Yeah, they need to test all the Catapult subsystem on 003 thoughtfully before going for another catobar nuclear or not. And they have not started yet anyway...
Last edited:
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Even the launch is unlikely. 5 years from the start of construction to launch is what should be expected while still being optimistic. Unless the construction had started in 2023, the carrier won't be launched by the end of 2028. If they started this year I would expect a launch in 2029 or 2030 depending on the month they started. The commissioning from there would take about 3.5 more years.
Furthermore, dry dock or pier space aren't their problems. They will be limited by carrier specific supply chain for construction. If they want to build several at the same time they don't have to wait for the first hull to be completed. PLAN had ramped up the productions of 055 and 075 without waiting for the completion of the first hull in the past.
There is also the factor where unlike Fujian (which is China's 1st venture into EMCATs and CATOBAR), the 004 is very much China's 1st ever venture into marine nuclear propulsion for surface ships. There's a lot of stakes at play here.
If anything, even if the 004 takes just as long as Fujian from starting work to launch (~6 years actual, could be ~5 years if not impacted by the pandemic), then it would already be good enough. The same goes for the duration of fitting out and sea trials, prior to commissioning.
It is feasible to expect subsequent CVN construction durations to be gradually reduced, but expecting such significant degree of duration reduction to happen for China's first ever CVN is rather unrealistic.
If anything, even if the 004 takes just as long as Fujian from starting work to launch (~6 years actual, could be ~5 years if not impacted by the pandemic), then it would already be good enough. The same goes for the duration of fitting out and sea trials, prior to commissioning.
It is feasible to expect subsequent CVN construction durations to be gradually reduced, but expecting such significant degree of duration reduction to happen for China's first ever CVN is rather unrealistic.
Last edited:
Yes, PLAN has consistently demonstrated that it follows a conservative, iterative, and risk-averse design philosophy. Anyone expecting them to throw all of that out the window as soon as they get to nuclear propulsion is asking to be disappointed.
Not having existing CVN leading to delay yes. But relatively speaking, no, if you put it in context.
002: first ever domestic build carrier. Many basic stuff had to be designed, tested, even the basic building process is new.
003: The first catapult carrier, for one. The first carrier design not based on Varyag blueprints. In some ways this is a bigger leap than 002.
Relative to these milestone and cause for delay, a new propulsion change for 004 is lesser concern than those. So a significantly faster construction is expected, 2028 or not. If any complication, it might be the fitting out phase, not the parts prior to launch.
002: first ever domestic build carrier. Many basic stuff had to be designed, tested, even the basic building process is new.
003: The first catapult carrier, for one. The first carrier design not based on Varyag blueprints. In some ways this is a bigger leap than 002.
Relative to these milestone and cause for delay, a new propulsion change for 004 is lesser concern than those. So a significantly faster construction is expected, 2028 or not. If any complication, it might be the fitting out phase, not the parts prior to launch.
003 is still pretty close to Soviet Project 11436/11437, still uses same powerplant as 002. Catapults (especially EM) are the big thing which have to become seaborne tested and proven technology before next step is taken. Whether the next carrier will be conventional or not depends on sufficiently powerful reactors available in serial production, replacing a boiler compartment with reactor is not such a big deal. Enterprise being technologically pre-mature is not a really good example, largely owing to extreme influence of Admiral Rickover in US naval design. Hopefully PLAN has a more rational and balanced approach.
China has 30 civilian nuclear reactors currently under construction, more than any other country. Naval reactors operate on the same or very similar temperatures and pressures as civilian reactors. So....Designing a naval nuclear reactor for a carrier would be a "modest" engineering accomplishment or maybe an "average" accomplishment for China.
My point is I do NOT consider the creation of a nuclear carrier as the pinnacle of Chinese engineering capacity.
Systems integration for naval nuclear reactors is a considerably more complex job than that for civilian nuclear reactors. That being said, as @latenlazy has noted, systems integration is also a historical strength of China's defense industry, so I would not hold this as a substantive bottleneck
Agreed. A gas turbine design would have been better. The steam turbines have the issue that you need to heat the boiler into operating temperature. i.e. it takes more time to startup a steam turbine ship than a gas turbine ship. You can also hit peak rpms more quickly.
I also think China does not need as many nuclear carriers as the US. Since China's posture is mostly defensive, close to its own shores, and conventionally powered carriers are cheaper to operate.
But a gas turbine design would be a one-off orphan design if subsequent carriers are nuclear and therefore use steam turbines?
Plus they have developed the Type-076 which uses gas turbines and which has an aircraft EM catapult.
---
As for China's posture, yes, it is currently strategically defensive.
Starting in 2030, I'd expect a significant aircraft carrier production ramp, if there is a proven nuclear design and US-China relations remain bad. They'll be useful in maintaining air superiority over the 2IC with land-based aircraft such as a notional J-XD and CCAs.
But when there are enough carriers, they'll be able to credibly operate to the 3IC and also protect China's global shipping interests.