00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[iewgnem]

Commercial don't need to carry extra provision such as aviation facility, extra fuel for the jets, living facilities for a few thousand crew member for extended amount of time(Carrier deployment can be months long if not over a year in war time, while the average time to sail from China to the US for a container ship is well under a month and even the largest container ship only have a complement of a few dozen crew members due to automation), etc and all the while maintaining good maneuverability and speed(Bulk carriers usually don't exceed a dozen knots while carriers need to have dashing speed up to 30+ knots to launch aircrafts or to perform evasive maneuvers in war time)

This is just the whole "you need nuclear for EMAL" all over again.

Everyone knows carriers aren't bulk freighters, Type 003 isn't bulk freighter either and yet it's conventional, goes 30 knots, has thousands of people, there's no threashold above which you need nuclear. Nuclear's advantage of endurance and larger store of aviation fuel, which again means longer endurance, but it generates power by turning turbines the same as conventional, there's no more preventing conventional from going larger than from nuclear going larger.

The point is the only reason China would want to build a nuclear carrier is for global power projection.

 

[Tomboy]

This is just the whole "you need nuclear for EMAL" all over again.

Everyone knows carriers aren't bulk freighters, Type 003 isn't bulk freighter either and yet it's conventional, goes 30 knots, has thousands of people, there's no threashold above which you need nuclear. Nuclear's advantage of endurance and larger store of aviation fuel, which again means longer endurance, but it generates power by turning turbines the same as conventional, there's no more preventing conventional from going larger than from nuclear going larger.

The point is the only reason China would want to build a nuclear carrier is for global power projection.

A point your ignoring is that you also don't really *need* nuclear for global power projection, the United States only went full nuclear with it's carrier fleet in 2006 when the last of Kitty Hawk class of carriers were retired. In the end there is still a lot of advantages to go nuclear with larger carriers, like space saving by having only 2 nuclear reactors and not a massive fuel tank and being able to sustain flank speed for much longer than conventional carriers. It is also possibly more economical in the long run since these carriers will be in service for 50 years easily, with nuclear boats these will only need to be refueled once in their entire operational life. tl;dr No, global power projection is not the only reason why you would want to go nuclear. Although it is probably one of the factors in there.

 

[iewgnem]

A point your ignoring is that you also don't really *need* nuclear for global power projection, the United States only went full nuclear with it's carrier fleet in 2006 when the last of Kitty Hawk class of carriers were retired. In the end there is still a lot of advantages to go nuclear with larger carriers, like space saving by having only 2 nuclear reactors and not a massive fuel tank and being able to sustain flank speed for much longer than conventional carriers. It is also possibly more economical in the long run since these carriers will be in service for 50 years easily, with nuclear boats these will only need to be refueled once in their entire operational life. tl;dr No, global power projection is not the only reason why you would want to go nuclear. Although it is probably one of the factors in there.

As I said advantage of nuclear is endurance, space saving from fuel tank is endurance advantage, being able to sustain flank speed for longer is an endurance advantage, nuclear is all about endurance. As for cost, even if you ignore the fact that nuclear carriers are inherently more expensive to build and maintain, the very fact that China would wants its nuclear carriers to be in service for 50 years imply a fleet size that can only be needed for global power projection.

US had global bases to resupply Kitty Hawk and still switched to all nuclear, China might have its global commercial shipping fleet to resupply during war, but during peace time or when dealing with minor conflicts you can't or won't want to requisition/divert large number of commercial ships. For China pretty much all other advantages to nuclear are minor, while the benefit to its ability to project power globally is dominant. Considering the massive investment that went into nuclear carriers, no minor advantage could have justified them, only global power projection could.

 

[charles18]

.....
The point is the only reason China would want to build a nuclear carrier is for global power projection.

I have another idea.
It may sound crazy but hear me out.

When the United States rose to power one of their greatest engineering accomplishments was the mass production of the automobile. The Germans invented the car but the Americans invented the car that almost anybody that was middle class could afford. This revolutionized transportation.
The Americans were the first ones to figure out nuclear marine propulsion with the Nautilus submarine launched in 1954.
However after all these years there is one engineering challenge the Americans have NEVER figured out.
How do you make nuclear marine propulsion cheap?

I believe Chinese engineers are going to answer this question. They will make nuclear marine propulsion cheaper than diesel power.
Go ahead and laugh but if you told somebody 25 years ago the Chinese will revolutionize:
solar panels, windmills, high speed rail, and battery EV cars by showing the cost and quantity of production of Chinese manufacturing nobody would of believed you.

 

[Jaym]

Why does everybody forget that these things are targets also... if a missile hit your nuke carrier wouldnt you want it very far away from home. Who wants to be near nuclear contamination or worse.

Maybe they dont want another nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Why does everybody forget that these things are targets also... if a missile hit your nuke carrier wouldnt you want it very far away from home. Who wants to be near nuclear contamination or worse

Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are designed and engineered as such that it would be pretty hard to significantly breach the reactor containment structures/vessels even after sustaining bomb, missile and/or torpedo strikes that would've already sink warships of any other types. This has been the case since the Nimitz of the 1970s, if not earlier with the CVN-65 Enterprise.

And if the onboard reactors have been breached in such a degree that no method of containment by the damage-control teams onboard is possible while at sea - Then the carrier itself would've been a total loss elsewhere (i.e. flight decks resembling the moon surface, massive flooding inside the hull, massive fire engulfing significant portions of the ship, etc) that it would be a better choice to make the ship into a radioactive artificial coral instead of going back for drydock repairs.

Maybe they dont want another nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

Wuhan and Dalian disagrees.

 

[Jaym]

Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are designed and engineered as such that it would be pretty hard to significantly breach the reactor containment structures/vessels even after sustaining bomb, missile and/or torpedo strikes that would've already sink warships of any other types. This has been the case since the Nimitz of the 1970s, if not earlier with the CVN-65 Enterprise.

And if the onboard reactors have been breached in such a degree that no method of containment by the damage-control teams onboard is possible while at sea - Then the carrier itself would've been a total loss elsewhere (i.e. flight decks resembling the moon surface, massive flooding inside the hull, massive fire engulfing significant portions of the ship, etc) that it would be a better choice to make the ship into a radioactive artificial coral instead of going back for drydock repairs.



Wuhan and Dalian disagrees.

But does anybody want to chance to have a nuclear release or worse in or near their country... theres a reason why many countries wont let nuclear carriers in their ports.

Nuclear carriers are inherently a dangerous thing and then to add to the danger your enemies are targeting it. Its why they are highly engineered and highly maintenanced. And theres still a chance your enemies will be able to destroy it and cause contamination for a million years. This why they are so comparatively freaking expensive. I rather have a conventional carrier leak than a nuclear one.

This is why I bet they are willing to wait for a nuke carrier and why some will opt for a conventional carrier. Also this is the reason why i bet 004 is gonna be conventional. 005 however is another story.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

But does anybody want to chance to have a nuclear release or worse in or near their country... theres a reason why many countries wont let nuclear carriers in their ports.

That's their problem, not China's. Who says that China must use their ports to dock her future CVNs?

While I don't think this needs to be stated, but - When China intends to operate CVNs in the future, it is absolutely certain that both the PLAN and the Chinese shipbuilding industry already are fully capable of dealing with the associated complications and challenges concerning marine nuclear propulsion systems.

Furthermore, you already have USN CVNs going for port visits in pretty much every country that directly share maritime borders with China (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore) for decades. If they aren't concerned with the American CVNs parked inside their territorial waters right now, they wouldn't be concerned with the presence of Chinese CVNs sailing around in the region either.

Nuclear carriers are inherently a dangerous thing and then to add to the danger your enemies are targeting it. Its why they are highly engineered and highly maintenanced. And theres still a chance your enemies will be able to destroy it and cause contamination for a million years. This why they are so comparatively freaking expensive. I rather have a conventional carrier leak than a nuclear one.

If such concerns are dominant, then you wouldn't see the US building:
- 8x nuclear-powered aircraft carriers
- 7x nuclear-powered cruisers (out of the planned total of 11x), and
- More than 160x nuclear-powered submarines throughout the Cold War (and continues building more nuclear-powered ships and boats afterwards).

The same goes with the Soviet Union/Russia.

Also, since when does a conventional carrier has radioactive leak?

This is why I bet they are willing to wait for a nuke carrier and why some will opt for a conventional carrier. Also this is the reason why i bet 004 is gonna be conventional. 005 however is another story.

No. Per our sources, China is building one conventional-powered CV and one nuclear-powered CVN simultaneously right now.

(And chances are, we might (and a very big might at that) see China going for both conventional-powered and nuclear-powered carriers in the future. This is just speculation for the time being.)

 

[Jaym]

That's their problem, not China's. Who says that China must use their ports to dock her future CVNs?

While I don't think this needs to be stated, but - When China intends to operate CVNs in the future, it is absolutely certain that both the PLAN and the Chinese shipbuilding industry already are fully capable of dealing with the associated complications and challenges concerning marine nuclear propulsion systems.

Furthermore, you already have USN CVNs going for port visits in pretty much every country that directly share maritime borders with China (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore) for decades. If they aren't concerned with the American CVNs parked inside their territorial waters right now, they wouldn't be concerned with the presence of Chinese CVNs sailing around in the region either.



If such concerns are dominant, then you wouldn't see the US building:
- 8x nuclear-powered aircraft carriers
- 7x nuclear-powered cruisers (out of the planned total of 11x), and
- More than 160x nuclear-powered submarines throughout the Cold War (and continues building more nuclear-powered ships and boats afterwards).

The same goes with the Soviet Union/Russia.

Also, since when does a conventional carrier has radioactive leak?



No. Per our sources, China is building one conventional-powered CV and one nuclear-powered CVN simultaneously right now.

(And chances are, we might (and a very big might at that) see China going for both conventional-powered and nuclear-powered carriers in the future. This is just speculation for the time being.)

you misunderstand me. a exploded conventional carrier releases oil instead of nuclear material... contamination of oil last maybe months... nuclear material will be millions of years... much rather have oil wash up on shore then nuclear contamination. dont want a hiroshima style fallout event if some idiot gets lucky and cracks the reactor

... i still bet 004 is going to be conventional and it will be released years ahead of 005 if 005 is nuclear.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

you misunderstand me. a exploded conventional carrier releases oil instead of nuclear material... contamination of oil last maybe months... nuclear material will be millions of years... much rather have oil wash up on shore then nuclear contamination. dont want a hiroshima style fallout event if some idiot gets lucky and cracks the reactor

No, I did not misunderstand you.

The builders and operators of the following ships and boats clearly disagree with you:
1. Ford CVNs
2. Columbia SSBNs
3. Virginia SSNs
4. Borei SSBNs
5. Khabarovsk SSNs
6. Yasen SSNs
7. 004/005 CVNs
8. 094B SSBNs
9. 095 SSNs
10. 093B SSNs
11. Dreadnought SSBNs
12. Astute SSNs
13. SNLE 3G SSBNs
14. Suffren SSNs

Sure, the release of radioactive material from the breach of reactor vessels will result in contamination of the location where the ship or boat is critically damaged or sunk. However, the world's oceans are ginormous bodies of ever continuously-flowing water, meaning that the resultant contaminants would've been diluted as they spread far and wide in durations measured in weeks.

Also, a reactor vessel that is blown apart will not be able to return to criticality, meaning the fission reaction inside the reactor vessel would've completely stopped beyond just natural fission in the uranium fuel (i.e. decay heat). There is only slim to nil chance of an accidental nuclear detonation that could result from a missile directly blasting a reactor vessel wide open, even with the weapons-grade HEU used in the marine reactors typically found on USN CVNs and SS(B)Ns.

Moreover, as a matter of fact - Water itself is an excellent radiation shield. That's why nuclear power plants use water to moderate the temperature of the reactor fuel inside the reactor (when in operation) and cool down the reactor fuel outside the reactor (prior to fuel disposal/recycling) - The latter of which actually happens in open water (i.e. humans can directly see the reactor fuel underwater). With enough depth for a wrecked CVN to sink to (which is pretty much always the case, as CVNs typically operate in open waters that are often at least more than a kilometer deep), the reactor vessels would've been shielded by thick layers of water above it.

So there's that.