Chinese Aircraft Carriers - Liaoning, Shandong, Fujian and the future

[Raj-Hindustani]

Indian Navy should first consider how not to sink its own submarines, keep its ships not on fire from too much curry cooking, and toilets not overflow. I am sure Indians' 50 years of history of operating navel vessels are something for the PLAN to learn -- not to do.

You are telling that no submarine incidents happened in the world and only did by Indian navy.

 

[Alter_Ego]

This threads needs a cleaning up.

Came to read news about PLAN carrier program. Instead its three oages of bickering and about Indian capabilities.

 

[Deino]

This threads needs a cleaning up.

Came to read news about PLAN carrier program. Instead its three oages of bickering and about Indian capabilities.

Will clean up later … I’m just in the exams

 

[Shanlung]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Arion ⵣ]

I think china needs at least one nuclear aircraft carrier.

 

[nang2]

I think china needs at least one nuclear aircraft carrier.

"First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"

 

[Deino]

The Fujian is out again ... third sea trial!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[FuturePAF]

Where in China is the test facility for the naval nuclear reactor that is expected to go into the Type 004 and Type 095/096; 150-210 MW range reactor?

Or is this a competitive process between at least two different suppliers?

Does China intent to have more than 2 reactors and have many reactors in this power range (as on the Nimitz class) or just two reactors which are much powerful as on the Ford class?

A4W reactor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A1B reactor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Vi-va]

I think china needs at least one nuclear aircraft carrier.

Repeat the trouble that U.S. is facing?

What's the benefit of a nuclear aircraft carrier, exactly?

 

[Vi-va]

Where in China is the test facility for the naval nuclear reactor that is expected to go into the Type 004 and Type 095/096; 150-210 MW range reactor?

Or is this a competitive process between at least two different suppliers?

Does China intent to have more than 2 reactors and have many reactors in this power range (as on the Nimitz class) or just two reactors which are much powerful as on the Ford class?

A4W reactor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A1B reactor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It's low priority, imo.

There is no significant benefit to having a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, but lots of side effects.

 

[BP2]

I think china needs at least one nuclear aircraft carrier.

A minimum of 2 (and probably 3) is needed to be sure to have one at sea at every moment. China has the economical power to do so.

The french case is not adapted : during long overhaul (18 months) you are without solution. A secand (classical) carrier was on the agenda, but lacks of money.... Not the chinese case.

 

[BP2]

There is no significant benefit to having a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

Less need of support fleet, specially if you want to go deep in Pacific....
Possibility to cruise all day long at full speed.
The repleanishment at sea is a high risk situation.

 

[Magadh]

It's low priority, imo.

There is no significant benefit to having a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, but lots of side effects.

Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers can travel long distances because they don't need to be refueled and have more power to propel themselves at higher speeds. Their range is limited only by the food and medicine stored for the crew. The same is true for nuclear submarines. Although they may not be as quiet as diesel-electric ones, their range is also limited only by the supply of food and medicine for the crew members.

 

[Vi-va]

Less need of support fleet, specially if you want to go deep in Pacific....
Possibility to cruise all day long at full speed.
The repleanishment at sea is a high risk situation.

Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers can travel long distances because they don't need to be refueled and have more power to propel themselves at higher speeds. Their range is limited only by the food and medicine stored for the crew. The same is true for nuclear submarines. Although they may not be as quiet as diesel-electric ones, their range is also limited only by the supply of food and medicine for the crew members.

1. Nuclear aircraft carriers still need support fleets for weapons, food, fuel for the aircraft, and many other things for the crews and mechanics, such as lube, parts, etc.
2. The destroyers and cruisers need refueling, they are not nuclear-powered anyway.

So little difference on support fleets requirements.

Repleanishment at sea is almost the same. Refueling is relatively efficient compared to other things.

Nuclear aircraft carriers need higher maintenance than traditional ones.



https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2008/RAND_RB9316.pdf
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9316.html

 

[FuturePAF]

It's low priority, imo.

There is no significant benefit to having a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, but lots of side effects.

For an expeditionary capability; to defend the SLOCs in the Indian Ocean, it will make logistics easier for the PLAN.