CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[vincent]

Nuclear carriers capable to cover bigger distances in shorter period of time.

It could be important during wartime operation, when they have to move fast to outrun the submarines/ ships.

Double the speed of a ship increase the fuel consumption eight fold.

Can the escorts keep up? What‘s the point of having the carrier going 30+ knots for days when the escorts can only do it for a short time

 

[Anlsvrthng]

There would be some benefits yes.
But nuclear carriers are limited by the speed and endurance of their accompanying escorts.
I don't see how it would be worth the additional cost for the Chinese Navy.

The top carrier speed is still limited by the amount of power transmitted through the propellers.
You size the propellors with the powerplant in any case, where nuclear or conventional.

True, but diesel fuel is cheap at 70cents per litre
The JFK carried 2.4M gallons of ship fuel. That would cost $8 Million, which is equivalent to just 3 LRASMs.

If it's wartime, the cost of that ship fuel is negligible when compared to the cost of ships, aircraft and missiles.

What matters is that a replenishment ship is always available to provide supplies.
That applies to a nuclear carrier as well.

It is safe to say the pro and contra of conventional/nuclear revolving around the tactical/strategical usage of carriers, and the risk associated with the given usages.


It is correct to say the conventional carrier can run for a week with cruise speed , but can only run for less than 24 hours with full speed.
(if we consider similar range /cruise speed for the carrier like for the Burke destroyers )

So, if the carrier loose one replenishment ,due to any reason then it can't sustain its top speed , and can become sitting duck . Example.

Of course top speed means every submarine getting its coordinates in 1000 km range .

If the USA has a carrier based in Okinawa, and loose its base then a conventional one will have hard time to get back to America.
A nuclear powered will be able to outrun every other ship .

I don't know what purpose is in the mind of the Chinese designers, and what data they have about the operational requirements.

 

[antiterror13]

It is safe to say the pro and contra of conventional/nuclear revolving around the tactical/strategical usage of carriers, and the risk associated with the given usages.


It is correct to say the conventional carrier can run for a week with cruise speed , but can only run for less than 24 hours with full speed.
(if we consider similar range /cruise speed for the carrier like for the Burke destroyers )

So, if the carrier loose one replenishment ,due to any reason then it can't sustain its top speed , and can become sitting duck . Example.

Of course top speed means every submarine getting its coordinates in 1000 km range .

If the USA has a carrier based in Okinawa, and loose its base then a conventional one will have hard time to get back to America.
A nuclear powered will be able to outrun every other ship .

I don't know what purpose is in the mind of the Chinese designers, and what data they have about the operational requirements.

I don't see the PLAN has any plan or desire to have a CBG base near the USA (i.e Venezuela or Cuba) anytime soon (before 2050)

 

[AndrewS]

It is safe to say the pro and contra of conventional/nuclear revolving around the tactical/strategical usage of carriers, and the risk associated with the given usages.


It is correct to say the conventional carrier can run for a week with cruise speed , but can only run for less than 24 hours with full speed.
(if we consider similar range /cruise speed for the carrier like for the Burke destroyers )

A Kuznetsov is listed with a cruise range of 20 days @ 18 knots.
A conventional carrier is not going to be designed with less than a day's worth of fuel at full speed.

So, if the carrier loose one replenishment ,due to any reason then it can't sustain its top speed , and can become sitting duck . Example.

Of course top speed means every submarine getting its coordinates in 1000 km range .

If the USA has a carrier based in Okinawa, and loose its base then a conventional one will have hard time to get back to America.
A nuclear powered will be able to outrun every other ship .

I don't know what purpose is in the mind of the Chinese designers, and what data they have about the operational requirements.

Losing access to replenishment ships has the same effect on carrier operations, whether nuclear or conventional.
There's still aviation fuel and other supplies that are needed.

As mentioned before, the Chinese Navy can buy extra replenishment ships which works out much cheaper than going nuclear.

The US is never going to have a carrier based in Okinawa. Any base there is just too vulnerable.
And realistically, US carriers would fall back to Hawaii first. But again, what about the escorts which aren't nuclear powered?

My view is that the benefits of nuclear-powered don't justify the additional costs, particularly within the 2nd Chain which will be the Chinese Navy focus for the next 15 years.

 

[Intrepid]

But again, what about the escorts which aren't nuclear powered?

US aircraft carriers travel several times a year accross an ocean for the duration of half a dozen of days or more with 30+ knots and I expect them then not to be accompanied by escorts. They are travelling to or from their battle group already at station.

 

[Max Demian]

True, but diesel fuel is cheap at 70cents per litre
The JFK carried 2.4M gallons of ship fuel. That would cost $8 Million, which is equivalent to just 3 LRASMs.

If it's wartime, the cost of that ship fuel is negligible when compared to the cost of ships, aircraft and missiles.

That equation also depends on a country’s access to oil during wartime, when the costs will skyrocket. Example: IJN very rarely sortied their super BBs in order to conserve fuel. Germany was far more constrained by fuel shortages than the number of tanks, planes, etc it could churn out in its ability to fight the Allies and the Comintern.
.

 

[AndrewS]

US aircraft carriers travel several times a year accross an ocean for the duration of half a dozen of days or more with 30+ knots and I expect them then not to be accompanied by escorts. They are travelling to or from their battle group already at station.

A US carrier sailing by itself would be perfectly fine in peacetime, but not in wartime.
Suppose there is a nuclear submarine nearby?
The carrier is virtually defenseless, as it doesn't even have its own sonar set, nor even medium-range air defence missiles.

 

[sndef888]

I do think China needs at least 4 or 5 nuclear carriers. Especially because being cut off from oil in the mideast is a very real threat in war. Nuclear carriers would at least reduce dependence on oil

 

[AndrewS]

That equation also depends on a country’s access to oil during wartime, when the costs will skyrocket. Example: IJN very rarely sortied their super BBs in order to conserve fuel. Germany was far more constrained by fuel shortages than the number of tanks, planes, etc it could churn out in its ability to fight the Allies and the Comintern.
.

In a war, costs for everything will increase anyway.

Yes, the IJN and German Navy didn't have enough fuel in the end.
But that doesn't apply to China which is the one of the larger oil producers and refiners in the world.

That should be more than enough to keep military assets fully fueled all the time

 

[Deino]

Guys ... similar to the KJ-600 thread I can fully understand that due to the lack of news you are eager to discuss related topics, but the general pro & contra discussion on powerplant alternatives, sensor systems deployment costs and so on are in no way related to the Type 003; You are already far off.

Stop this or continue in a general thread!