CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Richard Santos]

While it is highly speculated that the first chinese CATOBAR will get a fossil fuel propulsion, I came across this message from late 2015 and wondered why no nuclear propulsion ?

....

China has decades of experience in naval nuclear propulsion through their submarine program while India is still nascent in this aspect. Chosing a nuclear powered aircraft is also a long term wiser decision because it prevents some logistic hurdles, especially around fuel, especially for a carrier which will get a much more "aggressive" role.

Submarine reactors are good for about 30,000 HP. A carrier reactor need to be 3-4 times more powerful. The Soviet Navy had far deeper and broader experience with submarine nuclear reactors than the Chinese navy. But even the Soviet navy repeatedly put off designing a true surface ship reactor in order to avoid the risk. The mixed propulsion in the Kirov class semi-nuclear cruiser wasn't adopted out of some inspired compromise as some western commentators have suggested. It was adopted because the Soviets chose not to undertake to design a proper surface ship reactor, and used weak submarine reactors instead, thus necessitating an extra oil fired booster boiler for maximum power.
So for the Chinese it is prudent to use proven conventional propulsion technology with their first CTOBAR carrier in order to minimize possible delays in getting her into service.

 

[Orthan]

INS Vishal, the Indian Navy's 65000 ton nuclear carrier, at this stage is probably going to enter service in the early 2030s if they're able to manage the programme well.

Read again, 2030s.

In terms of tonnage, no comparition betwen the 2 programs, even if china´s carriers have conventional propulsion.

shandong - 65000t almost completed
002 - near 80000t could be already in construction (according to some)

 

[Blitzo]

mentioning ''INDIA'' in a China Carrier thread is like a naked Lady Gaga singing for gay & transgender rights in a Billy Graham birthday party.

I think we can civilly discuss the military programme of the other nation without having it descend into derogation or hostility, so long as it's based on facts.

In this case, twix's question about the Indian Navy's INS Vishal seems to be not fully up to date as to what the latest projections of its in service date is.

 

[Richard Santos]

There is no doubt the Chinese military industrial complex is substantially ahead of india's in terms of technical capability, production capacity, as perhaps most importantly in terms of quality of program management. This is seen in the air, on land and at sea.

The only advantage India has is better access to western technology and know how. However, at least up to now, India seems to have only availed itself of some of finished products of western technology, and has not shown strong indications of having successfully internalized western technology itself, nor western program management techniques.

 

[Iron Man]

Submarine reactors are good for about 30,000 HP. A carrier reactor need to be 3-4 times more powerful. The Soviet Navy had far deeper and broader experience with submarine nuclear reactors than the Chinese navy. But even the Soviet navy repeatedly put off designing a true surface ship reactor in order to avoid the risk. The mixed propulsion in the Kirov class semi-nuclear cruiser wasn't adopted out of some inspired compromise as some western commentators have suggested. It was adopted because the Soviets chose not to undertake to design a proper surface ship reactor, and used weak submarine reactors instead, thus necessitating an extra oil fired booster boiler for maximum power.
So for the Chinese it is prudent to use proven conventional propulsion technology with their first CTOBAR carrier in order to minimize possible delays in getting her into service.

You forget that the A2W reactor used on the USS Enterprise was a direct descendant of the S2W reactor used on the world's first nuclear sub the USS Nautilus. The Enterprise used 8 such reactors for propulsion and power needs. So there is precedent for sub reactor tech to transfer directly to carrier reactors. China has now had decades of experience with sub reactors so transferring this technology to carriers is not unthinkable or unachievable.

 

[Richard Santos]

You forget that the A2W reactor used on the USS Enterprise was a direct descendant of the S2W reactor used on the world's first nuclear sub the USS Nautilus. The Enterprise used 8 such reactors for propulsion and power needs. So there is precedent for sub reactor tech to transfer directly to carrier reactors. China has now had decades of experience with sub reactors so transferring this technology to carriers is not unthinkable or unachievable.

The reason why the 1950s designed Enterprise adopted such a heavy and cumbersome solution was the navy did not feel fully comfortable with fully exposing the success of such a large capital investment as a new attack carrier to an as yet new and incompletely proven technology as a nuclear reactor. So the navy insisted that, rather than having the engineering spaces be arranged to take full advantage of the potentially very high power output of each individual nuclear reactor, engineering spaces should be laid out instead exactly like a conventional fossil fuel carrier with 8 boiler rooms designed to accommodate 8 high pressure oil fired steam boilers, and the reactors replace the boilers on a one to one basis. This was intended to allow the reactors to be swapped out and replaced with conventional boilers on a one to one basis should for some unforeseen reason the reactors prove to be unsuitable. In fact the Enterprise's bottom and hull sides were plumbed to supply fuel oil from the bunkers to the reactor rooms.

But at this point with the United States having operated 11 nuclear powered carriers for over 55 years, it seems the risks the 1950s Enterprise design sought to minimize can be excluded. So while the Chinese could in theory put 8 submarine reactor into the 017 design, it would be a substantially suboptimal design decision that could only be justified if they simply could not accept a fossil fuel carrier despite not having a fully mature carrier sized nuclear reactor.

 

[Iron Man]

The reason why the 1950s designed Enterprise adopted such a heavy and cumbersome solution was the navy did not feel fully comfortable with fully exposing the success of such a large capital investment as a new attack carrier to an as yet new and incompletely proven technology as a nuclear reactor. So the navy insisted that, rather than having the engineering spaces be arranged to take full advantage of the potentially very high power output of each individual nuclear reactor, engineering spaces should be laid out instead exactly like a conventional fossil fuel carrier with 8 boiler rooms designed to accommodate 8 high pressure oil fired steam boilers, and the reactors replace the boilers on a one to one basis. This was intended to allow the reactors to be swapped out and replaced with conventional boilers on a one to one basis should for some unforeseen reason the reactors prove to be unsuitable. In fact the Enterprise's bottom and hull sides were plumbed to supply fuel oil from the bunkers to the reactor rooms.

But at this point with the United States having operated 11 nuclear powered carriers for over 55 years, it seems the risks the 1950s Enterprise design sought to minimize can be excluded. So while the Chinese could in theory put 8 submarine reactor into the 017 design, it would be a substantially suboptimal design decision that could only be justified if they simply could not accept a fossil fuel carrier despite not having a fully mature carrier sized nuclear reactor.

Obviously 8 reactors is less optimal than 2 reactors, but the fact is that should the PLAN want a nuclear carrier sooner than a Chinese A4W-size reactor becomes available, the option is certainly there to convert sub reactors to carrier reactors.

 

[Richard Santos]

Obviously 8 reactors is less optimal than 2 reactors, but the fact is that should the PLAN want a nuclear carrier sooner than a Chinese A4W-size reactor becomes available, the option is certainly there to convert sub reactors to carrier reactors.

It would be out of character for the Chinese navy, or indeed the Chinese approach to major weapon development in general since the 1970s, to rush so important a project as nuclear carrier design just to pursue the apparence of gaining some quick but marginal increase in capability in the short term, at the expense of being stuck with a half assed solution in the long term. I think even the Indian navy would not settle for an 8 reactor solution just to put a nuclear carrier into service a few years sooner.

 

[Iron Man]

It would be out of character for the Chinese navy, or indeed the Chinese approach to major weapon development in general since the 1970s, to rush so important a project as nuclear carrier design just to pursue the apparence of gaining some quick but marginal increase in capability in the short term, at the expense of being stuck with a half assed solution in the long term. I think even the Indian navy would not settle for an 8 reactor solution just to put a nuclear carrier into service a few years sooner.

"Rush" and "half assed" is your personal interpretation of any potential Chinese desire for a nuclear carrier involving >2 nuclear reactors. "A few years sooner" is also your own personal estimation of a Chinese nuclear reactor timeline which you do not actually have any knowledge of. China would have its own reasons to want this setup, same as the USN had at a similar stage of naval nuclear reactor development. I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, just that this option is available and could be chosen should the costs/benefits be weighed in favor of benefits for the PLAN.

 

[antiterror13]

It would be out of character for the Chinese navy, or indeed the Chinese approach to major weapon development in general since the 1970s, to rush so important a project as nuclear carrier design just to pursue the apparence of gaining some quick but marginal increase in capability in the short term, at the expense of being stuck with a half assed solution in the long term. I think even the Indian navy would not settle for an 8 reactor solution just to put a nuclear carrier into service a few years sooner.

Indian hasn't got any working naval nuclear reactor .. while China has had it since early 1970 (Han SSN) ... so there is no comparison ... and PLEASE don't bring any India into this discussion or comparison