CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

much simpler is to attract us navy in a south china sea and taiwan trap and destroy it with powerful combined land (asbm hypersonic missiles, bombers and also fighters and drones from artificial islands) and sea (carriers submarines ddg drones etc) power. The trap is set.

This implies that the US would react in the manner you describe, and it also means that the PLA is okay with ceding strategic initiative as well as possessing no capability to project power outside of the second island chain.

Everyone (and I mean not only on this forum but also thinktanks and defense media) would benefit from thinking about PLA procurements in terms of what their own requirements are for a conflict. What is the actual level of risk and power balance that they would prefer to have for an actual conflict -- are they happy with having a high chance at victory at rolling a six on the dice only, or do they want the ability to have a high chance at victory even if they were to roll a one?

 

[charles18]

Rather than mass affordable nuclear, it's more likely to be solar.

Nuclear reactors are currently Not mass produced, so the potential cost savings from taking advantage of mass production are enormous. However Solar panels are already mass produced so the cost savings are already factored in.
Therefore
Nuclear power has the potential to get a lot cheaper but solar power cannot.

If nuclear is comparable to coal power today then it is not unreasonable to imagine future nuclear energy to cost 50% Less.
During the rise of China, about 50GW of coal plants were being built per year on average.
Go ahead and laugh but China will do it again but this time with nuclear power.

 

[kkwan18]

This discussion of nuclear versus conventional has been discussed ad nauseum.


Everyone needs to accept that nuclear carriers are simply better if you have the money, industry and technology to support it. Everyone knows that the type of carrier that the PLAN wants to settle with is a nuclear powered super carrier in the future -- the fact that they aren't going for one right now or that CV-18 is not one, means that circumstances are not sufficient for them to go for it yet.


The advantages of nuclear power for increasing aviation fuel volume, improving ability to move independently indefinitely which reduces the burden of a task force's replenishment needs, as well as the indefinite electrical power generation capability if the design is able to support it, are all highly useful traits for a high intensity conflict even if it was fought in the pacific.

The idea that nuclear power is only useful for long distance deployments is simply untrue.



If the PLAN seeks to be able to seriously contest air and sea control outside of the second island chain, a fleet of nuclear powered super carriers would significantly benefit that mission (alongside a host of other overall joint PLA capabilities of course).




I would also suspect that if CV-18 was nuclear powered, that many people here would be singing the praises of nuclear power and celebrating such an advancement and its material capability enhancements relative to conventionally powered carriers.

Nobody on here talk about CV-18 hybrid powered.......

 

[taxiya]

PLAN is quite different from the USN. The USN is an expeditionary force with lots of forwardly deployed ships far away from home port. Nuclear powered ships are extremely useful. This also explains the very large number of large support ships that USN operates vs PLAN. Until the days China decides to project its military power in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans which I just don't see any point, nuclear power is not that urgent other than childish bragging rights and/or a slavish mentality to follow others examples.

I think you reponded to the wrong post. I didn't say PLAN need CVN right now. I merely said that CVN has the same value as to USN (regardless when, and not very far future).

 

[gelgoog]

Nuclear reactors are currently Not mass produced, so the potential cost savings from taking advantage of mass production are enormous.

Most of the cost is in making the reactor containment building. It is hugely expensive in time and materials.
If your nuclear power station has large cooling towers that is another couple of years you add to the build time.
Reactor volume increases much faster than reactor surface area as the reactors get bigger. This means larger reactors have better economics.

 

[AndrewS]

Nuclear reactors are currently Not mass produced, so the potential cost savings from taking advantage of mass production are enormous. However Solar panels are already mass produced so the cost savings are already factored in.
Therefore
Nuclear power has the potential to get a lot cheaper but solar power cannot.

If nuclear is comparable to coal power today then it is not unreasonable to imagine future nuclear energy to cost 50% Less.
During the rise of China, about 50GW of coal plants were being built per year on average.
Go ahead and laugh but China will do it again but this time with nuclear power.

Let's go with your scenario with nuclear electricity dropping to half the cost of coal.
Solar is already at 3x cheaper than coal today. So today's solar electricity cost can already undercut your future nuclear electricity cost.

There are 6-8? nuclear reactors being produced in China every year now. That counts as "mass" production, and remember that we're already on 3rd/4th generation reactors, so the rate of improvement is slow.

Yes, solar panels are being mass produced. But what is more important is that the technology is still relatively new, so we are still seeing significant improvements in technology and cost. For example, the IEA expects solar manufacturing capacity to double this year. Last year, the increase was 70%. And you can typically expect a 20% cost decrease whenever you double production.

Anyway, I think this has gone way off topic now

 

[Temstar]

Folks have visited Wang Wei's tomb this week placing Fujian's photo there along with the drawing he made of a PLANAF pilot taking off from a carrier.

 

[TOKYO DRIFT ABC]

After reading the Twitter threads on foolsball and sugar_wsnbn, I was thinking that it doesn't make sense for the PLA to build any more Kuznetsov-based CATOBARs that have reached the limits of structural development. I don't know when, but the next carrier has to be a CVN!

 

[kwaigonegin]

After reading the Twitter threads on foolsball and sugar_wsnbn, I was thinking that it doesn't make sense for the PLA to build any more Kuznetsov-based CATOBARs that have reached the limits of structural development. I don't know when, but the next carrier has to be a CVN!

Kuznetsov is NOT a CATOBAR type carrier
I never knew PLAN was ever going to build anymore stobar carriers.
Even as far back as late 2000s we've always speculated that they would at most stopped after 2 which they did with Shandong.
BTW CATOBAR is an acronym.. in real live navy speak, nobody calls it 'catobar.' At least not in.the USN.
It's only in written form.
@popeye you ever heard anyone call carriers catobar?

 

[gelgoog]

I just hear people say a carrier uses cats and traps.