For fun: any thoughts on what the PLAN would name their first nuclear carrier (assuming 004 is nuclear)? I don't think it would be another big province like Fujian, e.g. Guangzhou, Sichuan, Shanghai, Beijing. I think Shaanxi would be an interesting option for it's historical significance and it's significance to the communists. Heilongjiang would be another option just because it sounds cool. Or they could go something completely different like naming after a person or using two character names like the Qing/ROC did.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Do you have a source to support that statement?
It's not entire clear to me that is the case. Nuclear reactors are huge. At the same time, diesel is more energy dense than what people normally think.
Nuclear reactors replace the giant boiler you need to generate the steam for a conventionally powered ship. Naval nuclear reactors are not the size of land based powerplants. I don’t know where you get the impression that they’re exceptionally big but you should look at an actual nuclear carrier ship schematic…
It doesn’t matter how energy dense diesel is. It will never have the per volume efficiency of nuclear because you need large storage spaces for fuel to power the propulsion and all the energy intensive systems you need to run the ship for a reasonable amount of operation time.
It is a fairly well known characteristic between nuclear and conventional carriers.
Nuclear reactors are certainly significant, but conventional carriers have to carry fuel that they themselves must consume which takes up much more volume.
This is a decent study on it, which admittedly compares the CV-67 and CVN-68 which are different in displacement (by 10%) but with very similar volumes to such a degree that the CVN-68 carries almost twice as much aviation fuel as the CV-67.
Page 23:
A good summary of the comparisons regarding conventional and nuclear carriers are basically as follows:
"Even though the nuclear carriers are newer and larger than the conventional carriers, the two ship types have several common characteristics and capabilities.
They are similar in that they
• are subject to the same operational guidance;
• carry the same number and types of aircraft in their air wing and can generate the same number of sorties;
• have top speeds in excess of 30 knots;
• do not differ with respect to their survivability; and
• can produce adequate supplies of fresh water.
However, there are some differences.
For example, nuclear carriers
• have larger storage areas for aviation fuel and ordnance and
• are better able to recover landing aircraft due to their superior acceleration.
The similarities in these key features have allowed the Navy to employ both types of carriers interchangeably for routine deployments overseas and employment in contingency operations."
Additionally, this is also a good summary of the advantages that nuclear propulsion offer in terms of endurance:
"By eliminating the requirement for ship propulsion fuel, requirements for replenishment of aviation fuel and ordnance will become the controlling factors, varying directly with the level of aircraft activity and/or combat operations"
... relevant to the PLAN, is that the actual effective endurance in terms of a notional CVN's capability, would be dependent on how much flight sorties and employed combat missions they actually carry out during the time period.
One particular mission set where the PLAN would benefit from CVNs, is if they need a CVN CSG to carry out patrols/presence missions in a certain theater/distance but only need to carry out high intensity sorties and combat missions if combat is joined.
In that case, your lack of need of refuelling the CVN is a major, major advantage which you won't have on a conventional CV because simply by patrolling you'll be needing to count down when your next rendezvous with a refuelling tanker will be.
OTOH, for the above mission set, during the "patrol phase" CVN will only be limited by food, crew endurance, and aviation fuel (which during the patrol phase will be consumed much slower than during the "high intensity conflict phase").
====
Also, I'm going to move this discussion to the 00X carrier thread. Please continue it there.
Last edited:
human names are 100% no way, this is from Mao himself I believe.
if they want to go with non-geographical names, they can always use 'imperial'/‘mythological’ names but it is likely this would be rejected both for comparison to 2 failed navies: Qing Dynasty and Imperial Japan, which had similar naming schemes.
I am 99.9% sure PLAN will stick with geographical names. I think they'll make it a big one of either significant historical or current importance. So it's either Beijing/Guangdong or Shaanxi like you said. One interesting one is Chongqing which represented China's resistance capital in WW2.
China has 27 provinces and autonomous regions + 4 municipalities + 1 province yet to be reunited.
Even if the PLA Navy does not want to adopt the names from the later 2 categories, China has 27 names that can be offered to her flat decks (i.e. CVs and LHDs).
So unless China wants to have a fleet deck fleet that is twice at large as their US counterparts, I think the number of province names available should be enough.
However, I am curious regarding the status and role to be played by the 076s in the PLAN. Are the 076s meant to compliment and work alongside 075s, or are they meant to succeed 075s entirely? This could change the procurement numbers and stratgeies for China's overall flat deck fleet.
Even if the PLA Navy does not want to adopt the names from the later 2 categories, China has 27 names that can be offered to her flat decks (i.e. CVs and LHDs).
So unless China wants to have a fleet deck fleet that is twice at large as their US counterparts, I think the number of province names available should be enough.
However, I am curious regarding the status and role to be played by the 076s in the PLAN. Are the 076s meant to compliment and work alongside 075s, or are they meant to succeed 075s entirely? This could change the procurement numbers and stratgeies for China's overall flat deck fleet.
Wait.. if you were going by municipalities then they should be : Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, Tianjin.
That would be cool, too.