I hope you're not suggesting that the speculation from Global Security is equal to the sources that we use if we want to take something seriously.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I hope you're not suggesting that the speculation from Global Security is equal to the sources that we use if we want to take something seriously.
It is still too early to know.
Just pointing out a reactor design with the required power level exists.
A reactor which is getting built at a ground facility. This is not just vapor.
The ACP100S version of it has already been proposed for nuclear barges similar to the Russian RITM series.
The French are also going to build a land based test site for their next naval nuclear reactor.
I doubt the Chinese would spend all these resources on a reactor design with these characteristics if it did not share at least part of the design with the military naval program.
Just pointing out a reactor design with the required power level exists.
A reactor which is getting built at a ground facility. This is not just vapor.
The ACP100S version of it has already been proposed for nuclear barges similar to the Russian RITM series.
The French are also going to build a land based test site for their next naval nuclear reactor.
I doubt the Chinese would spend all these resources on a reactor design with these characteristics if it did not share at least part of the design with the military naval program.
I'm not saying there's 0% chance of the future CVN's reactor being derived from ACP100S (though at this stage I wouldn't put money on it).
There is a chance.
I am however saying, that your previous post saying:
"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?"
-- was overly presumptive and speaks about the ACP100S as if it is assumed that it is likely going to be the basis for the future reactor, when in reality we have no such basis to believe that at this stage.
There is a chance.
I am however saying, that your previous post saying:
"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?"
-- was overly presumptive and speaks about the ACP100S as if it is assumed that it is likely going to be the basis for the future reactor, when in reality we have no such basis to believe that at this stage.
I had always believed PLAN should and will build a pair of Type 003, the 80,000-ton conventional CATOBAR class aircraft carrier. Last year, I also wrote in this thread arguing that a pair of Type 003 suited PLAN almost as well as nuclear-powered supercarriers, which most people would agree is PLAN's target carrier. I was somewhat annoyed by some Chinese military enthusiasts who were not happy about 003, insisted it would be built only one before quickly moving to the nuclear-powered one, or even constantly looked for hopeful or hopeless signs that 003 would actually turn out to be a nuclear-powered one after all.
My arguments were that except maybe endurance a pair of Type 003 would be just as capable as two nuclear-powered ones. Consider PLAN would be mostly operating in the West Pacific or Northern Indian Ocean regions in the foreseeable future, endurance would be even less an issue.
I do acknowledge that some concerns based on the assumption that 003 displaced about 70,000-ton had valid points. A 70,000-ton CATOBAR would be a significant compromise from the target supercarrier, particularly considering the size of J-15.
The near confirmation of 003 being at least at Kitty-size further convince me that PLAN should indeed build at least a pair of these ships, if not more. A 85,000+-ton, EMALS class carrier that can comfortably carry 50+ aircraft. Which part do you not like it?
First, when you build one Type 003, you would have developed the necessary technology and industrial capabilities, and the corresponding supplier base. It would almost be a waste if you don't leverage them to build more of them, if indeed the ship meets all your needs.
Second, the biggest potential barrier for China to build a Ford-class nuclear-powered supercarrier currently would be the nuclear reactor. It'd be mostly the only bottleneck, if any. You would want to develop a better nuclear reactor with long refuel cycle and high degree of uranium enrichment. Continue to build more Type 003 would buy more time for the development of the nuclear reactor for the target supercarrier.
Last but not least, the USN is also considering to build a fleet of light carriers (CVLs). They may or may not end up building them eventually, but some of the considerations behind it are equally applicable to PLAN, such as cost, distributed availability.
We should know if a second Type 003 will appear in the next few years.
My arguments were that except maybe endurance a pair of Type 003 would be just as capable as two nuclear-powered ones. Consider PLAN would be mostly operating in the West Pacific or Northern Indian Ocean regions in the foreseeable future, endurance would be even less an issue.
I do acknowledge that some concerns based on the assumption that 003 displaced about 70,000-ton had valid points. A 70,000-ton CATOBAR would be a significant compromise from the target supercarrier, particularly considering the size of J-15.
The near confirmation of 003 being at least at Kitty-size further convince me that PLAN should indeed build at least a pair of these ships, if not more. A 85,000+-ton, EMALS class carrier that can comfortably carry 50+ aircraft. Which part do you not like it?
First, when you build one Type 003, you would have developed the necessary technology and industrial capabilities, and the corresponding supplier base. It would almost be a waste if you don't leverage them to build more of them, if indeed the ship meets all your needs.
Second, the biggest potential barrier for China to build a Ford-class nuclear-powered supercarrier currently would be the nuclear reactor. It'd be mostly the only bottleneck, if any. You would want to develop a better nuclear reactor with long refuel cycle and high degree of uranium enrichment. Continue to build more Type 003 would buy more time for the development of the nuclear reactor for the target supercarrier.
Last but not least, the USN is also considering to build a fleet of light carriers (CVLs). They may or may not end up building them eventually, but some of the considerations behind it are equally applicable to PLAN, such as cost, distributed availability.
We should know if a second Type 003 will appear in the next few years.
Many people do not realize the CVNs are rarely at full complement. 85k tons EMALS loaded with 50 for the airwing is very good. The US needs CVN because they have to travel across the Pacific.The Chinese do not have such operational requirements.
I agree that I think at least one additional 003 would be built before they build their first nuclear carrier, for similar but slightly different reasons to you.
I certainly agree that 003 as a carrier seems like it'll shape up to be a very competent CATOBAR carrier and will be able to achieve many of the requirements that the PLAN has, however compared to a nuclear carrier, deficiencies in endurance, in capacity of aviation fuel, and slightly greater size and power output will still remain.
The reason I think they will want to build at least one more 003 pattern carrier, is because I fundamentally do not expect the first nuclear carrier to start construction until late this decade. 2028ish.
003 will be launched in 2022, and I expect the first nuclear carrier won't be launched until 2030 at the earliest, possibly even early 2030s.
That is nearly a decade between launches. For such a long duration, I certainly expect the PLAN to seek at least one more carrier, and an 003 pattern carrier (maybe with some small refinements) will certainly be appropriate for it.
However, I say "at least" one more 003 pattern carrier between the current 003 and the first CVN... meaning I believe there are prospects for additional 003 carriers being built.
This is getting into strategic procurement domains, but depending on how ambitious the PLAN are with their carrier procurement in their overall naval strategy and in the overall PLA's strategy, I could see them procuring an additional three 003 pattern carriers between the first 003 and the first CVN.
With the speed at which JNCX will be able to work at, especially given they now know how 003 is built, I could see them building three more 003s between the lead 003 being launched and 2030 -- and if two 003s are built at JN and one 003 is built at DL, then that would easily be feasible even if we make the assumption that both JN and DL start work on a nuclear carrier apiece in the late 2020s (which I personally find unlikely -- i.e.: I'd be surprised if JN and DL both start work on the new nuclear carrier each, at the same time).
Basically, going into 2030, in terms of the number of carriers in service, it would be six carriers in service (CV-16, CV-17, and four 003 pattern carriers), with the first nuclear carrier to be commissioned in the early to mid 2030s, and production of nuclear carriers would progress apace in the 2030s as well, to eventually reach a steady state of 11-12 CATOBAR carriers.
But again, this is making a few serious assumptions on my part, namely that the PLAN desires a force of some six or so carriers in service by 2030, and that they eventually seek a steady state of up to 12 CATOBAR carriers to be achieved by the late 2030s, that JN and DL will eventually both get into the carrier construction game simultaneously etc.
Ultimately, we just don't know where exactly where they want to go with their carrier fleet going into the 2020s let alone the 2030s, but we're going to find out soon enough.
Look at cross sectional drawings of any fossil fuel powered large warship. reliable sectional drawings of contemporary warships may be hard to come by, but large WWII era warships serve to illustrate the point just as well. Looking at how much of the ship’s hulls volume is occupied by bunkers stowing fuel oil for the ship’s engines.
The value of nuclear power to a carrier is not just long range. it is the ability to divert all the volume previously taken by fuel that the ship must burn herself towards stowing fuel for her airwing.
A nuclear powered carriers’ ability to loiter in the battle area and persist in carrying out high tempo air operation, and not have to retreat to safe area to replenish, is far higher than those of any comparable conventional carrier.
That’s why the US persisted in building nuclear carriers when it has given up on nuclear power for all of the carrier’s escorts.
The value of nuclear power to a carrier is not just long range. it is the ability to divert all the volume previously taken by fuel that the ship must burn herself towards stowing fuel for her airwing.
A nuclear powered carriers’ ability to loiter in the battle area and persist in carrying out high tempo air operation, and not have to retreat to safe area to replenish, is far higher than those of any comparable conventional carrier.
That’s why the US persisted in building nuclear carriers when it has given up on nuclear power for all of the carrier’s escorts.
Are you referencing a particular post previously?
If you're replying to me, the capacity for aviation fuel is something that I mentioned with regards to the advantages of a nuclear powered carrier.
I agree with your prediction. Before China conquers Taiwan, I don't think China would pursue global power as the United States. Since China also does not have oversea colonies as France, if becoming the global power is not China's goal, there is really minimal additional benefits of nuclear aircrafts.
I don't want to get into the messy details of this discussion, but I will just say that I do not think the Taiwan question is something which will greatly influence their decision on pursuing a nuclear powered carrier or not.
People too often -- and imo incorrectly -- perceive nuclear powered carriers only as instruments of global blue water power projection in a medium or low intensity environment, while not recognizing their important role in regional blue water high intensity air-naval-missile warfare.