CGT-50 completed and by the time they will decide to build new class CV most likely CGT-50 will be mature as well.
even CGT-60 currently under development.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
even CGT-60 currently under development.
JG have big ambitions regarding nuclear propulsion and all necessary preparation have completed. they got clearance certificate as well.
most likely initial ships will be civilian. ice breaker and nuclear floating reactor.
So Im guessing this mean that the 9 carriers by 2035 rumor is now dead.
Hoping this is bs (though honestly yeah the silence is concerning). Really don't see why it wouldn't make sense to crank out at least one more conventional carrier ASAP.
It never lived, mate
Most people here have zero problems disbelieving western sourced rumors, analysis or content about the PLA. Whether warranted or not.
I have no idea why this should be any different. In what possible way could (or should, for that matter) the PLAN gain 5 more CV(N)s in 10 years?
Last edited:
This conjecture is inherently absurd. Even assuming the the oretical peak capacity of the two existing shipyards (DL and JN)—completing hull construction in the dock or on the slipway within 24 months, followed by an equal period for outfitting and another 18 months for sea trials and acceptance—it is practically impossible to complete a '3+3' carrier buildup within the next decade.
Furthermore, neither shipyard is capable of immediately laying the keel for the next hull the moment the previous one is launched. Currently, there is no evidence suggesting that China will adopt a tandem construction model similar to that of Dry Dock 12 at Newport News Shipbuilding. Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact that the Type 004, as the first large nuclear-powered carrier, will likely require a significantly more extended outfitting and debugging cycle.
I thought it again about the smoke stack of Wuhan mockup. Could it be for GT auxiliary power plant for a CVN?
The "wierdness" of this mockup is the location of the smoke stack. It is too aft to have reasonable sized GTs to be installed there and drive the ship. If it is only auxiliary power plant, it would be small enough to be put there. If the ship is IEPS, driving the ship using GT during emergency isn't a problem either.
Why use GT for auxiliary plant? It can generate much more electricity than diesel plant as ford does. Ford's electricity plant is made primarily by steam from the reactor. Its auxiliary plant is from diesel which acts to smooth out electricity load during normal operation because reactor can not be quickly turned up or down. In an emergency like reactor shutdown, the diesel acts as the only source which would be very limited to lighting, basic communication and cooling and rebooting reactors, probably the ship can't move. With a larger GT auxiliary the ship can still operate to some extent including slow moving, lauching a few aircrafts for self-defence, recover aircrafts that are out of fuel.
Note, I don't necessarily propose the idea of this ship being fully IEPS because the steam turbine could be directly driving the shaft. I only suggest that the auxiliary plant drives the shafts through coaxial mounted electric motors. Also keep in mind that the aft location greatly reduces the chance of the main power plant being GT.
The "wierdness" of this mockup is the location of the smoke stack. It is too aft to have reasonable sized GTs to be installed there and drive the ship. If it is only auxiliary power plant, it would be small enough to be put there. If the ship is IEPS, driving the ship using GT during emergency isn't a problem either.
Why use GT for auxiliary plant? It can generate much more electricity than diesel plant as ford does. Ford's electricity plant is made primarily by steam from the reactor. Its auxiliary plant is from diesel which acts to smooth out electricity load during normal operation because reactor can not be quickly turned up or down. In an emergency like reactor shutdown, the diesel acts as the only source which would be very limited to lighting, basic communication and cooling and rebooting reactors, probably the ship can't move. With a larger GT auxiliary the ship can still operate to some extent including slow moving, lauching a few aircrafts for self-defence, recover aircrafts that are out of fuel.
Note, I don't necessarily propose the idea of this ship being fully IEPS because the steam turbine could be directly driving the shaft. I only suggest that the auxiliary plant drives the shafts through coaxial mounted electric motors. Also keep in mind that the aft location greatly reduces the chance of the main power plant being GT.
I like the theory, but the funnel seems far too large to just be for a mere auxiliary. It'd also be a step backwards from the Fujian despite being a nuclear carrier in terms of deck space optimization, and would point towards 004's powerplant being much less advanced than the Ford. The Ford's diesel generators are best to my knowledge, mainly used as backup power sources. Considering the best estimates put the 004 at around Ford's size, not wildly above it, and 004's reactor boxes already appeared larger than Fords through satellite imagery. I would be surprised if the 004 would need a auxiliary GT powerplant to supplement energy demands, a choice which would compromise other aspects of the design so much.
Last edited: