Just managed to find the 切片 video on Bilibili with the said section of discussion (on the J-XDH and 004 CV(N)). The original Bilibili got deleted for some reason.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Just managed to find the 切片 video on Bilibili with the said section of discussion (on the J-XDH and 004 CV(N)). The original Bilibili got deleted for some reason.
Honestly, even if the 150k ton is true (and not just some paper that's gonna get archived).
It's still unlikely that the PLAN will directly go to the 150k, instead of making say a 100k (maybe even 110 to 120k) nuclear one.
To test out things and stuff.
So like, the 150k tons is gonna be after 2030 (would even say likely 2040), and by then, variables and changes might result in the 150k tons plan being scrapped.
It's still unlikely that the PLAN will directly go to the 150k, instead of making say a 100k (maybe even 110 to 120k) nuclear one.
To test out things and stuff.
So like, the 150k tons is gonna be after 2030 (would even say likely 2040), and by then, variables and changes might result in the 150k tons plan being scrapped.
The next step in Chinese aircraft evolution is nuclear propulsion. They already have EM catapults installed on 2 different ships now.
Given that the Chinese don't have any legacy or sunk costs - they might as well go with the best clean sheet design.
So if it is a 150K ton aircraft carrier, there's no point going with an intermediate stage of an expensive one-off nuclear carrier design of 100k tons.
Remember they have skipped steam catapults and gone straight to EM catapults.
---
And in terms of physical dimensions, a 150K ton carrier isn't that much bigger than a 100k ton carrier.
Look at the Type-055 as an example, which is 50-60% larger in terms of displacement than the Type-052D.
But each external dimension (length x beam x "depth") is only 15% larger
---
And thinking about it, a 150k ton aircraft carrier would be comparable to a very large cruise ship in terms displacement, size and complexity.
Just speculating here.
Given that a US CAW has 48 F/A-18 or F-35, 5 E-2 and 7 Growlers - that's 60 fixed wing aircraft.
So if there is a 1.8-2x increase in combat effectiveness that implies a Chinese airwing on a 150k ton carrier as follows:
84-96 Fighters (J-15 or J-35)
9-10 KJ-600 AWACs
12-14 J-15 EW variant
So that's 108-120 fixed wing aircraft.
Would they really want to concentrate so many manned aircraft on a single ship?
---
But we're moving to a situation where accompanying Loyal Wingman UCAVs (initially 3-4? per fighter) will be the norm.
If you go with the current USN airwing which has 48 fighters - that implies 150-200 accompanying UCAVs.
A 100k ton carrier presumably doesn't have enough additional space for all these UCAVs.
So if China goes with a 150k ton aircraft carrier, I think the additional space would mainly be used for UCAVs.
Then you also have accompanying Type-076 which can also launch UCAVs with its EM catapult.
---
On a notional 150k ton carrier design, let's say it has external dimensions in the region of 15% larger than a 100k ton design.
These external dimensions aren't that much larger, so my guess is that it would follow the same design principles and deck layout as a 100k carrier. Call it 3-4 catapults, 3-4 aircraft elevators, 2 nuclear reactors.
Given that a US CAW has 48 F/A-18 or F-35, 5 E-2 and 7 Growlers - that's 60 fixed wing aircraft.
So if there is a 1.8-2x increase in combat effectiveness that implies a Chinese airwing on a 150k ton carrier as follows:
84-96 Fighters (J-15 or J-35)
9-10 KJ-600 AWACs
12-14 J-15 EW variant
So that's 108-120 fixed wing aircraft.
Would they really want to concentrate so many manned aircraft on a single ship?
---
But we're moving to a situation where accompanying Loyal Wingman UCAVs (initially 3-4? per fighter) will be the norm.
If you go with the current USN airwing which has 48 fighters - that implies 150-200 accompanying UCAVs.
A 100k ton carrier presumably doesn't have enough additional space for all these UCAVs.
So if China goes with a 150k ton aircraft carrier, I think the additional space would mainly be used for UCAVs.
Then you also have accompanying Type-076 which can also launch UCAVs with its EM catapult.
---
On a notional 150k ton carrier design, let's say it has external dimensions in the region of 15% larger than a 100k ton design.
These external dimensions aren't that much larger, so my guess is that it would follow the same design principles and deck layout as a 100k carrier. Call it 3-4 catapults, 3-4 aircraft elevators, 2 nuclear reactors.
Last edited:
There should be no basis to speculate about a 150,000 ton future carrier right now.
Any such discussions are beyond the scope of what present rumours allow for.
Just because a theoretical 150,000 ton carrier might have an increase in capability/cost ratio which is reasonable, does not mean that right now anyone yet expects a future Chinese carrier to have that displacement. If the rumours and discussion from usual Chinese sources change, then fine. But right now it's too early and should not be discussed as hypotheticals.
Satellite photo of said nuclear reactor test site from the AP article.
(Nuclear Power Institute of China’s Site No. 1, also known as Base 909, in Mucheng Township, Sichuan Province, China. Photo taken July 5, 2023.)
Related.
Satellite photo of said location taken on 3 November 2024. Posted by @Captain小潇 on Weibo.
I know that the size of this facility is probably in no way a credible way to accurately guess the size of the 004, but if that plane on the bottom were suppose to represent a J-15 sized plane, even being a bit conservative. This flight deck is absolutely humongous, ~400m long. The Catapults would also measure out to be around ~130m. Again Just something I find interesting, don't take it too seriously.
Last edited:
A 400m carrier mockup would be 20% longer than the Ford-Class carriers.
And this length would be consistent with the rumours of the "optimal aircraft carrier design displacement" being 150k tons rather than the 100k tons for the US Navy.