00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[FairAndUnbiased]

CV-18 Fujian is by no means a perfect design - In fact, still some distances away.

With the following assumptions:
1. CV-19 isn't a complete copy-&-paste of CV-18 Fujian,
2. CV-19 largely retains its size and dimension from CV-18 Fujian, and
3. CV-19 retains the same propulsion system (COSAS?) from CV-18 Fujian -

Some of the advancements should include the following (or perhaps a wishlist):
#1 - The forward section of the starboard-side flight deck should be extended further outwards to enable more parking spaces;
#2 - The launch position and jet blast deflector of the port-side EMCAT should be slanted towards starboard to avoid interfering with the angled landing strip;
#3 - The forward elevator deck should be moved further aft to avoid interfering with the starboard launch position and jet blast deflector;
#4 - There should be one additional port side elevator deck; and
#5 - The island superstructure should be moved slightly further aft (optional).

(Kindly ignore #6)

View attachment 142307

Of course, if the length of CV-19 can be extended, then #2, #3 and #5 should be relatively easier to solve (Kitty Hawk is about 11 meters longer than Fujian, for reference).

Looking to a simple cost analysis here (further links in the analysis):

CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)

The Great Text Wall of SDF.

www.sinodefenceforum.com

CATOBAR CV has historically proven to be extremely cost effective with similar sortie rates and is even more cost effective than a STOBAR, so a conventional 004 is indeed advisable.

What are your thoughts about the CV-19 with those problems solved and improved, taking lessons from the 076?

1. Type 076 style gas turbine IEP
2. Type 076 style dual island for overall smaller footprint with minor (~5 m) flight deck length extension
3. port side 3rd elevator

Many of the techs that are on the 076 were immature when the 003 was being conceptualized in the early 2010's, while the Type 076 had benefits from technologies developed in the last 5-10 years. It seems to me like the 003 was built to minimize risks from anything other than the catapults, while a 004 could be more ambitious.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Looking to a simple cost analysis here (further links in the analysis):

CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)

The Great Text Wall of SDF.

www.sinodefenceforum.com

CATOBAR CV has historically proven to be extremely cost effective with similar sortie rates and is even more cost effective than a STOBAR, so a conventional 004 is indeed advisable.

What are your thoughts about the CV-19 with those problems solved and improved, taking lessons from the 076?

1. Type 076 style gas turbine IEP, possibly even combined cycle gas turbine IEP with ~50% generation efficiency
2. Type 076 style dual island for overall smaller footprint with minor (~5 m) flight deck length extension
3. port side 3rd elevator

Many of the techs that are on the 076 were immature when the 003 was being conceptualized in the early 2010's, while the Type 076 had benefits from technologies developed in the last 5-10 years. It seems to me like the 003 was built to minimize risks from anything other than the catapults, while a 004 could be more ambitious.

40MW/35MW high power marine gas turbine Engines officially announced by CSSC.. all these tech weren't available back then. so for type 004 CV all options will be on the table. i think they will go with gas turbine this time. let see

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

40MW/35MW high power marine gas turbine Engines officially announced by CSSC.. all these tech weren't available back then. so for type 004 CV all options will be on the table. i think they will go with gas turbine this time. let see

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

QE class has 36 MW gas turbines, a 40 MW would be a ~10% power improvement per turbine.

Interestingly, QE class is also testing an EM catapult retrofit since 2023, showing that not only China is thinking about CATOBAR CVs.

 

[Xiongmao]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

QE class has 36 MW gas turbines, a 40 MW would be a ~10% power improvement per turbine.

Interestingly, QE class is also testing an EM catapult retrofit since 2023, showing that not only China is thinking about CATOBAR CVs.

This will never get off the whiteboard, they have already run out of money.

 

[sheogorath]

Modern US aircraft carriers do not fit through the Panama Canal. The last type that made the transit, at least to my awareness had been the Essex class. The Iowa class BBs were the last major warships built specifically to fit through the existing locks.

They should be able to fit through the new locks, though that runs parallel to the old locks. They are almost 20m wider than the originals

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[para80]

They should be able to fit through the new locks, though that runs parallel to the old locks. They are almost 20m wider than the originals

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The new locks are wider, yes. But US carriers still wont pass, because the sponsons would cut the entire canal infrastructure (light poles etc) plus the carriers would likely have to perform a spectacular limbo at the Agua Clara locks because of the concrete control tower next to the passage. In wartime it may be an option (again, if they can somehow manouever around the tower), but in peacetime its a no go.

 

[antiterror13]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

QE class has 36 MW gas turbines, a 40 MW would be a ~10% power improvement per turbine.

Interestingly, QE class is also testing an EM catapult retrofit since 2023, showing that not only China is thinking about CATOBAR CVs.

I don't think the UK has money and technology to develop EM catapult, unfortunately/fortunately

 

[xsub1223342]

The new locks are wider, yes. But US carriers still wont pass, because the sponsons would cut the entire canal infrastructure (light poles etc) plus the carriers would likely have to perform a spectacular limbo at the Agua Clara locks because of the concrete control tower next to the passage. In wartime it may be an option (again, if they can somehow manouever around the tower), but in peacetime its a no go.

Light poles...? Really? Surely you can just pay for light poles to be removed and placed back after a Carrier makes a transit. Sure it might cost 1mil more in additional costs but beats going around Argentina.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Light poles...? Really? Surely you can just pay for light poles to be removed and placed back after a Carrier makes a transit. Sure it might cost 1mil more in additional costs but beats going around Argentina.

I think the light poles are the least of the concerns here.



Besides, the canal introduces single point (or shall I say, single channel) of vulnerability, especially during wartime. What's to say that sometime in the future, one or a few 093B and/or 095 SSNs launch some salvoes of missiles that damages (if not destroys) the canal locks? The Panama Canal is not the same as the Suez Canal - The locks are very much necessary due to the water level differences across the entire length of the canal.

Having one or two DDGs or FFGs stuck in the canal is one thing. Having one CVN stuck in the canal is another.

 

[Biscuits]

The new locks are wider, yes. But US carriers still wont pass, because the sponsons would cut the entire canal infrastructure (light poles etc) plus the carriers would likely have to perform a spectacular limbo at the Agua Clara locks because of the concrete control tower next to the passage. In wartime it may be an option (again, if they can somehow manouever around the tower), but in peacetime its a no go.

Okay my bad then, I thought they were designed with the Panama refit in mind.