00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[proelite]

With the current development in mind:

To be on the safer side, I'd say it depends on whether the CV-19 is a one-off ship, meant to be a (half-)sister ship of Fujian (i.e. the PLAN will go for the full CVN-lineup route after CV-19); or whether the PLAN decides to go for a dual conventional-nuclear route for their future carrier fleet.

If the former route is true, then I'm not really expecting significant departures from Fujian regarding the CV-19's propulsion system beyond necessary improvements on whatever shortcomings they discover on Fujian's COSAS propulsion system. The other modifications and improvements to be anticipated on the CV-19 over Fujian have been explained before.

But if the latter route is true - Then the 076 LHD and Queen Elizabeth CV can be referenced. However, it also depends on how big, how heavy and what roles does the PLAN want their conventionally-powered CV to have in their fleets, of course.

China now has the CGT30-M and CGT40-M gas turbine engines, both of which should be ready for warship-based applications in the coming years (particularly for the future major surface combatants). There's also the 7MW-class and ~10MW-class marine diesel engines that are already in use (054B FFG) and soon to be ready for use (076 LHD?).

Personally, though - Instead of a 90000-ton to 100000-ton supercarrier, I'd prefer a medium-sized CV (let's just call it CVM) that has the full-load displacement roughly in the ballpark of the 076 LHD (~40000 tons). The CVM should be complementary to the larger, supercarrier-sized CVNs, and be more focused in the U(C)AV department. In this context, the CVM should be focusing more in the reconnaissance, early-warning and ASW roles, plus supporting the supercarrier CVNs in high-intensity combat against the main echelons of the enemy naval/land-based forces (i.e. something akin to the light/escort CVs of WW2).

For such case, a twin island design, an angled flight deck, two slightly-shorter EMCATs, an EMAGS and two elevator decks should be good to go for the CVM, as well as a COG(L)AG propulsion system with 2x CGT40-M + 2x CGT25/30-M gas turbine engines should be sufficient for the CVM with a top speed of ~30 knots.

(The proposed propulsion system takes reference from the Izumo DDHs, of course)

But then, again - I'm not working for the PLAN. Only the PLAN knows best on what they really want.

Medium carrier built on 076 hull.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Medium carrier built on 076 hull.

No. The hull design characteristics of the 076 LHD dictates that the warship will be unable to sail at higher speeds required for proper aircraft carriers (28-30+ knots).

The CVM will certainly need a separate new hull design.

Either way, we are at risk of derailing the thread.

 

[Gloire_bb]

No. The hull design characteristics of the 076 LHD dictates that the warship will be unable to sail at higher speeds required for proper aircraft carriers (28-30+ knots).

It isn't immediately obvious.

Quite a few modern "medium carriers" aren't fast (25+), and 076 does in fact possess quite a lot of installed power.
It's quite likely it's in the same bracket.

 

[sangye]

No. The hull design characteristics of the 076 LHD dictates that the warship will be unable to sail at higher speeds required for proper aircraft carriers (28-30+ knots).

The CVM will certainly need a separate new hull design.

Either way, we are at risk of derailing the thread.

Wouldn't catapults cancel the need for high speeds for carrier operations?

 

[lcloo]

Wouldn't catapults cancel the need for high speeds for carrier operations?

Not really, a strong headwind and high speed sailing complement the catapult. The more air flow over the wing of the aircraft the more load it can carry.

 

[proelite]

No. The hull design characteristics of the 076 LHD dictates that the warship will be unable to sail at higher speeds required for proper aircraft carriers (28-30+ knots).

The CVM will certainly need a separate new hull design.

Either way, we are at risk of derailing the thread.

The length to waterline beam is plenty enough to reach 30 knots.

 

[Deino]

….

Either way, we are at risk of derailing the thread.

Indeed and I can only request you all 1. to stick to the topic and 2. to start reasonable! This directly excludes any such overhyped dreams as if the 004 carrier would be a 150,000 t Monster carrier!

 

[dingyibvs]

Indeed and I can only request you all 1. to stick to the topic and 2. to start reasonable! This directly excludes any such overhyped dreams as if the 004 carrier would be a 150,000 t Monster carrier!

It's only monster because no one's built one that big. So the question is why? I think the past few days of discussion has been rather interesting in answering that question. For most they just don't have the money, need, or shipbuilding or air wing capacity, so really it comes down to the US and China. The question then boils down to what's preventing the US from building larger ones, and would those reasons prevent China from doing so as well?

It seems to me that China appears to have been limited by shipbuilding (propulsion) and the air wing, both are very likely to be resolved soon. Money is probably not an issue, so if they see the need, I can see it happening. The US appears to be primarily limited by need. There just hasn't been a need to build larger carriers once the Soviet Union collapsed. I can see it happening for the US as well as if they see the need, though money is increasingly becoming an issue with the exorbitant prices of some American systems ($5+ billion for a frigate!)

 

[AndrewS]

Revised prediction if China shift to two ships per batch today.

2025: 3 carriers.
2028: 4
2029: 5
2032: 7
2035: 9

Assuming 3 years a ship normally(see Nimitz class). Extend to 4 for first CVN due to new ship type. Restore to 3 after first CVN.

The timeline does not include sea trials. It is assumed next batch starts right after ship is done fitting. PLAN's sea trial is less about trial, more about crew training. The trial for the previous ship will happen concurrently with next batch being laid down. With that in mind, expect an additional year after new ship completed, to finish training. So 9 ships fully ready is 2036, not 2035.

Due to advantage of 6th gen, I think Chinese carrier fleet can keep up with USN as early as 2030. The time 5 carriers are fully operational and 6th gen fighter is adopted ahead of US. By 2033 Chinese carriers would have an advantage.

Remember that for the next 5 years, there are more urgent priorities like air superiority in the 1IC.
Plus the Chinese Navy hasn't settled on final carrier designs yet.

But in 2029, they would have both 003 and 004 in the water, along with a better idea of what a naval 6th gen aircraft will look like.
At that point, they could decide on what designs to mass produce.

So after 2029, we could see Dalian with 2 carriers under construction, and another 2 at Jiangnan. So the profile would look more like this. With 1 carrier per year from 2033-2036

2025: 3 carriers
2028: 4
2029: 5
2033: 6
2034: 7
2035: 8
2036: 9

 

[asif iqbal]

No. The hull design characteristics of the 076 LHD dictates that the warship will be unable to sail at higher speeds required for proper aircraft carriers (28-30+ knots).

is that because a more powerful engine is not available ?