Chinese Marine Propulsion

tphuang

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

interesting story here about CSSC JN and molten salt reactor proposal.

included not only reactor, but also green fuel production platform, ammonia powered coastal feeder ship and nuclear powered container transfer terminal.

It looks like they are taking this concept of nuclear reactor or MSR reactor on shipping and offshore quite seriously. At minimum, JN shipyard appears to be a major hub of nuclear powered offshore platform going forward. And in light of the newly discovered SSN at JN, it makes sense now for them to be setting up a permanent nuclear support facility there.
 

tphuang

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In 2026, Jiangnan Shipyard also made progress in nuclear-related manufacturing and installation qualifications. In February, China’s National Nuclear Safety Administration issued Jiangnan Shipyard with a Civil Nuclear Safety Equipment Manufacturing Licence and a Civil Nuclear Safety Equipment Installation Licence, both valid for five years. According to public documents, the licence scope covers manufacturing activities involving pipes, fittings and steel containment structures, as well as installation activities for general nuclear safety mechanical and electrical equipment for small floating reactors.
These developments suggest that Jiangnan’s nuclear shipping strategy is no longer limited to conceptual design. The company is gradually building experience across ship design, class approval, nuclear safety equipment manufacturing and installation capability.
So JN shipyard just got the qualification for nuclear stuff this February. Makes sense now they can build and outfit nuclear powered ships like submarines.
 

sndef888

Captain
Registered Member
I shall provide some more details.

The following power output values listed for the following gas turbine engines are likely based on ISO standards (with their respective current status/stage in brackets):
- CGT3 = 2.5MW (in serial production)
- CGT6 = 6.0MW (prototype production)
- CGT8 = 8.0 MW (prototype design)
- CGT15 = 15.0MW (prototype production)
- CGT25 = 25.0MW (in serial production)
- CGT28 = 32.0MW (to be announced)
- CGT30 = 33.0MW (in serial production)
- H-25 = 32.0/42.0MW (in serial production)
- CGT40 = 44.0MW (in serial production)
- CGT50 = 55.0MW (prototype design)


Note that key medium-to-high-powered marine gas turbine engine models for PLAN use (both current and prospective) in the list are bolded.

SOYO on Weibo has also noted the following:
- GT28 is purely for industrial use and is different (perhaps in terms of overall design and system architecture) from the GT30.
- Prototype design = Either a detailed, specialized design derived from a marine model for a civilian variant, or a completely new design. Without solid evidence, it is impossible to pick an absolutely correct answer between the two.



We do know that CGT30(M) has most certainly passed major evaluations (especially on the 052D DDG-133 Baotou), and I think we may reasonably anticipate that newer 052D DDGs (whether of the current batch or in subsequent units) will be powered by CGT30(M) instead of CGT25(M).

However, I do wonder what ships the CGT40(M) is/will be meant for, given that the showcase also lists said gas turbine engine to be already in serial production?

View attachment 174904
I wonder how they're going to arrange these turbines for use in future ship classes

CGT30 is a pretty big step up and using 4 of them COGAG seems pretty excessive for 055 or even a enlarged 055. Using 2 or 3 in IEP format like Zumwalts would be ideal but seems like a gamble. Unless we go way larger to something like 20,000 tons then using 4 makes more sense.

Using 2 CGT30s COGAG/CODOG/CODAG would make sense for a future 052D replacement if it displaces around 9000 tons but again I wonder if they could try to go for something new like IEP or CODLAG/CODLOG with 1 x CGT30 + diesels just like the Constellations or Type 26s

And 1 x CGT30 + diesels CODOG/CODAG seems like the sweet spot for a 5000ish ton frigate, similar to the Italian PPA
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I wonder how they're going to arrange these turbines for use in future ship classes

CGT30 is a pretty big step up and using 4 of them COGAG seems pretty excessive for 055 or even a enlarged 055. Using 2 or 3 in IEP format like Zumwalts would be ideal but seems like a gamble. Unless we go way larger to something like 20,000 tons then using 4 makes more sense.

Using 2 CGT30s COGAG/CODOG/CODAG would make sense for a future 052D replacement if it displaces around 9000 tons but again I wonder if they could try to go for something new like IEP or CODLAG/CODLOG with 1 x CGT30 + diesels just like the Constellations or Type 26s

And 1 x CGT30 + diesels CODOG/CODAG seems like the sweet spot for a 5000ish ton frigate, similar to the Italian PPA


There is also the purported IEP setup with 2*9MW diesels plus 2*33MW gas turbines

---

I'm learning my towards a Type-052D successor not being produced, so it would be the following tiers:

6000tonne Type-054B Frigate
12000tonne Type-055 Destroyer
A future 20000? Tonne BMD Cruiser

The specific ASW mission would be covered by something like the 1000tonne high-speed semi-submersible (uncrewed or with a minimal crew of 20?) equipped with a small bow sonar, TAS, VDS and some ASW torpedoes.
 

sndef888

Captain
Registered Member
I stumbled upon a rather interesting paper by a Dutch guy which gives recommendations for the Dutch ASWF frigate
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It mainly talks about CODLAD, which is what was used for the ASWF.

It seems to say that even with CODLAD arrangement of 4 x MAN 16V28/33D (7.28MW each) + 2 x MV 560 (generating 2.6MW each for electric drive) for a total of 34.32 MW, max speed for a 6000 ton ship is only 28.4 knots.

Even if you increase power of the 4 main propulsion engines to MAN 20V28/33D with 9.1MW each for a total of 36.4MW, max speed is only 28.7 knots.

I think this tracks with what we've seen in the past, like Iver Huitfeldt class uses four 8.2MW diesel engines and is also limited to 28 knots. Generally seems like 28 knots is a limit for 4 x diesels, even with electric motors assisting. It also means 054B with 4 x CS16V27 (7.28MW each) is probably close to the size limit if they don't want speed to drop below 28 knots.


I think this is a bit of a headache for a proper 054B successor IF we assume the requirements for it are:
1. quiet enough for ASW
2. able to sustain over 30 knots to keep up with carriers
3. cheap enough to mass produce

To fulfil 1 you ideally want electric motors, so diesel electric + something
To fulfil 2, this paper says that CODLOD / CODLAD are eliminated because they just aren't fast enough. Unless you go with something ridiculous like 6 main diesels. So you're basically forced to go with a gas turbine. So a proper 054B replacement will probably need CGT-30 + diesel electric, which is a rather big change and rather expensive, so it contradicts 3.
 
Last edited:
Top