Agreed. Moreover, a CVN 100.000 sized it is necessary for naval supremacy and in meaningful numbers, if PLAN doesn´t want to start this budgetary war against pentagon, PLAN should avoid such kind of ships for the 004. Just IMO.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
I also agree.
IMO...
China right now has the economic and engineering capacity to do anything that the West can do. Building nuclear carriers is essentially an engineering project. China has all the capabilities required to build a nuclear carrier right now if they so wish.
However, "can" and "should" are 2 different things.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Agreed. PLAN's lack of FOBs and very different strategic goals vis a vis USN doesn't necessitate it CVNs in the near future.
They are much better of investing more in marine powerplants and bring more powerful and efficient engines to power the next gen of warships including CVs
They are much better of investing more in marine powerplants and bring more powerful and efficient engines to power the next gen of warships including CVs
Nuclear propulsion could make the ship much faster and longer endurance. Why not go with nuclear propulsion? I don't see China going with gas turbine for warships either. Steam turbine is closer to nuclear propulsion, making design more transferable to nuclear design. The fact 003 still use steam turbine means China instead of gas turbine means China is aiming for nuclear design after. Otherwise gas turbine should be the better propulsion system.
If you have seen the cost advantage of Chinese ship industry vs American ship costs, you would not be saying that.
lcloo
Captain
I would say yes, China should built nucler power aircraft carriers. Having a nuclear powered aircraft carrier will have bigger impact than just acquiring a super carrier with long duration and larger number of aircraft and projection of power. More so because this will be China's first experience on nuclear power AC.
The experience gain on the ship construction and operations will benifit China in their progress to future aircraft carrier designs and construction methods etc.
Setting sight beyond 2040, and start the learning curve now will benefit China, and can avoid long delay due to new advance technology bottleneck.
The experience gain on the ship construction and operations will benifit China in their progress to future aircraft carrier designs and construction methods etc.
Setting sight beyond 2040, and start the learning curve now will benefit China, and can avoid long delay due to new advance technology bottleneck.
Jiannan Shipyard released a design for a nuclear powered 24000TEU container ship. If this ship gets built then perhaps similar to a nuclear ice breaker it would provide experience for construction of a future CVN? The design seem to call for a 4th generation molten salt reactor.
Last edited:
Technically a nuclear flatdeck!
I highly doubt this KUN-24 has anything to do with PLAN CVN that may be currently under design or planned to be built within the next 10 years.
From the only detail about this ship I can find, such as this link
The power plant is supposed to be a 4th gen high temperature thorium reactor with 15-20 years refueling circle. The only two ongoing such reactors in China are demo reactors in Gansu, one is a 10MWt solid state fuel, the other is 2MWt liquid fuel. The latest news is that the 2MWt has been operating since 2022, two years of running. Neither these two are big engough for practical power plant. Scaling up them to practical power plant will take some years.
It will take quite time before this KUN-24 to be in the water. And it will be the first in operation. PLAN is only going to use such new reactor after it has been verified on civilian ships or on land. So if PLAN is serious about having a CVN in the coming 10 years, it will be likely a 3rd gen PWR which has already been operational for years.
From the only detail about this ship I can find, such as this link
The power plant is supposed to be a 4th gen high temperature thorium reactor with 15-20 years refueling circle. The only two ongoing such reactors in China are demo reactors in Gansu, one is a 10MWt solid state fuel, the other is 2MWt liquid fuel. The latest news is that the 2MWt has been operating since 2022, two years of running. Neither these two are big engough for practical power plant. Scaling up them to practical power plant will take some years.
It will take quite time before this KUN-24 to be in the water. And it will be the first in operation. PLAN is only going to use such new reactor after it has been verified on civilian ships or on land. So if PLAN is serious about having a CVN in the coming 10 years, it will be likely a 3rd gen PWR which has already been operational for years.
I agree with you on this. That said I was curious on comparison between power required for carrier reactors and engine for largest container ships so I did some googling:
A1B reactor has 700MWt, resulting in something like 125MW of electricity and 260MW at the shaft. Ford has two of them.
Largest container ships today are around 24,000 TEU, so just the right size for comparison with the CSSC design. They are powered by single MAN 11G95ME-C putting out 151.2MW at shaft plus 10MW electric.
So most powerful civilian marine diesal are weaker than most powerful marine reactor but they are on the same order of magnitude. If CSSC could get a reactor that can power their container ship design then that reactor could be within range of powering a CVN, although you may need more than two.