Cute Orca was most likely just joking around with that 800MW+ figure.
Last edited:
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Cute Orca was most likely just joking around with that 800MW+ figure.
If the IEPS design setup mentioned by SOYO is indeed meant to power the conventionally-powered successor to the Fujian that is purported to be built (if not being built) at Jiangnan, then it's very much likely going to be a separate ship class of its own and not as a (half-)sister ship of Fujian, considering the magnitude of difference in the internal designs and arrangements inside the hull of the ship. For starters, a twin-island superstructure design is more-or-less going to be a solid requirement.
Also, depending on the power outputs of the (mainly) gas turbine engines and diesel-electric engines, the rough size of the purported IEPS carrier could be guesstimated.
As a sidenote - The Izumo-class CV with ~30000 tons of full-load displacement is equipped with 4x LM2500IEC gas turbine engines per hull with an individual power output of ~21MW, arranged in a COGAG configuration (~84MW total) for a top speed of ~30 knots.
Last edited:
I feel like a better comparison would be the QE class carriers, they have a IEP system with 2 MT30 turbines and 4 diesels for a combined 118.4MW powering 4 GE AIM motors at 20MW each for 80MW total propulsive power. This allows the QE class to do 32 knots maximum during sea trials.
Depending on what gas turbine this carrier will use, perhaps the larger CGT-50/QC-400/500 turbines, could allow a peak capacity similar to CVNs.
Last edited:
My choice of the Izumo is largely based on the number of gas turbine engines mentioned, but your comparison is better/more apt too.
Yes. However, given that the CVN (or the project itself as a whole) is very much already a thing for the PLAN right now, I kinda doubt the need for the PLAN to procure conventionally-powered CVs that are in the same dimension and displacement categories as the CVNs as the conventional "half" of the purported "CVN+CV dual track" route, given their expected positions and roles would be rather duplicative in the navy, IMHO.
Here is another clear picture.
yea i think its pretty clear that the current keel blocks are not an accurate representation of the ships total length. from what i have seen of other carrier constructions there will be quite a few more placed at the front in the future. like so
If we're talking about thermal power output here—and considering the Ford-class reactors have a single-core thermal output of ~700MW—then this figure doesn’t seem that outrageous after all. It would also imply that the 004 (or 00X, whatever) might end up with a displacement slightly larger than a Ford.Perhaps a Chinese variant of the ECBL?