00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Wrought]

The US used to operate like that. They operated escort carriers and fleet carriers both.

The small escort carriers back then were used to guard other ships against submarines. Right now China has a similar problem in that the US has superiority in terms of numbers of submarines. The smaller carriers would enable building more of them. They would then have anti-submarine aircraft in them. The question is if something like the Type 076 would be enough or a larger flattop would be warranted. In case that kind of strategy is pursued in the first place.

The US operated escort carriers during WWII as a way to escort supply convoys across the Atlantic (hence the name). Air cover was necessary as they sailed beyond the range of land-based aircraft. They were a cost-effective solution for a misson profile which did not require the speed, airwing, or other capabilties of an expensive fleet carrier.

How many convoys is the PLAN expected to escort beyond land-based cover in any future high-intensity conflict?

 

[Blitzo]

We do not know what will be the configuration of the Chinese Navy. I do not think they will just ape the US configuration.

They already seem to have two LHD designs the Type 075 and 076. So I would not be that surprised if they decided to have more than one carrier type as well.

The US used to operate like that. They operated escort carriers and fleet carriers both.

The small escort carriers back then were used to guard other ships against submarines. Right now China has a similar problem in that the US has superiority in terms of numbers of submarines. The smaller carriers would enable building more of them. They would then have anti-submarine aircraft in them. The question is if something like the Type 076 would be enough or a larger flattop would be warranted. In case that kind of strategy is pursued in the first place.

The large fleet carriers were used to attack other surface ship formations. Today also for land attack.

Are you seriously trying to come up with scenarios that can justify developing a gas turbine carrier, by suggesting they may come up with more than one carrier "type"?

Sure, there are any number of possibilities in which the PLAN may want to develop a gas turbine powered carrier if they wanted more conventional carriers. Maybe they want to give their gas turbine manufacturers more work. Maybe the PLAN high brass collectively suffer a head injury and lose common sense. Maybe they'll build carriers which aren't actually carriers in the proper sense that CV-18 is. Heck, 076 can be considered a "carrier" depending on how you define it, and we know it will be powered partially by gas turbines, so does that meet your threshold?


But as it is, right now in mid 2024, there is no sensible or logical path for the PLAN to pursue a gas turbine powered carrier if they wanted further properly sized conventionally powered carriers.


I really don't think you want to go down this rabbit hole.

 

[gelgoog]

The US operated escort carriers during WWII as a way to escort supply convoys across the Atlantic (hence the name). Air cover was necessary as they sailed beyond the range of land-based aircraft. They were a cost-effective solution for a misson profile which did not require the speed, airwing, or other capabilties of an expensive fleet carrier.

How many convoys is the PLAN expected to escort beyond land-based cover in any future high-intensity conflict?

They will likely want to retain naval access to the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Where is the continuous land cover?
Anyway, this is just a concept I have been thinking of for like a couple of weeks. And I have no evidence of this being considered by China at all. So I'll just wrap it here.

 

[Maikeru]

How about a hi-lo mix? CV18 onwards for far seas deployments, CV16, 17 and 076-derived light carriers for closer to home. Leveraging the hull and machinery already developed for 076 should in theory be a relatively cheap way to get a "mass production" CVL.

Of course there's no evidence PLAN is thinking along these lines.

 

[proelite]

A gas turbine carrier just doesn't make sense for the PLAN of 2024.

What about 076 derived light-medium carrier? Gas turbine engines make sense for smaller ships due to smaller engine size and shared fuel between ships and airplanes. The island will take a bigger print on the deck but the two island configurations have its own benefits. I feel like they would make great candidates for exports to nations that can't for budget or political reasons possess F-35Bs for STOVL carriers.

Something like the below but maybe with the island split:

 

[snake65]

Just look at 076 as the first LHA with EM cat. That's enough.

 

[proelite]

Just look at 076 as the first LHA with EM cat. That's enough.

There is absolutely a place for conventional gas turbine carriers in any navy. The reason that the USN doesn't have them is due to lobbying by the defense industry.

America struggles to field half of its carriers because it takes like years to refit, repair, and refuel a CVN.

Whatever the advantages for large nuclear carriers can be offset by the higher availability of smaller gas turbine carriers and the exportability.

I think PLAN experimenting with a 076 hull and engine derived 40-50k carrier would make great sense sense.

Multiple super carriers along with some numbers of light/medium carriers would result in higher availability than an equal number of nuclear super carriers.

 

[Blitzo]

What about 076 derived light-medium carrier? Gas turbine engines make sense for smaller ships due to smaller engine size and shared fuel between ships and airplanes. The island will take a bigger print on the deck but the two island configurations have its own benefits. I feel like they would make great candidates for exports to nations that can't for budget or political reasons possess F-35Bs for STOVL carriers.

Something like the below but maybe with the island split:

Can we just stop talking about this?


This topic doesn't deserve to be entertained. We can't just go around speculating randomly if something is unsupported by existing credible rumours or if we don't have at least circumstantial indicators to support something is logical or reasonable to pursue in the first place.

Even the mere idea of a medium carrier being pursued is something that warrants a whole discussion first (which will obviously be inconclusive), before even thinking about what kind of propulsion it will have.


This thread doesn't exist so we can come up with excuses and twist scenarios that we can justify the idea of a "gas turbine powered carrier".

 

[taxiya]

China have long had 28 MW gas turbines. Supposedly they now also have 40 MW gas turbines.
The Queen Elizabeth class uses two 36 MW gas turbines.

QE uses 2 GTs and 2 Wärtsilä 16V38 and 2 Wärtsilä 12V38. The diesel engines are about the same size to the GTs. So you got 6 times the size of a single GT and all there piping anf funnels. This isn't necessarily compact than a nuclear-team setup.

More importantly, QE is very underpowered using the top speed as a benchmark, 25 vs. 32 (Kitty Hawk, like Fujian). QE has total 112MW while Kitty Hawk has 210MW almost doubled. BTW, we haven't talk about the possible (impossible) future EM cat for F-35C.

As I have said long time ago, QE is a compromise that UK had to accept due to its lack of scale in nuclear power industry (meaning they can build one but can not afford to use it). IMO QE is the worst example to argue for GT application.

Type 003 has 30% more displacement than the Queen Elizabeth class. I think this would not be difficult to achieve with existing Chinese technology and equipment.

For 30% more displacement, you probably need to increase the power much more than 30% to maintain the same speed which in QE's case is already terrible.

The gas turbines are more efficient than a boiler and steam turbine configuration. So it would also increase the range of the carrier. Plus the gas turbine is way more compact which would increase the internal space of the carrier.

All the advantages are non existent in front of a nuclear ship.

 

[Zichan]

If another conventional powered CATOBAR was built I think it would come with gas turbine engines. The long startup times of steam turbines make them poorly suited for modern warfare. The fact the Type 003 comes with the steam turbines is probably more of a legacy trait due to it being originally designed to use steam catapults which would use steam generated from the boilers more than anything else.

I agree that the next carrier to be built will likely be nuclear and they won't be building more conventional carriers. But I think this isn't necessarily a good idea for China in the short term. Since conventional carriers are typically cheaper to operate and China needs to get more experience with carrier ops, having at least some conventional carriers would likely be a good idea.

Sure, if they were starting the carrier program from scratch and had no ambition to build a CVN, GT based propulsion would make sense. @taxiya QE2 class hit 32 knots in speed tests, so they are not as underpowered as you assume.

But given the undeniable superiority of CVNs and the fact that conventional steam propulsion is a natural stepping stone to nuclear propulsion, it wouldn’t make sense for them to branch off into a dead end class, for what one more extra ship.

To me personally, the more interesting question is to what degree will the next carrier adopt integrated electrical propulsion. The Royal Navy has been the most ambitious in that regard thus far. The USN’s Ford class still uses conventional reduction gear to clutch the propellers to steam turbines. Nonetheless, Ford class generate more electrical power than the total power output of the QE2 class. However, they use a conservative AC power distribution grid, which probably branches off into 1kV DC at the ends, similar to the Zumwalts (just my guess).