CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

I always wondered about that.

The Liaoning and Shandong were 60,000 tons because the Soviet started to build 60,000 ton ships and these were a shortcut for the Chinese to gain fixed wing capability and experience. Not because the Chinese thought the capabilities of a carrier of around 60,000 tons best met their needs.

If it is true that the Chinese intend to eventually build Nimitz sized carriers, then obvious they think the capabilities of a Nimintz sized ship is what they needed. If that were the case, does it really make sense for them to take yet another intermediate step and end up with yet another hull that is somewhat short of the capability they wanted? What do they gain by building something that is significantly smaller than a conventional equivalent of the Nimitz? Why not go directly to the size that would support the full capability they need?

So I kind of expected 003 to be near Nimitz in size. Somewhat smaller because conventional powerplants allow a somewhat smaller hull, but not much smaller.

Yet 3 catapults and 2 elevator does vaguely suggest the ship might be significantly smaller than the Nimitz.

I am interested in seeing if this hull will be confirmed to be near Nimitz size.

I don't think there was any ever doubt that the eventual end goal would be for a 100k ton CATOBAR supercarrier that is nuclear powered, but it is a slight surprise that with their first true indigenous design they have managed to seemingly get so close in terms of displacement and deck configuration, so quickly.

That said, we still need to wait to see what the final definitive dimensions and details of this thing will be, which I imagine we will get by the end of the year cause you can bet various thinktanks and defense journos are going to contract out some commercial satellite imagery for it.


However even at this relatively early stage, the suggested size of this thing is a bit of a surprise.

 

[Richard Santos]

I just don’t see the value in making their first truly indigenous carrier smaller than the ultimate size they think need their carrier to be.

You take baby steps if that mitigates risk. But I don’t see a 75,000 ton indigenous carrier to be significantly less risky than a 90,000 ton carrier. Everything that has to work to make a 90,000 ton carrier effective has to work just as well to make a 75,000 ton carrier effective. The only thing is a 75,000 ton carrier might be very slightly cheaper than a 90,000 ton carrier, but it will be significantly less capable. I don’t see the Chinese pinching nickels and dimes on this.

Also, there is value in making their eventual carrier fleet as homogenous in terms of air wing size and composition, and as consistent in deck and hanger process and procedure as possible. These all argue for making 003 as close to their eventual dream CVN in deck and hanger size, deck layout, and airwing composition as possible.

 

[Blitzo]

I just don’t see the value in making their first truly indigenous carrier smaller than the ultimate size they think need their carrier to be.

You take baby steps if that mitigates risk. But I don’t see a 75,000 ton indigenous carrier to be significantly less risky than a 90,000 ton carrier. Everything that has to work to make a 90,000 ton carrier effective has to work just as well to make a 70,000 ton carrier effective. The only thing is a 75,000 ton carrier might be very slightly cheaper than a 90,000 ton carrier, but it will be significantly less capable. I don’t see the Chinese pinching nickels and dimes on this.

The reason why the size of this carrier so far is a bit of a surprise, is exactly because of that -- risk.
Or rather, the availability and maturity of the requisite subsystems (most notably propulsion) to make a carrier of this size be viable in the first place, which is what weig was getting at at the top of this page.

The way you describe it makes it sound like the choice to build a larger carrier versus a smaller one is one that can be made in isolation and only a matter of cost, without considering the readiness of subsystems and requisite propulsion to make a larger carrier feasible in the first place.

 

[Richard Santos]

I don’t think any subsystem would differ significantly between a 75,000 ton and a 90,000 ton carrier, including propulsion. Putting a propulsion system suitable for 75,000 ton carrier into a 90,000 ton carrier may drop the top speed by a fraction of a knot, that’s it.

So I don’t think building a 75,000 ton CATOBAR carrier makes any sense if your think the operationally optimal size is 90,000 ton.

 

[davidau]

The reason why the size of this carrier so far is a bit of a surprise, is exactly because of that -- risk.
Or rather, the availability and maturity of the requisite subsystems (most notably propulsion) to make a carrier of this size be viable in the first place, which is what weig was getting at at the top of this page.

The way you describe it makes it sound like the choice to build a larger carrier versus a smaller one is one that can be made in isolation and only a matter of cost, without considering the readiness of subsystems and requisite propulsion to make a larger carrier feasible in the first place.

Being China, with its teams of talented, experienced engineers, designers, shipbuilders, reading from various sources, that she would have done their homework and have considered and conceived all systems design concepts in mathmetical models as well as actual mock ups.

I give my two bob worth, the 003 size is between 85,000 to 95,000 tons, fully loaded.

 

[gelgoog]

It could be they are just testing different carrier configurations.

Also from what I understand the nuclear reactors will have less thermal power than the ones in the Nimitz class.
The ACP100S has like half the thermal power of the reactors used in the Ford class.
Maybe they will use twice the reactors?

 

[Blitzo]

It could be they are just testing different carrier configurations.

Also from what I understand the nuclear reactors will have less thermal power than the ones in the Nimitz class.
The ACP100S has like half the thermal power of the reactors used in the Ford class.
Maybe they will use twice the reactors?

Why do you think the nuclear carrier will use ACP100S in the first place?

 

[gelgoog]

Well, the ACP100S is a lot similar specification wise to the Russian RITM-400 reactor.
It is a compact reactor which has a lot of the components inside the casing just like it.
It has integral steam generators.
This makes it ideal for something like a marine naval reactor.
The only thing it lacks is long time between fuel changes.

They might use another design though. For example the pebble bed HTR-PM.
It is another SMR which China has been working on for years.
The problem is it is not that compact and the original design does not have enough power.
But same basic technology (TRISO fuel pebble bed) might be used on a naval reactor.

 

[Blitzo]

Well, the ACP100S is a lot similar specification wise to the Russian RITM-400 reactor.
It is a compact reactor which has a lot of the components inside the casing just like it.
It has integral steam generators.
This makes it ideal for something like a marine naval reactor.
The only thing it lacks is long time between fuel changes.

They might use another design though. For example the pebble bed HTR-PM.
It is another SMR which China has been working on for years.

Except, if something so open in the white domain was going to be the powerplant for the eventual CVN, chances are the usual insiders would've made allusions to it already.

Something as massively important as the nuclear reactors for the CVN isn't something that would just be ignored, if it was based on a model that was already out there in the open being developed.

 

[gelgoog]

Except, if something so open in the white domain was going to be the powerplant for the eventual CVN, chances are the usual insiders would've made allusions to it already.

Something as massively important as the nuclear reactors for the CVN isn't something that would just be ignored, if it was based on a model that was already out there in the open being developed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It seems I am not the only one to draw a connection.