00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[00CuriousObserver]

This topic should be thought of with a span of decades. It will take around a decade or more for a Chinese nuclear carrier to become combat ready—and even longer to sustain continuous overseas operations. In contrast, building a base takes much less time. China's overseas basing presence in 2035 and 2045 will be very different from what it is today.

 

[Tomboy]

This topic should be thought of with a span of decades. It will take around a decade or more for a Chinese nuclear carrier to become combat ready—and even longer to sustain continuous overseas operations. In contrast, building a base takes much less time. China's overseas basing presence in 2035 and 2045 will be very different from what it is today.

Is it not possible once that PLAN decides on a design lets say the Type 004 CVN, why can't they just start building them simultaneously at both shipyards so they could quickly match the USN's numbers? IMO, it seems unlikely that there will be a Type 005 carrier in the foreseeable future unless Type 004 flops, but with rumors saying 004 will likely match USN's supercarrier there isn't much more to improve tbf. It would not make sense to design a completely new design for every single carrier, it'll be a nightmare for logistics if China decides to operate a large fleet of carrier and each one is unique.

tl;dr: I believe Type 004 would be the last major carrier design we will see in the foreseeable future, once the first 004 carrier have been launched and everything goes according to plan, PLAN will start ramping up production for sister ships of Type 004s probably having multiple carriers under construction at both shipyards to quickly match USN's number.

 

[valysre]

why can't they just start building them simultaneously at both shipyards so they could quickly match the USN's numbers?

I think the bottleneck is not ship-building capacity, but aircraft-building capacity. The infrastructure is certainly there for mass-production of carriers, but there are not enough planes.

 

[Tomboy]

I think the bottleneck is not ship-building capacity, but aircraft-building capacity. The infrastructure is certainly there for mass-production of carriers, but there are not enough planes.

They won't be starting to build these carriers right now, I believe not until the first 004 is successfully launched (late 2020s/early 2030s) will China start mass producing carriers in batches. There's still a good 10 or so years to go until the first batch of mass produced carriers are launched, I believe it will be enough time for SAC to build up enough capacity and planes to load up these carriers.

 

[sunnymaxi]

I think the bottleneck is not ship-building capacity, but aircraft-building capacity. The infrastructure is certainly there for mass-production of carriers, but there are not enough planes.

what are you talking about ??

in couple of years, CAC+SAC will produce 200+ stealth fighter jets.. you seriously think they cannot keep the pace with carriers production. one single CVN take years to even complete. SAC two years production of J-35 is more than enough to fill the flight deck of one CVN.

 

[Tomboy]

what are you talking about ??

in couple of years, CAC+SAC will produce 200+ stealth fighter jets.. you seriously think they cannot keep the pace with carriers production. one single CVN take years to even complete. SAC two years production of J-35 is more than enough to fill the flight deck of one CVN.

Being fair if China do decide to produce carriers in batches after the first 004 gets launched, lets say 2 ship per shipyard simultaneously, from laying down to launch in 5 years, add maybe an extra 2 years for commissioning, so 4 carriers comissioned every 7 years and each carrier would need roughly 90 aircrafts, SAC would still need to build ～50 J-35s/J-50s per year to make sure them these carriers are comissioned with their air wings ready. But of course this will probably happen after the first 004 gets completed which is still 4-5 years away. I'd say this is definitely enough time for SAC to expand their production halls.

 

[Aval]

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.)

Perhaps off-topic, but what's the community speculation on Type-004 and Type-005's ship names?

All CVs so far have been named after major coastal provinces. The only remaining coastal provinces without a CV(N) or similar capital ship to their name are Guangdong, Zhejiang and Jiangsu (I suppose Guangxi has some coastal access as well). There's also some special cities (municipalities) on the coast at the same administrative level that could be contenders (although unlikely): Shanghai, Tianjin. There's also the troll option, which needs no introduction (and isn't strictly coastal anyhow).

A very early guess, but I'd bet on Type-004 (conventional) being Guangdong and Type-005 (nuclear) as Jiangsu.

 

[Aval]

That is actually a better way of doing it than a huge network of overseas bases I think. Less political/diplomatic issues, less dependency on possibly unreliable allies (who may even increase your risk of getting into a conflict), all the money invested is spent at home.

Overseas bases don't require dedicated shipyards to periodically service them. At some point China will need more major carrier-capable shipyards to service such a massive carrier fleet. This can be done of course, but the timescales will be in the decades and would likely take longer than just setting up a few more overseas bases. So in the interim that's probably what they would look to do.

This also depends on how often Chinese nuclear carriers would need to return to a carrier-specialised home port for servicing.

 

[Juan B.]

A carrier is not running her engines 24/7 and a notional IPS carrier with GTGs has never been done on a supercarrier before so I am going off on purely NSIAD-98-1. A CVN is not only more expensive outright, but decommissioning one is way more expensive too not to mention mid-life refueling. NSIAD-98-1 is readily available with a google search. Of course this is a report based on USN experience in 1998 so ofc its not the same thing as PLAN in 2025. But it's still a good source. View attachment 147185

I don´t agree. Ok, let me ask you indirectly.

So if Gas turbines and IEP are not avaiable for a supercarrier...

1.- What type of propulsion would have an alternative conventional carrier?.

2.- After choosing propulsion, which fuel would have that conventional supercarrier?

3.- After choosing this propulsion and fuel, which has been the average price of this fuel during those last 30 years?.

4.- Which are the cost of constructing new generation compact molten salt reactors in comparison?

I disagree that NSIAD-98-1 Study or report or whatever are still valid when compared with fossil fuel costs or the historical trend of the price of fossil fuels.

Again, it is not the same price of 1 ton natural gas for PLAN than for US. Because US have their own gas fields, or at least more economic profitable natural gas resources than China. And you can extrapolate similar conclusions regarding oil.

Finally, you must study avaiability of that resources in case of war. Because if you are relying on natural gas, oil, bunker oil or whatever fossil fuel and US or China´s enemies (eventually a coalition between russians and amerians, you see in TV right now) could reduce the flow of this commodities, those assumptions of that report can change easily.

And lastly, all warships, at least when are deployed out of their naval bases (nowadays MARPOL rules have changed that) have turned on electric generators that must be again feed with fossil fuels. I am pretty sure those costs have been calculated in that report, but I am not sure that real cost of fossil fuels are well calculated to standard barrel oil prices and their evolution price actualized properly.

 

[valysre]

what are you talking about ??

in couple of years, CAC+SAC will produce 200+ stealth fighter jets.. you seriously think they cannot keep the pace with carriers production. one single CVN take years to even complete. SAC two years production of J-35 is more than enough to fill the flight deck of one CVN.

We don't even know J-35 (or J-15T, I think) production numbers yet, only that they've started. In two years, SAC will spool up both J-35 and J-15T to perhaps a total of 100+ airframes a year, which will be enough to outfit a CVN annually, but as of now fighters remain the bottleneck. But even then, Chinese shipyard capacity to build carriers will still far outstrip fighter production. Very much unlike the situation of the US, where there is only a single shipyard capable of CVN construction.