00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Lethe]

Why is that 055 superstructure still there? How many years has that been there now.

Apparently they are still figuring out how to install the GaN radar.

 

[Iron Man]

Apparently they are still figuring out how to install the GaN radar.

Or they are not in the business of catering to fanbois. One or the other.

 

[Lethe]

Honestly, with all the talks on the prospect of China's future CVNs being larger than the Ford CVNs (let's stick to by 10000-20000 tons to stay on the reasonable and realistic side of things) - That's going to make even less sense to power them with only conventional propulsion system. Think about the number of massive-size gas turbine engines and amount of fuel storage spaces required to propel such a 100+ thousand-ton behemoth through what is essentially liquid concrete. This hasn't yet include how the exhaust systems would eat into the flight deck and hangar deck spaces, which directly impacts the number of warplanes that can be carried onboard (which leads to affecting the combat capabilities of said supercarrier as a whole) - Alongside how this affects the replenishment and resupply of ship and aviation fuel across not just the supercarrier itself, but across the entire carrier strike/battle group and the navy as a whole.

The PLAN obviously disagrees with the notion of procuring a majority-conventionally-powered carrier fleet into the future, given the ongoing developments on large-power nuclear propulsion systems. If they're just going to put more focus on conventional-powered supercarriers after CVN-20, then why bother with building all those land-based nuclear propulsion testing, validation and training facilities?

In the meantime, what the Americans and French have been doing and are currently doing with their CVNs shouldn't be directly copy-and-pasted onto what China would be doing with her future CVNs, either. Comparing and contrasting between the two extremes, China could very well formulate her own path in the CVN domain that is laid along the middle ground between the CVNs of the USN and French Navy, whilst getting the best possible out of said middle ground.

(As a side note: I do support having conventionally-powered carriers in the PLAN as well. However, the positions and roles that these carriers hold in the PLAN should be very different than their larger supercarrier counterparts.)

The most straightforward interpretation of the rumour that both a further conventional carrier and also a nuclear carrier will be constructed simultaneously, or at least with some degree of overlap, is that 003A (to revive the nomenclature of yesteryear) is essentially a hedge against issues that could be encountered with 004 CVN, similar to how the last 053H3s overlapped with the first 054s or 051C as a hedge against potential issues with the more ambitious 052C. Relatedly, it could allow for 004 CVN to be subject to an extended period of evaluation and design iteration prior to approving any follow-on, without impeding the growth of PLAN's carrier capability. Alternatively, it's possible, though I think less likely, that the two paths are intended to be complementary, akin to the relationship between 055 and 052D, or SSN and SSK programs.

Back in the pre-COVID era, I speculated about a mixed conventional/nuclear carrier inventory for PLAN, but that was in the context of pushing conventional first as a means of building up a carrier inventory both more rapidly and more affordably than a nuclear pathway would allow. If such a mixed inventory were to be deliberately pursued (rather than emerging as a function of development chronology), there would be a strong imperative to ensure a high commonality of aircraft types across the carrier types, which would serve to limit the practical size difference between them. At the same time, it is difficult to envision a case for the ongoing construction of multiple carrier types that does not involve one being significantly larger than the other. There would therefore be a limited range of plausible displacement ratios between the two, perhaps something like 1.5:1 up to 2.5:1, e.g. a 60k tonne conventional carrier at the low end paired with a 90k-150k tonne nuclear carrier at the high-end.

 

[BoraTas]

The most straightforward interpretation of the rumour that both a further conventional carrier and also a nuclear carrier will be constructed simultaneously, or at least with some degree of overlap, is that 003A (to revive the nomenclature of yesteryear) is essentially a hedge against issues that could be encountered with 004 CVN, similar to how the last 053H3s overlapped with the first 054s or 051C as a hedge against potential issues with the more ambitious 052C. Relatedly, it could allow for 004 CVN to be subject to an extended period of evaluation and design iteration prior to approving any follow-on, without impeding the growth of PLAN's carrier capability. Alternatively, it's possible, though I think less likely, that the two paths are intended to be complementary, akin to the relationship between 055 and 052D, or SSN and SSK programs.

Back in the pre-COVID era, I speculated about a mixed conventional/nuclear carrier inventory for PLAN, but that was in the context of pushing conventional first as a means of building up a carrier inventory both more rapidly and more affordably than a nuclear pathway would allow. If such a mixed inventory were to be deliberately pursued (rather than emerging as a function of development chronology), there would be a strong imperative to ensure a high commonality of aircraft types across the carrier types, which would serve to limit the practical size difference between them. At the same time, it is difficult to envision a case for the ongoing construction of multiple carrier types that does not involve one being significantly larger than the other. There would therefore be a limited range of plausible displacement ratios between the two, perhaps something like 1.5:1 up to 2.5:1, e.g. a 60k tonne conventional carrier at the low end paired with a 90k-150k tonne nuclear carrier at the high-end.

A carrier with IEP propulsion could be used to rapidly built-up carrier numbers. Such an approach wouldn't be cost effective in terms of total sorties the naval aviation could generate. But it would allow much higher area coverage which in turn would be useful to combat JASSM shooters, to do open ocean ISR and do ASW.

 

[by78]

Cropped from the original. The additions are coming nicely.

 

[para80]

Post-impressionism Wuhan style!

 

[Totoro]

So those additions to the left side of the building were not constructed before, for Fujian? They're a recent addition, after Fujian was floated out? The width of the building with the addition is pretty much the same as the width of the front of the deck on Fujian.