00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[sunnymaxi]

This is China.

this is the story of every sector in China. from defense to infrastructure to high tech in just one generation.

from copy/reverse engineering to innovation powerhouse in just 20 years.

 

[ashnole]

American carriers many have higher aircrafts to tonnage ratio than what's ideal for PLAN.

After over five decades of operating Supercarriers, USN has settled on a peacetime ratio of 5:8 (5 aircrafts for every 8000 tonnes of Supercarrier displacement, which is around 63 aircrafts) and a wartime high-efficiency ratio of 6:8 (which is around 75 aircrafts). USN Supercarriers can operate at the 7:8 ratio (88 aircrafts) as well during wartime but such a thing is only done when a Supercarrier operates independently and has to therefore perform sustained 24x7 flight operations. Normally USN Carrier doctrine is to group several (3-4) Carrier Strike Groups into one big Fleet Carrier Task/Battle Force where one Carrier does AirOps for no more than 12-14 hours at a time and each Carrier gets a day off from AirOps every 3-4 days on which it's air wing aircrafts will undergo repairs/maintenance, the Carrier itself will refuel (JP5), rearm & replenish and the crew also gets a bit of a rest.

 

[OppositeDay]

After over five decades of operating Supercarriers, USN has settled on a peacetime ratio of 5:8 (5 aircrafts for every 8000 tonnes of Supercarrier displacement, which is around 63 aircrafts) and a wartime high-efficiency ratio of 6:8 (which is around 75 aircrafts). USN Supercarriers can operate at the 7:8 ratio (88 aircrafts) as well during wartime but such a thing is only done when a Supercarrier operates independently and has to therefore perform sustained 24x7 flight operations. Normally USN Carrier doctrine is to group several (3-4) Carrier Strike Groups into one big Fleet Carrier Task/Battle Force where one Carrier does AirOps for no more than 12-14 hours at a time and each Carrier gets a day off from AirOps every 3-4 days on which it's air wing aircrafts will undergo repairs/maintenance, the Carrier itself will refuel (JP5), rearm & replenish and the crew also gets a bit of a rest.

Americans are more much experienced in carrier operations and have a smaller shipbuilding industry than China's. What's ideal for the U.S. could therefore be different from what's ideal for China. More deck space reduces complexity of deck operations. It makes sense for China to leverage its lower shipbuilding costs and build bigger carriers to make up for its relatively inexperience in carrier operations or even just to shorten the time required for training the crew. It would be a classic example of trading space for time.

 

[charles18]

Last night I discussed 004 with my friend and it occurs to me that if 004 or we say the future CV is really nuclear, then it might not be the so-called "Chinese Ford" someone would imagine, but something totally different: CVNX2 or ECBL, which is the objective design of next gen CVN USN proposed before Ford begins construction. It is a 120000-ton class CVN, front-island design, look like this:

I believe China will eventually, perhaps 25 years from now, engineer something much more impressive than a 120,000 ton class CVN.
But...
Between now and the next 5 years, I do not believe the Type 004 will be nuclear powered.

 

[ashnole]

Americans are more much experienced in carrier operations and have a smaller shipbuilding industry than China's. What's ideal for the U.S. could therefore be different from what's ideal for China. More deck space reduces complexity of deck operations. It makes sense for China to leverage its lower shipbuilding costs and build bigger carriers to make up for its relatively inexperience in carrier operations or even just to shorten the time required for training the crew. It would be a classic example of trading space for time.

Agree with you. If the next PLAN Supercarrier is going to be nuclear-powdered, they can/should probably go for a larger 1,20,000t+ displacement version. It's not like an extra few thousand tonnes would cost too much. A larger Carrier, a few less aircrafts (60ish), more room for smoother/efficient AirOps (easy for newly trained and much less experienced crews), more aircrafts in hangar room for easier maintenance etc, more room for jet fuel on board - basically an easier life for the crew overall! That said, they should absolutely go for an elevator on the port side as well for two way access to hangar and also for much quicker access to more hangar aircrafts.

 

[Heyolemayo]

Saw a reddit post claiming this to be the island for the 004, I couldn't find this image here anywhere in a brief browsing. Credible at all, or is this something else entirely?

 

[luosifen]

View attachment 100560
Saw a reddit post claiming this to be the island for the 004, I couldn't find this image here anywhere in a brief browsing. Credible at all, or is this something else entirely?

Looks like CGI, the lighting/brightness seem suspect.

 

[Blitzo]

View attachment 100560
Saw a reddit post claiming this to be the island for the 004, I couldn't find this image here anywhere in a brief browsing. Credible at all, or is this something else entirely?

At this distance and at this angle, it's difficult to make out what it may be.


However it definitely isn't an island for a carrier.

The logic is fairly simple: the island of a carrier is one of the last structural pieces to put on a carrier during its construction, meaning if they are working on the island then the rest of the carrier should be mostly completed as well.

... And there is no "rest of the carrier".


So no.

 

[reservior dogs]

We don't know much about the internal layouts of modern Chinese carriers. There may be considerable machinery, electrical grid, plumbing, cooling, and computer systems that either are put closer together (for fewer points of failure, to reduce the expansiveness of high-energy wiring, and to ease armoring and hardening against cookoffs and runaway failures) or further apart (to ease cooling of important ship systems). The systems we see here are likely found from the compromises and design decisions made by Chinese ship architects who may have chosen to deviate from American carrier designs for any of a dozen reasons. On the topic of island placement, I'd imagine that it was a much smaller concern than in the past thanks to computational guidance that modern planes would be equipped with. With so many guidance systems and interface augmentations, the concern of visibility likely weighs less compared to other concerns that the ship's architects may have. This forwards-placed position, for example, might perhaps have better signal optimization or better airflow optimization as some of the other commentors have suggested.

I wouldn't necessarily think this follows. China's carriers will likely follow alongside their doctrine, and I would guess that the main role of carriers in the Taiwan contingent is to be able to extend the Chinese anti-ship complex further out into the Pacific. With their current land-based missile assets, China enjoys a decisive advantage against any combination over any combination of surface naval assets that American, Japan, and Australia could field in the short term. American fleet carriers can still credibly operate at the boundaries of the Chinese missile umbrella however, and so it is likely that these new carriers are built to further pressure American operational capabilities.

Given that, I see little reason for China to keep building larger and larger carriers. This isn't the age of artillery ships where armor plates and robustly-hardened citadels are necessary for a ship's operational efficacy. A carrier's capabilities are essentially as good as the planes it carries, and so there's not really a need to push for larger carriers unless China wants to start basing strategic bombers or even larger sensor planes on their CVs. PLAN airplanes are roughly analogous to USN airplanes, and so a massive increase to the displacement of these new carriers seems unlikely to me to put it lightly.

Any capabilities that a larger and more robust carrier than the Ford could field, whether it be a shipborne missile generation capabilities or a more robust sensor array or a more extensive counter-reconnaissance suite, could likely be placed inside of destroyer escorts for a fleet that is as capable as before whilst also being much more survivable and flexible. The more capabilities could be given to the destroyers and the frigates, the more flexible a Chinese carrier would be. You really don't want a carrier that needs to sail the 1000+ km journey back to port because the CVN needs more fuel for her planes OR because she needs to have her elevators repaired OR because she needs to have her radar chaffs replaced OR because she needs to have her VLS tubes refilled. Emptying the capabilities off to other vessels might make for a less potent and capable carrier, but it would make for a much more capable and flexible carrier fleet.

One limitation on the size of the carrier is the draft depth that are allowed by various ports in the world. The Chinese ports are relatively newer and more of them allow for deeper drafts(20 M+). I don't know if it make sense at this juncture for the Chinese to consider port access for the different parts of the world when it comes to their carriers. Certainly the U.S. needs to consider these requirements.

 

[asif iqbal]

I wonder if DL will make 004?

we should see it start in 2023