asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
hope we see another carrier construction stated by year end
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Because aircraft have to use so much energy to remain in the air, aircraft will still have fundamental takeoffs between range/endurance, speed, payload, size and cost.
That applies particularly to long range aircraft.
So local airbases (or aircraft carriers) will still be very useful in 20 years.
Do we know whether these reactor training facilities are being established in locations other than Huludao - In particular, locations where nuclear-powered warships for the PLAN are expected to be built, maintained and/or based?
My personal wild guess:
1. If there are more reactor training facilities present outside of Huludao (and in locations bolded above), then the facility in Huludao should be exclusively responsible for reactor crew training on SSNs and SSBNs only. Meanwhile;
2. If the reactor training facility is only present in Huludao, then that facility is definitely responsible for the reactor crew training on all warship types in the PLAN with nuclear reactors onboard, both at present and expected in the future (i.e. SSKNs, SSANs, SSBNs and CVNs) - At least for the short-to-medium term.
Last edited:
What would be the benefit in placing training facility in Huludao instead of having it located equally convenient for all three fleets? Soviet Union had training centres located in Obninsk and Paldiski (Estonia now), good thousand miles from Severodvinsk and Nizhny Novgorod nuclear submarine construction shipyard. Only Leningrad was closer by. But guys from Far East were also trained in European part of USSR instead of Komsomolsk were the nukes were built. The reactors were also built in several locations.
Last edited:
Nuclear power plants have similar training facilities.
The conclusion is reliable, and I don't intend to discuss any further details.
Let's lay down some information first.
CVN-65 Enterprise, the first ever nuclear-powered supercarrier in the world with 8x A2W reactors onboard, was laid down on February 1958, launched on September 1960, and commissioned on November 1961. (Total: ~3 years & 9 months.)
CVN-68 Nimitz, the first of a multi-member class of nuclear-powered supercarriers with 2x A4W reactors onboard, was laid down on June 1968, launched on May 1972, and commissioned on May 1975. (Total: ~6 years & 11 months.)
Going down the line: (D = Laid down, L = Launched, C = Commissioned, T = Total, Y = Years, M = Month)
1. Nimitz-subclass
CVN-69 - D: Aug 1970, L: Oct 1975, C: Oct 1977 (T: ~7Y+3M)
CVN-70 - D: Oct 1975, L: Mar 1980, C: Mar 1982 (T: ~6Y+5M)
2. Theodore Roosevelt-subclass
CVN-71 - D: Oct 1981, L: Oct 1984, C: Oct 1986 (T: ~5Y+1M)
CVN-72 - D: Nov 1984, L: Feb 1988, C: Nov 1989 (T: ~5Y+1M)
CVN-73 - D: Aug 1986, L: Jul 1990, C: Jul 1992 (T: ~5Y+11M)
CVN-74 - D: Mar 1991, L: Nov 1993, C: Dec 1995 (T: ~4Y+9M)
CVN-75 - D: Nov 1993, L: Sep 1996, C: Jul 1998 (T: ~4Y+8M)
3. Ronald Reagan-subclass
CVN-76 - D: Feb 1998, L: Mar 2001, C: Jul 2003 (T: ~5Y+5M)
CVN-77 - D: Sep 2003, L: Oct 2006, C: Jan 2009 (T: ~5Y+4M)
From the above, I think we can deduce that:
- The CVN-65 Enterprise has the fastest construction period, of which her blitz-fast record has never been broken again ever since;
- The construction period of the Nimitz-class:
a. Began with around 6-7 years in the 1970s (CVN-68, CVN-69, CVN-70), followed by
b. A sharply decrease to around 5 years throughout the 1980s (CVN-71, CVN-72, CVN-73), and is
c. Further reduced to around 4 years in the 1990s (CVN-74, CVN-75), before
d. Rising again to around 5 years until the end of the class in the 2000s (CVN-76, CVN-77).
Note: The Ford-class will not be mentioned here, mainly because:
1. The first member of the Ford-class (i.e. CVN-78) has suffered from abnormally-long delay periods from construction start to commissioning;
2. The subsequent few members of the Ford-class (i.e. at least CVN-79) are also expected to suffer from significantly longer delays compared to their Nimitz-class counterparts; and
3. There are too few Ford-class carriers that have been commissioned right now, hence insufficient data to provide for comparison.
~~~
From the above listings, hence, the way I see it - Given the example of CVN-65, I believe that if the PLAN is determined to get China's 1st ever CVN to enter service ASAP and before 31st December 2029, it is possible for said CVN to:
1. Start construction before the end of 2023 and commission in 2027; or
2. Start construction in 2024 and commission in 2028; or
3. Start construction in 2025 and commission in 2029 -
With a construction period of around 4 years.
Though, the CVN-65's example could perhaps be more of an extreme case than the norm (depending on China's shipbuilding capability and fleet procurement plans), so if the PLAN wants to err a bit on the side of caution, then let's set the construction period for China's 1st ever CVN at around 5 years. From this, said CVN can either:
1. Start construction before the end of 2023 and commission in 2028; or
2. Start construction in 2024 and commission in 2029.
Of course, for both the US and China, both countries have commissioned and operated warships with nuclear marine propulsion before the start of their first ever CVN construction:
1. The US with the SSN-571, SSN-575, Skate-class and Skipjack-class SSNs; and
2. China with the 091-class and 093/A/B-class SSNs, plus the 092-class and 094/A/B-class SSBNs.
This means that both countries already have decent amount of experiences and knowhow in the nuclear marine propulsion domain.
However, I should note that:
- The information listed above have been considerably simplified for the ease of tabulation and comparison; and
- The "start of construction/laying down the keel of the CVN" stage mentioned above assumes that all the necessary work (i.e. fabricating hull modules, preparing components and equipment for ship and construction, setting up drydock and construction personnel, etc etc) leading up to that stage have been completed.
CVN-65 Enterprise, the first ever nuclear-powered supercarrier in the world with 8x A2W reactors onboard, was laid down on February 1958, launched on September 1960, and commissioned on November 1961. (Total: ~3 years & 9 months.)
CVN-68 Nimitz, the first of a multi-member class of nuclear-powered supercarriers with 2x A4W reactors onboard, was laid down on June 1968, launched on May 1972, and commissioned on May 1975. (Total: ~6 years & 11 months.)
Going down the line: (D = Laid down, L = Launched, C = Commissioned, T = Total, Y = Years, M = Month)
1. Nimitz-subclass
CVN-69 - D: Aug 1970, L: Oct 1975, C: Oct 1977 (T: ~7Y+3M)
CVN-70 - D: Oct 1975, L: Mar 1980, C: Mar 1982 (T: ~6Y+5M)
2. Theodore Roosevelt-subclass
CVN-71 - D: Oct 1981, L: Oct 1984, C: Oct 1986 (T: ~5Y+1M)
CVN-72 - D: Nov 1984, L: Feb 1988, C: Nov 1989 (T: ~5Y+1M)
CVN-73 - D: Aug 1986, L: Jul 1990, C: Jul 1992 (T: ~5Y+11M)
CVN-74 - D: Mar 1991, L: Nov 1993, C: Dec 1995 (T: ~4Y+9M)
CVN-75 - D: Nov 1993, L: Sep 1996, C: Jul 1998 (T: ~4Y+8M)
3. Ronald Reagan-subclass
CVN-76 - D: Feb 1998, L: Mar 2001, C: Jul 2003 (T: ~5Y+5M)
CVN-77 - D: Sep 2003, L: Oct 2006, C: Jan 2009 (T: ~5Y+4M)
From the above, I think we can deduce that:
- The CVN-65 Enterprise has the fastest construction period, of which her blitz-fast record has never been broken again ever since;
- The construction period of the Nimitz-class:
a. Began with around 6-7 years in the 1970s (CVN-68, CVN-69, CVN-70), followed by
b. A sharply decrease to around 5 years throughout the 1980s (CVN-71, CVN-72, CVN-73), and is
c. Further reduced to around 4 years in the 1990s (CVN-74, CVN-75), before
d. Rising again to around 5 years until the end of the class in the 2000s (CVN-76, CVN-77).
Note: The Ford-class will not be mentioned here, mainly because:
1. The first member of the Ford-class (i.e. CVN-78) has suffered from abnormally-long delay periods from construction start to commissioning;
2. The subsequent few members of the Ford-class (i.e. at least CVN-79) are also expected to suffer from significantly longer delays compared to their Nimitz-class counterparts; and
3. There are too few Ford-class carriers that have been commissioned right now, hence insufficient data to provide for comparison.
~~~
From the above listings, hence, the way I see it - Given the example of CVN-65, I believe that if the PLAN is determined to get China's 1st ever CVN to enter service ASAP and before 31st December 2029, it is possible for said CVN to:
1. Start construction before the end of 2023 and commission in 2027; or
2. Start construction in 2024 and commission in 2028; or
3. Start construction in 2025 and commission in 2029 -
With a construction period of around 4 years.
Though, the CVN-65's example could perhaps be more of an extreme case than the norm (depending on China's shipbuilding capability and fleet procurement plans), so if the PLAN wants to err a bit on the side of caution, then let's set the construction period for China's 1st ever CVN at around 5 years. From this, said CVN can either:
1. Start construction before the end of 2023 and commission in 2028; or
2. Start construction in 2024 and commission in 2029.
Of course, for both the US and China, both countries have commissioned and operated warships with nuclear marine propulsion before the start of their first ever CVN construction:
1. The US with the SSN-571, SSN-575, Skate-class and Skipjack-class SSNs; and
2. China with the 091-class and 093/A/B-class SSNs, plus the 092-class and 094/A/B-class SSBNs.
This means that both countries already have decent amount of experiences and knowhow in the nuclear marine propulsion domain.
However, I should note that:
- The information listed above have been considerably simplified for the ease of tabulation and comparison; and
- The "start of construction/laying down the keel of the CVN" stage mentioned above assumes that all the necessary work (i.e. fabricating hull modules, preparing components and equipment for ship and construction, setting up drydock and construction personnel, etc etc) leading up to that stage have been completed.
This is the marine nuclear reactor training facility in Wuhan?
Compare and contrast to CV construction (post-war supercarriers only):
Name: Laid/Launched/Commissioned. Duration.
| Name | Laid | Launched | Commissioned | Duration (Laid-Commission) |
| Forrestal | 14 July 1952 | 11 December 1954 | 1 October 1955 | 3 years, 2 months |
| Saratoga | 16 December 1952 | 8 October 1955 | 14 April 1956 | 3 years, 3 months |
| Ranger | 2 August 1954 | 29 September 1956 | 10 August 1957 | 3 years |
| Independence | 1 July 1955 | 6 June 1958 | 10 January 1959 | 3 years, 5 months |
| Kitty Hawk | 27 December 1956 | 21 May 1960 | 29 April 1961 | 4 years, 4 months |
| Constellation | 14 September 1957 | 8 October 1960 | 27 October 1961 | 4 years, 1 month |
| America | 9 January 1961 | 1 February 1964 | 23 January 1965 | 4 years |
| JFK | 22 October 1964 | 27 May 1967 | 7 September 1968 | 3 years, 11 months |
It is obvious that CVs are built much faster (~50%-100% decrease in build time) than CVNs.
They're also much easier to mass produce: Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger and Independence were all laid before the others were finished. The same is true for Kitty Hawk and Constellation. On the other hand, Nimitz CVNs were all built sequentially because only 1 drydock could handle building them.
The 3-4 year period between laying down and launching means at minimum, the current US CBG fleet is 40 years of embedded work, while the 1960's US fleet was only 10 years of embedded work despite having 8 modern CVs and 1 CVN in the modern part of the fleet and 3 surviving WW2 era fleet carriers (Midway class)
Therefore, if there is a high probability of a high intensity conflict between 2027-2035, CVNs should be researched but not emphasized. Instead at least 4 more CVs should be built at the same time, reminiscent of the US buildout in the 50's and 60's.
How wide do you think the unrefueled combat radius of US' F/A-XX and China's CV-based 6th-gen J-XY would eventually become?
Certainly won't be from Shanghai to San Francisco, or from Los Angeles to Guangzhou - Right?
The present-day J-20 has an unrefueled combat radius of ~2000 kilometers. TBH, I don't really expect 6th-gen fighters to have more than double or triple that of the J-20. Because, otherwise, the US and China might as well just procure B-21s and H-20s only.
Last edited: