CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
Could it be

003 at JNCX with EMALS at 80,000 tons and 36 aircraft

and 004 is a CVN-19 with EMALS but 100,000 tons and 48 aircraft
Not sure why they'll risk manpower on two completely untested new designs ( for plan ofcourse) ..
Since they're upgradation strategy has always been like Intel's Tik-Tok.
I.e. testing one new design with new tech while an old design with new tech as a backup. ( in case of destroyers like type 51c etc)
 

H2O

Junior Member
Registered Member
By only looking at the photos provided here, I'm surprised that Dry Dock #4 isn't built to be flooded to make it easier for launches. Assuming that shipyard upgrades will be completed by end of this month as claimed. Are they planning on using marine airbags? I can't see them using airbags for nuclear-powered carriers as they're rated for up to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
By only looking at the photos provided here, I'm surprised that Dry Dock #4 isn't built to be flooded to make it easier for launches. Assuming that shipyard upgrades will be completed by end of this month as claimed. Are they planning on using marine airbags? I can't see them using airbags for nuclear-powered carriers as they're rated for up to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

What makes you think drydock 4 is not designed to be flooded?
 

H2O

Junior Member
Registered Member
What makes you think drydock 4 is not designed to be flooded?
By looking at the photo below, the dock doesn't seem deep enough. Second, if you look at the top of the photo, the bottom of the dry dock seems to be level to the road. If the dry dock is flooded, the road would be submerged. Are there any other better resolution photos of that site?

 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
By looking at the photo below, the dock doesn't seem deep enough. Second, if you look at the top of the photo, the bottom of the dry dock seems to be level to the road. If the dry dock is flooded, the road would be submerged. Are there any other better resolution photos of that site?

Oh that place. I don't think that is drydock 4, in fact I don't even think it's even a drydock but rather a site to fabricate and stage modules.

This should be drydock 4:

elZO9Hz.jpg
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I wonder a lot about the propulsion the Type 002 will have. While steam boilers work, it's an outdated system with high exhaust emissions and poor fuel efficiency. So I wonder if they will try to use IEPS or at least some gas turbine engines for propulsion on that. But, it's probably a waste of time since they want to go to nuclear propulsion in the long run.

They could also try to go for an intermediate design, akin to the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) which was originally designed for nuclear propulsion then retrofitted with steam boilers. They could use the steam boiler version as an intermediate design and then switch to nuclear reactors on the next iteration.

That's because China wants to go the super carrier route. I personally think they would be better served with higher numbers of something more similar to the Charles de Gaulle.

The Charles de Gaulle is small enough to use 2x K-15 submarine nuclear reactors. It is roughly the tonnage of the Kuznetsov so they could use the same dry docks. The K-15 submarine nuclear reactor design is shared with their SSBNs, the Triomphant-class submarine, which only uses one reactor. Plus the K-15 reactors use low-enriched nuclear fuel which is widely available because of civilian nuclear reactors.
 
Last edited:

Intrepid

Major
IEPS is possible with diesel, gas and steam.
Steam is possible with oil or nuclear

IEPS does not say anything about the way power is generated

Electromagnetic catapults and turboelectric arresting wires make IEPS very likely
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
There are not a lot of specs available about the K-15 reactor. But Areva at one point tried to sell a civilian version of the reactor called the NP-300 PWR. It's design specs were to produce energy between 100 MWe and 300 MWe. So that should give you an idea of the specs of the reactor.

The Chinese have the Linglong One.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Also called ACP100 it is a 150MWe reactor. It could be used in pairs for a nuclear carrier about the size of the Kuznetsov.
 
Last edited:

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Issue with CdG sized carriers is that for the same amount of money to build 10 of those, one could buy still a decent number of 80 thousand ton ones. CdG cost 3.4 billion $ back in 1997. Today that'd be 5.4 billion. Further carriers would be somewhat cheaper, but as QE class showed or even US ships showed, not by that much. Last two Nimitz ships cost 7-8 billion in today's dollars. So instead of 10 Cdg type costing 54 billion, one could get close to 8 of nimitz size. carrying more planes (roughly a third more when two totals of two fleet are compared) of all kind, more helicopters, having greater launch rates, carrying more ordnance and fuel.
 
Top