00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

Any idea on why the alleged new CVN is built in Xianglujiao, instead of Dagushan, as many suggested earlier? :rolleyes:

www.sinodefenceforum.com

This post in particular claim EMAL module spotted in shipyard.

The photo is real.

The problem is that you are taking the twitter user's caption/description seriously -- in reality that twitter account has dubious commentary at best.


The photo depicts a likely demonstration/test module that Dalian made, with the test module likely being part of the aft/waist flight deck (with two semi converging EM catapult trenches indicative of its positioning). I believe the usual suspects on the Chinese language side have alluded to it being a test module as well.
DL and JNCX had both constructed test modules for 002 and 003 respectively, preceding actual construction of their respective carriers by a few years.

That photo almost certainly does not show a module for the actual carrier which Dalian is rumoured to have constructed on, because the flight deck of a carrier is a very late stage module to be fabricated and would not be fabricated this early where we barely even have a fully confirmed keel.


So to go back to your question, "Was the photo of EMAL modules near the dock confirmed?" -- is still somewhat difficult to understand because you've never actually described what you think the photo depicts.

I'll have to put in some effort to try and guess what your question might mean:

Do you mean is the photo itself real?
- Yes it is
Do you mean is the module itself physically there?
- Yes it is
Do you mean is the module meant for an actual under construction aircraft carrier?
- No it likely isn't. It is likely a test module.
Do you mean whether the module in the photo conveys whether an actual carrier is under construction at Dalian somewhere?
- We don't know. The module's presence/visual confirmation from satellite photos likely has little bearing on Dalian's carrier construction. There are rumours it is under very early stages of construction and we are watching the drydock to see if a keel of a carrier starts to form, but at this stage it is unconfirmed, and technically it would have no causal relationship with the test module anyway.

 

[TK3600]

If it was a testing module, won't it make more sense to test on the carrier mock up?

 

[Blitzo]

If it was a testing module, won't it make more sense to test on the carrier mock up?

No.

These test modules (also called demonstration modules) are not meant to test any specific subsystem, rather they are meant to test/demonstrate construction process for the shipyard.


Again, think back to the DL and JNCX test modules from the 2010s.

 

[GTI]

What is defined as conciliatory is entirely dependent on what one views as "reasonable" -- aka what the overton window for making reasonable speculation, projections, and claims are.

Speaking as a member of this forum that started as a lurker in the mid 2000s before making an account in 2008, the reason I joined this forum was entirely because at the time (and into the 2010s) the forum had a relatively strict effort to contain its overton window in terms of holding back the abject enthusiasm of members/individual new to PLA watching, or holding back the fanboyism of longer standing members who have no ability to perceive reasonable from unreasonable, as well as slapping down members who display consistently illogical arguments.


That discipline is what has kept SDF relevant over the years, even as the forum has grown and as new developments has emerged -- it is the active war against "overselling" and "fantastical predictions" and "overenthusiasm" and other similar "clickbait"-esque coded attitudes, that makes SDF still a semi-useful resource, rather than becoming a laughing stock of nationalists and chauvinists.


The above is me writing as a member rather than a moderator.
But in the past I've also written similar sentiments in moderator blue or red, and I've made no secret of how it would benefit SDF and thus the entire enterprise of English language PLA watching overall, if people strove to be less emotional and more stoic.

You’re spot on. I too remember the “dark days” (though I started lurking and subsequently joined much later than you).

We absolutely need to keep credibility up and stamp out the fanboyism.

However, we need to strike a balance. Those “dark days” are long over (like trading 8x J-8 for 1x F-22, lol). Let’s not forget that the General Secretary of the best long-term planning political party on earth, and Chair of the CMC - has instructed the PLA to essentially be the joint best military on earth in less than 10 years from now, and the absolute undisputed best and unrivalled military on the planet within 24 years from now (capable of “fighting and winning” anywhere on earth).

I find that some older members struggle with the new reality, and rightly so. That mindset was the only way to “survive” as a credible PLA watcher when Type 22s doing suicide speed runs on CSGs was a realistic “best worst” option.

It’s about time we shed a tiny tiny bit of that hesitancy, self-doubt, trepidation (or whatever it is). We often get a preponderance of numerous correlating rumours that create credibility due to numbers and interconnectedness - but are too hesitant or dismiss them out of hand. Like 076 starting construction and the first pics of J-XDS.

So the known answer to PLAN having multiple CVNs by 2040 (at a stretch, maybe even 2 by 2035) - should be “yes, absolutely”. The unknown part is when and how construction will occur to meet those numbers / dates.

If I had to chose though, it’s obviously death to the fanboyism and hyperventilating.

 

[Blitzo]

You’re spot on. I too remember the “dark days” (though I started lurking and subsequently joined much later than you).

We absolutely need to keep credibility up and stamp out the fanboyism.

However, we need to strike a balance. Those “dark days” are long over (like trading 8x J-8 for 1x F-22, lol). Let’s not forget that the General Secretary of the best long-term planning political party on earth, and Chair of the CMC - has instructed the PLA to essentially be the joint best military on earth in less than 10 years from now, and the absolute undisputed best and unrivalled military on the planet within 24 years from now (capable of “fighting and winning” anywhere on earth).

I find that some older members struggle with the new reality, and rightly so. That mindset was the only way to “survive” as a credible PLA watcher when Type 22s doing suicide speed runs on CSGs was a realistic “best worst” option.

It’s about time we shed a tiny tiny bit of that hesitancy, self-doubt, trepidation (or whatever it is). We often get a preponderance of numerous correlating rumours that create credibility due to numbers and interconnectedness - but are too hesitant or dismiss them out of hand. Like 076 starting construction and the first pics of J-XDS.

So the known answer to PLAN having multiple CVNs by 2040 (at a stretch, maybe even 2 by 2035) - should be “yes, absolutely”. The unknown part is when and how construction will occur to meet those numbers / dates.

If I had to chose though, it’s obviously death to the fanboyism and hyperventilating.

SDF is ultimately one of the few true English language communities that is able to do PLA watching to a useful degree.

Erring on the side of caution and awaiting further evidence, is always better than pulling the trigger too early and having walk something back. And even if something is called out as not real initially and later turns out to be real, it is far better than the alternative as making a claim that something is real which turns out to be false.



It is the duty of this community to be vigilant against getting high on its own supply -- and that should be held consistent to the reality of the times, whether it is in the early 2000s when the most capable domestic PLA A2A fighter in service were J-8IIs, or whether it is the mid 2020s when there are hundreds of J-20s in service and two next gen combat aircraft in testing.

For carriers, sure I have nothing against the idea of the PLAN having multiple CVNs by 2040 (multiple technically meaning "more than one," thus having the condition fulfilled by "two"), but at the same time there is no need to overstretch one's position. Saying "very likely" or "very plausible" rather than "yes, absolutely" would be preferable, for example.

 

[GTI]

SDF is ultimately one of the few true English language communities that is able to do PLA watching to a useful degree.

Erring on the side of caution and awaiting further evidence, is always better than pulling the trigger too early and having walk something back. And even if something is called out as not real initially and later turns out to be real, it is far better than the alternative as making a claim that something is real which turns out to be false.



It is the duty of this community to be vigilant against getting high on its own supply -- and that should be held consistent to the reality of the times, whether it is in the early 2000s when the most capable domestic PLA A2A fighter in service were J-8IIs, or whether it is the mid 2020s when there are hundreds of J-20s in service and two next gen combat aircraft in testing.

For carriers, sure I have nothing against the idea of the PLAN having multiple CVNs by 2040 (multiple technically meaning "more than one," thus having the condition fulfilled by "two"), but at the same time there is no need to overstretch one's position. Saying "very likely" or "very plausible" rather than "yes, absolutely" would be preferable, for example.

Perhaps I should’ve said - “yes, absolutely, that’s the plan”.

The rationale being that for the PLA to consider itself as successful in meeting / tracking to their most important objectives — and no major and unforeseen events or technological breakthroughs have impacted them — then in 2040, if they did not have 2 CVNs, they would have to somehow be comfortable explaining to the CMC how they’ve been the joint most capable military in the world for half a decade, and 9 years away from being the most capable, while having only one or zero CVNs in operation.

Force majeure. The only things that would make us have to back track on that statement include - development of very high temperature superconductors, a great depression, global pandemics, world war 3, nuclear war, major conventional wars, catastrophic natural disasters, ELEs etc.

It’s like we’re focusing more on scrutinising and debating the veracity of what should now be obvious strategies, objectives and capacity/capability/intent. Rather than applying it to the pursuit and critique of real world / physical evidence of the work and milestones to meet those objectives.

 

[Blitzo]

Perhaps I should’ve said - “yes, absolutely, that’s the plan”.

I have less issue with that.

The rationale being that for the PLA to consider itself as successful in meeting / tracking to their most important objectives — and no major and unforeseen events or technological breakthroughs have impacted them — then in 2040, if they did not have 2 CVNs, they would have to somehow be comfortable explaining to the CMC how they’ve been the joint most capable military in the world for half a decade, and 9 years away from being the most capable, while having only one or zero CVNs in operation.

Force majeure. The only things that would make us have to back track on that statement include - a great depression, global pandemics, world war 3, nuclear war, major conventional wars, catastrophic natural disasters, ELEs etc.

It’s like we’re focusing more on scrutinising and debating the veracity of what should now be obvious strategies, objectives and capacity/capability/intent. Rather than applying it to the pursuit and critique of real world / physical evidence of the work and milestones to meet those objectives.

On the contrary, I think the discussion and critique has always around the real world/physical evidence of various projects and milestones, rather than strategies and objectives.

We can all vaguely agree as to the general direction and even timeline, to a degree, for various capabilities that they want to attain, but it is something else entirely to speak about specific platforms, hulls, or airframes being ready by a specific XYZ date or being argued to be under construction by a given date, if the evidence is not there for it.


That said, even if one wants to talk about the timeline and future plans and strategies, there is still really no harm at all in coaching things in less confident and absolutist language.

There is nothing lost to acknowledge a bit of extra caution in making predictions.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Current view of the new island superstructure mockup under construction at Huangjiahu.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Satellite photos of the (naval?) nuclear reactor research facility at Sichuan. The phots were taken on May and July 2023, respectively. Not sure what those markings are supposed to mean.

 

[AndrewJ]

Satellite photos of the (naval?) nuclear reactor research facility at Sichuan. The phots were taken on May and July 2023, respectively. Not sure what those markings are supposed to mean.

View attachment 150509 View attachment 150507

Will they install a EMALS catapult near by?