00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

US aircraft carrier's sizes is restricted by the width of the Panama canal since passage through the canal is normal routine for USN ships, and since PLAN ships are not likely to go through Panama canal, its future nuclear power super carriers can have wider beam and thus larger displacement.

Just a slight correction - Despite the Neopanamax locks being 55 meters wide (which is larger than the Nimitz and Ford's 41 meter-wide beam) - The flight decks of both the Nimitz and Ford are 76-78 meters wide. That means the USN supercarriers cannot pass through the Panama Canal without massive preparation work beforehand.

Here's one such Neopanamax lock. Notice the installations and structures lining along both sides of the lock.

To match the number of aircraft onboard Ford class super carrier, PLAN may need an aircraft carrier with 120,000 to 150,000 tons displacement capable of carrying 90 to 100 plus aircraft of all types.

What China needs is a powerful nuclear propulsion that is capable of moving the ship at 30 knots and above. Looking beyond 2030 for such break through.

If China's future CVNs are significantly larger and displaces significantly more than USN CVNs, then it might be better to have more than two nuclear reactors onboard.

For comparison:
The Nimitz CVNs are powered by two A4W reactors: 550 MWth each, together generating (estimated) ~208MW for the shafts (one reactor for each pair of shafts) and (estimated) ~200MW of electrical power.
The Ford CVNs are powered by two A1B reactors: 700 MWth each, together generating (estimated) ~260MW for the shafts (one reactor for all four shafts) and (estimated) ~250MW of electrical power.

 

[gelgoog]

It is always cheaper to make a larger reactor instead of a bunch of smaller ones. This is just nuclear economics 101.
It makes construction cheaper, and simplifies maintenance. The only reason I can see for having more than one reactor is redundancy.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

It is always cheaper to make a larger reactor instead of a bunch of smaller ones. This is just nuclear economics 101.
It makes construction cheaper, and simplifies maintenance. The only reason I can see for having more than one reactor is redundancy.

One question - How big can the reactor realistically get in order to properly propel and power a warship of such size, should the reactor count remains at two?

 

[Intrepid]

I am quite sure, US will remain on two independent machinery spaces with two sets of engine rooms and two reactors. Chinese will do the same.

And I think, three carriers at 100.000 tons on station are better than two carriers at 150.000 tons. It is not necessary to build carriers larger than 100.000 tons.

 

[Dante80]

And I think, three carriers at 100.000 tons on station are better than two carriers at 150.000 tons. It is not necessary to build carriers larger than 100.000 tons.

It is not "necessary", but it might be more efficient and advantageous for PLAN to consider even larger CVNs than those fielded globally currently.

This is a question that may be answered in the future.

 

[Intrepid]

The magic word is resilience, and it is more readily achieved with small units than large ones. Also, the aircraft will be less demanding in terms of the length and width of runways needed. I suspect that the largest carrier aircraft were at the end of the Vietnam War, after which the aircraft started to become smaller.

 

[Miyayaya]

No, that's not how that works lmao. Even the Project 048 isn't set in stone.

Once Fujian satisfies whatever new stuffs (to-put-it-simply) that the PLAN requires the Fujian to test and verify, then there is no reason for China to build another (half-)sister ship for Fujian. It's only a real waste of precious resources that would've been better directed towards places that are actually more useful and beneficial for the PLAN in the long term.

Having a large gap between carriers where the production line and workers aren't kept around is a giant problem. It will depend on how soon the technologies can be incorporated, and also if the cost-benefit analysis of an immediate nuclear 004 works out for China in the first place.

The latter also depends on the Taiwan situation.

For example, here are a couple potential timelines:

1. 003 launched/sea trials -> conventional carrier starts building shortly after -> nuclear carrier starts building sometime after
2. 003 launched/sea trials -> somewhat of a gap -> nuclear carrier starts building

- There are sayings (source undetermined) where while a 150 thousand-ton supercarrier is likely to have slightly/moderately higher price tag than a 100 thousand-ton supercarrier, it is expected to have the combat effectiveness that is likely to be 1.8 or even 2 times that of the latter (namely, greater cost-effectiveness).

I have also heard this idea floated in a podcast with 约克

 

[vincent]

Having a large gap between carriers where the production line and workers aren't kept around is a giant problem.

Not a problem for China because she has a giant ship building industry.

 

[plawolf]

The magic word is resilience, and it is more readily achieved with small units than large ones. Also, the aircraft will be less demanding in terms of the length and width of runways needed. I suspect that the largest carrier aircraft were at the end of the Vietnam War, after which the aircraft started to become smaller.

Getting cause and effect mixed up.

The principle purpose of a carrier is to carry fighters. It is the carrier fighter wing’s number and capabilities that in turn determines the combat potential of the carrier.

Western carrier fighters getting smaller after the end of the Cold War, not Vietnam, because it’s principle enemy disappeared so capability no longer mattered quite so much. Especially not against costs and sortie rates. Thus the likes of the F14 were ditched in favour of F18s.

Just as super-bug and F35 were designed around the existing Nimitz class carriers. The Americans are determining the specs of the NGAD using their existing Ford carriers as a pre-requisite for size. Which in term sets a hard ceiling on range and payload.

The Chinese OTOH, seem to have approached the problem from the opposite direction and systematically mapped out what sortie rate and range can be achieved with different carrier sizes verses costs. That’s how they came to the conclusion that 150kt is their sweet spot. Similar, I expect that they would have also decided what range, payload and other attributes their 6th gen carrier fighter needs, and is happy to design their carriers around that fighter to maximise its potential. Which likely also dovetails with the 150kt displacement number.

 

[valysre]

That’s how they came to the conclusion that 150kt is their sweet spot.

Excuse my ignorance: which drydocks are capable of building a 150kt carrier? Will deck width impact the ability for otherwise-capable shipyards to complete construction?