00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Tomboy]

You mean CGT-50? CGT-60F is a natural gas burning 70MW turbine, and technological pathfinder to the 300MW F-class heavy duty gas turbine.

50MW class GT is an interesting sweet spot since 4 of these can satisfy propulsion needs for a 100k ton CV. For reference Ford class has 208MW of propulsion power and a further 104MW of installed power. Currently the highest power diesel in use in PLAN is 054B's CS16V27, with 6.4 MW of power in generator mode. 104MW would require a pretty insane amount of diesel so an imaginary 4x50MW GT CV would probably require new diesels or small generator GTs.

Then there's the issue of propulsion. Either this notional system is mechanically driven (which would require a new gearbox), or electric motors drive which would also require 50MW motors or twin 25MW motors. Then still there's always the age old problem of air intake and exhaust for the GTs, range compared to a steam powered CV, operational costs, etc.

Certainly not saying all of this is impossible but that's a lot of hurdle to jump through. But hey, no one's ever done a 100k ton CV anyways. PLAN is already in uncharted waters and if switching CV to GT powered brings enough pros over its cons, I am sure they'll do it. None of the hurdles are actually technical difficulties either, its an engineering problem.

I don't think the point of a CV is to match USN's flagship, that's for 004 CVN to do. CV are supposed to be cheap number fillers with high readiness rate.

 

[Nx4eu]

Also, to note the island on this model has a total length of 42m. Does anyone know how long Fujian's island is?

Overall length of Fujian island I've measured is 40-42m and deck footprint length is 32-34m

 

[Cloud_Nine_]

I don't think the point of a CV is to match USN's flagship, that's for 004 CVN to do. CV are supposed to be cheap number fillers with high readiness rate.

For one, the notion that CVs are cheaper than CVNs does not mean they cannot grow to be the same weight class. Fujian is a "maximalist" design supercarrier and she is not an optimal design by any means esp with future growth in mind. I don't see why PLAN would not explore going larger.

Whether or not Fujian's size represents a sweet spot in CV design and operations we don't know. I don't even think PLAN knows for sure since Fujian has just entered service. I am simply trying to layout what a GT optimal CV looks like power generation wise. If PLAN wanted a budget CV, there's plenty of other options. It would be an entirely different topic altogether. If Fujian's design is the perfect sweet spot, then there's zero reason to convert them to GT powered.

 

[Godzilla]

That simply comes down on the exact method, however DL's technique is much closer to US shipyards than JN. There is no reason to believe 004 will be capped at under 330m.

DL and CX may have different construction methodologies but I think Nx4eu is wrong on module placement in the drydocks. DL's gantry is 1,000 tons, 200m +span and over 100m high, and CX's gantry is 900 tons, 250m+ span and over 100m high. We do not need to place modules in the drydock for the gantry crane the access it. the gantry track extends well beyond the dry dock, and that is where we usually laydown the modules. Or we can throw it in the adjacent dry dock and traverse across it. It is 250m wide crane after all.
We would throw them inside the drydock if there is space available inside since we can avoid double handling, or overhead lifts above other sim ops. End of the day they are all sub 1,000 ton pieces so it aint a big deal whether we get the spmt to stage it at the end of the dry dock or inside the dry dock.
They also don't need that much clearance to join up, I mean we just drop them in and rely on construction guides on the modules for alignments and whatnot, its not like we need to skid/skate something in later instead of dropping it in, and we would leave room for that if need be.
You would need clearance and space for the paint job though, but again that isn't that much space and definitely workarounds available.
There is absolutely no problem building within meters of the dry dock walls lol....

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Still a bit too short IMO. Stretch the front a bit to a Nimitz-ish length would be perfect. Plus it looks stubby, short, and ugly otherwise /s

Here's what Soyo proposed which he said and I quote:

(stretch it, stretch it to 332 m and everything would be solved)

(Nimitz's deck side, to an extent is indeed the optimal solution)

...that I HOPE will materialise someday:
View attachment 164679
Shove 4x QC500/CGT-60 with 10x Diesel motors with an IEP system and I'll be a VERY happy man. It'll be big enough for potential J-XD-S deployments, ergonomically ideal, and is just all-round much superior to the Type 003 without the staggering costs and maintenance hassles of the soon-to-be Type 004 while providing much greater flexibility.

You mean CGT-50? CGT-60F is a natural gas burning 70MW turbine, and technological pathfinder to the 300MW F-class heavy duty gas turbine.

50MW class GT is an interesting sweet spot since 4 of these can satisfy propulsion needs for a 100k ton CV. For reference Ford class has 208MW of propulsion power and a further 104MW of installed power. Currently the highest power diesel in use in PLAN is 054B's CS16V27, with 6.4 MW of power in generator mode. 104MW would require a pretty insane amount of diesel so an imaginary 4x50MW GT CV would probably require new diesels or small generator GTs.

Then there's the issue of propulsion. Either this notional system is mechanically driven (which would require a new gearbox), or electric motors drive which would also require 50MW motors or twin 25MW motors. Then still there's always the age old problem of air intake and exhaust for the GTs, range compared to a steam powered CV, operational costs, etc.

Certainly not saying all of this is impossible but that's a lot of hurdle to jump through. But hey, no one's ever done a 100k ton CV anyways. PLAN is already in uncharted waters and if switching CV to GT powered brings enough pros over its cons, I am sure they'll do it. None of the hurdles are actually technical difficulties either, its an engineering problem.

Regarding the 60MW-class marine gas turbine engine - Apparently at least one such model is currently in the works. Though currently, we still don't know if this engine will ever be adapted for marine propulsion or not. Hence, sticking with CGT-50M and QC500 would be a safer option for the time being.

Regarding the marine diesel engine - Apparently SOYO has indicated that the main diesel engines used on the 054B FFGs are of the 8MW-class, i.e. just barely less powerful than those used on the Iver Huitfeldt FFGs.