Four A2W reactors were required to drive Enterprise to 33 knots, four more were to produce steam for flight operations. The output of the reactors was the reason of their number, not the number of boilers on Forrestal
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Yes, in a way. Enterprise had 8 nuclear reactors because the preceding Kitty Hawk class had 8 boilers and they did a 1:1 swap, with a virtually identical total propulsive output of 210MW.
QE2 have GT turbine propulsion which is completely orthogonal to nuclear propulsion.
I'm going to stick my neck out and make a wild guess.Four A2W reactors were required to drive Enterprise to 33 knots, four more were to produce steam for flight operations. The output of the reactors was the reason of their number, not the number of boilers on Forrestal
The Type 004 will have 4 nuclear reactors. Why 4?
There are 4 propeller shafts so why not have one reactor for each shaft?
Actually when the Type 004 finally gets built there is no guarantee the official tech specs will be released to the public. The question as to how many nuclear reactors does the Type 004 have may remain hidden from the public.
proelite
Junior Member
Has someone came up with the maximum practical size of an Chinese aircraft carrier based on the ports and drydocks in the country that can service a nuclear carrier?
ChinaMax is 366m but China operates container ships 400m long.
Suezmax shouldn't be a concern considering there should be no reason for a Chinese warship to need to transit the Suez canal.
ChinaMax is 366m but China operates container ships 400m long.
Suezmax shouldn't be a concern considering there should be no reason for a Chinese warship to need to transit the Suez canal.
I do think China should plan their navy with Malaccamax in mind. For an ocean going ship like carrier, it should definitely aim to contest waters beyond Strait of Malacca at some point, even if not now. In its service life time it should.
And if it fits Malaccamax, Suezmax should not be a problem.
And if it fits Malaccamax, Suezmax should not be a problem.
proelite
Junior Member
I can't seem to nail down what Malacca-max is except for maximum draught. There are length and beam limits listed online, but that seems to be a misunderstanding related to the classes of proposed container ships designed with the draught only in mind. The beams of the PLAN carriers already exceed the questionable Malacca-max beam. The draught for Malacca-max is 20.5m, which is nearly double that of modern supers carriers.
Based on the fact that the narrowest point of the strait is miles wide, there should be a limit on the length and beam.
For China, the only limitation on practical carrier size is draught, port, and dry dock sizes.
Considering the size of container ships, I guess the limit of a carrier should be easily above that.
Ok, so malaccamax is for ports not strait? In that case not an issue. Military ports can always be custom. They are not shipping cargo at civil ports.
Malaccamax is a naval architecture term that pertains to maximum draft, so as to freely navigate the shallowest part of the Malacca Strait.
This might help.
While the term also specifies maximum tonnage, length and beam specs, these don't have anything to do with navigating the straight itself so they are not relevant for a hull like a CV(N).
This might help.
While the term also specifies maximum tonnage, length and beam specs, these don't have anything to do with navigating the straight itself so they are not relevant for a hull like a CV(N).
Last edited:
proelite
Junior Member
Malaccamax is a naval architecture term that pertains to maximum draft, so as to freely navigate the shallowest part of the Malacca Strait.
This might help.
While the term also specifies maximum tonnage, length and beam specs, these don't have anything to do with navigating the straight itself so they are not relevant for a hull like a CV(N).
So the only limit is the size of the drydocks in China. A ship up to 500m in length and 100m in beam.
Possible first hint/indication on the rough location of the island superstructure for the 004 CVN?
The following illustrations are likely to have been obtained from an unknown academic paper/presentation/tender document. Posted by @Captain小潇 on Weibo.
Also, it has been alleged that the actual illustration (or the related document) on what the island superstructure of the 004 CVN could eventually look has been leaked online, though I couldn't find it anywhere. Meanwhile, @Captain小潇 in the same post has claimed that the island superstructure could be Ford-esque in design.
The following illustrations are likely to have been obtained from an unknown academic paper/presentation/tender document. Posted by @Captain小潇 on Weibo.
Also, it has been alleged that the actual illustration (or the related document) on what the island superstructure of the 004 CVN could eventually look has been leaked online, though I couldn't find it anywhere. Meanwhile, @Captain小潇 in the same post has claimed that the island superstructure could be Ford-esque in design.
Last edited: