief.

Essentially the identity of what JN's CV will be (a 003 mod, or a deeply improved CV with new propulsion) is dependent on what the actual projection of future CVN/CV production projections may be. Of course it's very possible even now the PLAN doesn't know what it wants for the future and is hedging its bets, so in theory the possibility of a deeply improved CV with new propulsion is not off the table and could still occur even if they end up going for an all CVN production/procurement model in the future.

But I think it's also important for us to recognize just what the lay of the land is.


Putting it another way, at this stage I see no reason to not view the prospect of "DL 1 CVN, JN 1 CV" to be have its most likely explanation be a high risk/low risk option (or hedge) that the PLA usually likes to do, until clearer indicators or arguments emerge otherwise.

Been watching the discourse over the last couple of days… I think there’s a lot of sound logic behind a CVN plus CV force composition. And if this is the case, then a new-design CV would be required.

This logic is because of [inshallah] places like Simon’s Town, Walvis Bay, Lagos, Tema, Port Louis, Honiara etc.

PLAN just can’t rock up anywhere with CVNs, not only do they require additional support infrastructure, but many places outright ban nuclear powered vessels from their waters / port calls. Also, I could totally see a future with the US intelligence apparatus astroturfing [fake] “grassroots” anti-nuclear movements to hinder the PLAN’s ambitions (like the ones in Aus and NZ in the 70s against USN CVNs and CGNs).

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Okay, seems like there have been quite some degree of confusions due to ongoing developments (both in this forum (and funnily enough, on Weibo as well, thanks to Ayi/Otter's comments).

Looks like some clear-up is necessary.

Accumulating and arranging all the information that are available to us so far, here's all of what can be inferred about the present situation so far (which can be 100% sure of):

#1 - Fujian is currently undergoing sea trials, and is highly probable to enter PLAN service this year. No contention about this one.

#2 - There is high possibility (if not a near absolute certainty) of a nuclear-powered ship currently under construction at Dalian, taking into account the recent sightings of what could very well be one of the reactor housing/containment structures meant for the ship. However, due to lacking more concrete and verifiable information, whether this ship is actually a CVN or some other types of ship (whether military or civilian) still remains uncertain.

#3 - There is a suggested possibility of a new aircraft carrier under construction at Jiangnan right now, per news of earlier tender documents being found/available. However, there are several possibilities which were suggested by SOYO with regards to this particular ship:

#3a - A lightly-modified/upgraded sister ship of Fujian;
#3b - A heavily-modified/upgraded sister ship of Fujian;
#3c - A brand-new-design conventionally-powered aircraft carrier that is separate from the Fujian;
#3d - A nuclear-powered carrier (or perhaps the second one after Dalian, if assertion in point #2 is accurate); or
#3e - A DDH/LHA-type flat-deck warship.

The probabilities of the above 5 possibilities are as follows, from most likely to least likely:
#3a ≈ #3b > #3c >> #3d >>>> #3e
And once again - Please apply the same rule as #2 for the time being.

#4 - While there have been news/rumors of a nuclear-powered ship to be constructed (if not already under construction) at Jiangnan, it has been alleged that this ship is of civilian nature (i.e. not military). Hence, unless sufficient information proves otherwise, this must not be taken as Jiangnan is to build/building #3d.

I hope this makes things clearer. Yes, this may not be colorful news for some, but it is what it is.