CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Everyone has already described to you the benefits of having commonalities of steam turbines for nuclear carriers in the future.

I'm not sure why you are still insistent on your position, and why you cannot accept that for the PLAN, for 003, having steam turbines is reasonable and logical.
I too disagree with the reasons given.

IMO, steam propulsion was selected because of a reasonable possibility that steam catapults may be selected for the vessel. GT propulsion cannot support steam catapults.

However, GT propulsion would likely require an IFEP architecture, together with reciprocating engines for economic drive at lower speeds. I don't know if the Chinese MVDC architecture is capable of supporting 150+ MW power levels that may be required.
 
Last edited:

lunlunqq

New Member
Registered Member
From a purely aesthetic point of view, I would love to see the island being placed behind the second lift. It makes the ship look far better.
I think bridges should be placed as forward as possible, isn't it? Makes it easier to actually drive the ship and stays as far away from the angled deck as possible. I was actually wondering why the Ford class has the bridge so far back on the ship. What's the benefit of having it back there? Was it just weight balance issue?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I too disagree with the reasons given.

IMO, steam propulsion was selected because of a reasonable possibility that steam catapults may be selected for the vessel. GT propulsion cannot support steam catapults.

However, GT propulsion would likely require an IFEP architecture, together with reciprocating engines for economic drive at lower speeds. I don't know if the Chinese MVDC architecture is capable of supporting 150+ MW power levels that may be required.

I think an alternative question to ask is whether, if IFEP was mature, with sufficiently capable GTs available and mature, and if it was decided from the outset that 003 would use EM catapults (and not considering steam at all), would they still have chosen steam propulsion?

All this keeping in mind they would've wanted to pursue nuclear propulsion down the line as well.

IMO there is still a good chance they would have. The commonality in steam propulsion and nuclear propulsion is ultimately still meaningfully more than GT powerplants and nuclear propulsion, and more importantly having the know how to run and maintain steam turbines is also perishable.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
I think bridges should be placed as forward as possible, isn't it? Makes it easier to actually drive the ship and stays as far away from the angled deck as possible. I was actually wondering why the Ford class has the bridge so far back on the ship. What's the benefit of having it back there? Was it just weight balance issue?

a vantage point as far back as possible provides easier control of flight deck operation, a vantage point farther forward provides better view for ship handling.

QE class want the best of both worlds at the expense of deck space and possible aircraft flow for CATOBAR operation. This makes one suspect whether there was ever any serious intention to make the QE anything other than STOBAR despite what was claimed.

Ford class apparently decided deck flow was important but if large merchant ships can be skippered from near the stern, so can an USN carrier.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
I think an alternative question to ask is whether, if IFEP was mature, with sufficiently capable GTs available and mature, and if it was decided from the outset that 003 would use EM catapults (and not considering steam at all), would they still have chosen steam propulsion?

All this keeping in mind they would've wanted to pursue nuclear propulsion down the line as well.

IMO there is still a good chance they would have. The commonality in steam propulsion and nuclear propulsion is ultimately still meaningfully more than GT powerplants and nuclear propulsion, and more importantly having the know how to run and maintain steam turbines is also perishable.
yes, but the likely driving reason in that case would be to repeat a proven engine room layout and component to reduce risk, not for a likely small amount of possible logistic commonality with a future nuclear carrier.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The alleged commonality with a nuclear carrier as a justication for use of steam propulsion in a conventional carrier is IMHO nonsense.

1. most of the logistic and personnel skillset burden of marine steam turbine propulsion is in boiler furnace operation and maintenance, not the turbine itself. Fossil fuel boilers and nuclear heat exchangers do not share leveragable commonality.

2. Safety and loop isolation in nuclear propulsion means the steam turbine in a nuclear ship would operate at much lower temperature and pressures than modern fossil fuel HTHP marine steam turbines. So the steam turbines themselves would be different. So logistic synergy would be limited.

The main reason why the chinese decided to use steam turbine in 003 are, IMHO, likely to be the following:

1. When 003 was designed, it has not yet been settled whether the ship would use EMAL or steam catapults, Steam turbine propulsion would naturally facilitate steam catapults, thus keeping the options open to decide on the catapult well after power plants abd hull construction had begun.

2. There was likely desire to reduce risk by maintaining as much of the proven design and components from 001 and 002 as possible. It may well have been judged not worth the risk and effort to design a new GT based propulsion arrangement, and a new interior layout to take advantage of GT driven IEP, for just 1-2 ships before the design would be thrown out when the next ship goes nuclear. So backwards compatibility rather than forward compatibility id more likely the driver.

These are both very legitimate concerns, and in the overall scheme of development of the chinese navy, allowing these two concerns to drive the power plant selection was very likely the correct decision.

But if the final configuration of the 003 class ships are examined in isolation, and not in the context of the PLAN naval design history, then a case can certainly be made that they would have been better ships if they had taken full advantage of GT as prime movers for their integrated electric propulsion.

BTW, the fact the GTs used in existing chinese surface ships are smaller than those in the QE class does not preclude their use in a carrier. the big benefit of integrated electric propulsion, compared to traditional direct mechanical drive propulsion, is your can much more easily gang up larger number of prime movers, in this case GTs, to achieve any desired level of total output.

See my reply to nalylyst.

I believe that even if all of those aforementioned factors were sufficiently mature for the PLAN, the overlap between steam propulsion and nuclear propulsion would still have been judged to be greater than that between GT/IFEP and nuclear propulsion, especially given at that point the PLAN didn't exactly have many steam driven ships in service to begin with.

Putting it another way, in terms of risk mitigation, I see them choosing steam for 003 as being a way to mitigate risk going forwards for their CVN.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
yes, but the reason would be to repeat a proven engine room layout and component to reduce risk, not for a likely small amount of possible commonality with a future nuclear carrier.

Disagree, I believe that part of the reason for adopting steam for 003 was to mitigate as much risk as possible for the future -- i.e. the CVN -- which would of course prove to be the most challenging project and carrier to develop yet.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
making 003 steam powered does nothing to help with mitigating the risk of the nuclear propulsion in any subsequent carrier. There will also be very little skill cross over in power plant operation between the two, and relative little parts interchangeability.
 

Orthan

Senior Member
Disagree, I believe that part of the reason for adopting steam for 003 was to mitigate as much risk as possible for the future -- i.e. the CVN -- which would of course prove to be the most challenging project and carrier to develop yet.
Does anyone knows of any chinese naval surface reactor design?
 
Top