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

[Vi-va]

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

as I explained above, not exactly true imo.

 

[FuturePAF]

as I explained above, not exactly true imo.

Sailing around, you are correct, not much benefit, but for flight ops, imo, the ship will have more free space (due to not having to carry fuel for its own engines) to carry more aviation fuel and parts for its air wings, meaning more sorties per deployment of the carrier, especially if it is deployed further afield.

 

[Vi-va]

Sailing around, you are correct, not much benefit, but for flight ops, imo, the ship will have more free space (due to not having to carry fuel for its own engines) to carry more aviation fuel and parts for its air wings, meaning more sorties per deployment of the carrier, especially if it is deployed further afield.

The USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) aircraft carrier has a fuel capacity of 7,600,000 liters

It's around 7,000 tons of fuel.

https://www.kittyhawkvets.com/ship-awards.html

The USS Kitty Hawks speeds 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour advertised ), but I've seen 38 knots on our inertial navigation system. The Hawks range 14,805 at 20 knots or 7,400 at 30 knots
http://www.yellowairplane.com/USS_Kitty_Hawk_CV63.htm

So 7,000 tons of fuel for 7,400 miles, not bad at all. 7,000 tons of fuel cost less than 5 million USD.

https://shipandbunker.com/prices/apac/sea/sg-sin-singapore
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/editorcharts/OIL-SHIPPING/0H001QXRHB2C/index.html

I found articles that claim Bechtel A1B PWR nuclear reactors cost 1 billion–2 billion, but I haven't found the source to back the claim.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348839

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cost-of-a-new-U-S-naval-nuclear-reactor

But think 1 billion at least.

https://www.bwxt.com/news/2022/02/2...n-in-Naval-Nuclear-Propulsion-Program-Options

https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/naval-reactor-components-to-be-made-in-mount-vernon

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c

• From a cost perspective, nuclear powered aircraft carriers cost more over their entire life span, not to mention the cost of decommissioning the reactors.
• Also, it's harder to get naval bases from friendly countries for nuclear carriers than conventional ones.

As I said above, my conclusion is that nuclear powered aircraft carriers are low priority at this stage.

 

[FuturePAF]

The USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) aircraft carrier has a fuel capacity of 7,600,000 liters

It's around 7,000 tons of fuel.

View attachment 53404

https://www.kittyhawkvets.com/ship-awards.html

The USS Kitty Hawks speeds 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour advertised ), but I've seen 38 knots on our inertial navigation system. The Hawks range 14,805 at 20 knots or 7,400 at 30 knots
http://www.yellowairplane.com/USS_Kitty_Hawk_CV63.htm

So 7,000 tons of fuel for 7,400 miles, not bad at all. 7,000 tons of fuel cost less than 5 million USD.

https://shipandbunker.com/prices/apac/sea/sg-sin-singapore
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/editorcharts/OIL-SHIPPING/0H001QXRHB2C/index.html

I found articles that claim Bechtel A1B PWR nuclear reactors cost 1 billion–2 billion, but I haven't found the source to back the claim.
View attachment 53406
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348839

View attachment 53407
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cost-of-a-new-U-S-naval-nuclear-reactor

But think 1 billion at least.

https://www.bwxt.com/news/2022/02/2...n-in-Naval-Nuclear-Propulsion-Program-Options

https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/naval-reactor-components-to-be-made-in-mount-vernon

View attachment 53408

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c

• From a cost perspective, nuclear powered aircraft carriers cost more over their entire life span, not to mention the cost of decommissioning the reactors.
• Also, it's harder to get naval bases from friendly countries for nuclear carriers than conventional ones.

As I said above, my conclusion is that nuclear powered aircraft carriers are low priority at this stage.

I agree, it probably is a low priority at the moment. China doesn’t seem like it’s in a rush to maximize sortie rates. Technically all three carriers are experimental/training and the carrier force of the PLAN is still in its relative formative years.

 

[Vi-va]

I agree, it probably is a low priority at the moment. China doesn’t seem like it’s in a rush to maximize sortie rates. Technically all three carriers are experimental and the carrier force of the PLAN is still in its relative formative years.

The control of the sea is no longer dominated by aircraft carriers since many years ago.

It's kind of like building Japanese battleship Yamato for World War II or buying Nokia's so-called "Smart Phone" after the iPhone was released in 2007.

Aircraft carriers are relatively important for projecting power to deter smaller nations, but they will be more and more fragile in the potential war among great powers in the coming decades.

That's my understanding of why China is in no hurry to build nuclear-powered carriers.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

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

A1B: 700 MW thermal output generated 125 MW of electricity

A4W: 550 MW thermal output generated 100 MW of electricity

Linglong one: 385 MW thermal output generated 125 MW of electricity

Fujian has two Linglong one PWR + gas turbines.

 

[Vi-va]

A1B: 700 MW thermal output generated 125 MW of electricity

A4W: 550 MW thermal output generated 100 MW of electricity

Linglong one: 385 MW thermal output generated 125 MW of electricity

Fujian has two Linglong one PWR + gas turbines.

You claimed Fujian is nuclear powered for many years, w/o a solid proof.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

You claimed Fujian is nuclear powered for many years, w/o a solid proof.

China has downplayed Fujian a bit in order to not drive the US nuts.

Fujian is a hybrid carrier that I claimed since 2 years ago, and the proof is substantial, but most people are not aware.

The next-gen carrier will be a thorium-based nuclear carrier, and we will build first nuclear cargo ship as the test platform.

China reveals molten-salt nuclear reactor-driven 24,000-TEU box ship design

China State Shipbuilding Corporation’s Jiangnan Shipyards has unveiled the box ship design at Marintec China in Shanghai

www.rivieramm.com

 

[Vi-va]

China has downplayed Fujian a bit in order to not drive the US nuts.

Fujian is a hybrid carrier that I claimed since 2 years ago, and there a lot of proofs, but most people are not aware.

The next-gen carrier will be a thorium-based nuclear carrier, and we will build first nuclear cargo ship as the test platform.

China reveals molten-salt nuclear reactor-driven 24,000-TEU box ship design

China State Shipbuilding Corporation’s Jiangnan Shipyards has unveiled the box ship design at Marintec China in Shanghai

www.rivieramm.com

All commercial reactors.

Thorium-based nuclear reactor is far from maturity.

Linglong one is designed for commercial design, refueling period is 2 years.

https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/INPR...-Technique Features and Progress in China.pdf

I fully believe there is no technical obstacle for China to build a nuclear power reactor on the aircraft carriers.

The question is, do we need one now?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

All commercial reactors.

Thorium-based nuclear reactor is far from maturity.

Linglong one is designed for commercial design, refueling period is 2 years.

View attachment 53412

https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/INPRO/df13/Presentations/011_CNNC's ACP100 SMR-Technique Features and Progress in China.pdf

I fully believe there is no technical obstacle for China to build a nuclear power reactor on the aircraft carriers.

The question is, do we need one now?

Of course, we need Linglong one AKA ACP100, and the one needs to be refueled every 2 years is the commercial one, while the commercial one derived from the military one.

Fujian has the military version of the Linglong one PWR.

Otherwise, the conventional boilers don't have enough power to propel Fujian.

The Fujian's real displacement is 100,000 tonnes full load, and no pure conventional propulsion can power this monster.

Fujian and its sister ship will use PWR + gas turbine.

CVN-20 and CVN-21 will use thorium-based reactors, but this will be moving after 2030.

 

[Hendarto]

I agree, it probably is a low priority at the moment. China doesn’t seem like it’s in a rush to maximize sortie rates. Technically all three carriers are experimental/training and the carrier force of the PLAN is still in its relative formative years.

I'm afraid I have to disagree they have more than a decade under their belt. The only thing they haven't done so far is a high sortie rate But that is coming with Fujian!

 

[FuturePAF]

I'm afraid I have to disagree they have more than a decade under their belt. The only thing they haven't done so far is a high sortie rate But that is coming with Fujian!

We’ll see how many sorties they can generate, and probably from that we will see the design improved from the experience with the type 003, and realized in the Type 004. It will then become more apparent if a nuclear reactor is needed, despite the high cost.

We have to remember that China will be building dozens of reactors to power its SSNs and SSBNs, so the cost of a couple reactors per carrier will be amortized over the total reactor program.

 

[Hendarto]

We’ll see how many sorties they can generate, and probably from that we will see the design improved from the experience with the type 003, and realized in the Type 004. It will then become more apparent if a nuclear reactor is needed, despite the high cost.

We have to remember that China will be building dozens of reactors to power its SSNs and SSBNs, so the cost of a couple reactors per carrier will be amortized over the total reactor program.

Nuclear AC is not needed the territory that China is interested in is 2nd island Chain maybe the South China Sea as far as the Malacca strait Conventional carriers will do See French has a problem with their nuclear carrier. You need reliability, availability, and easy and cheap maintenance. Carrier is not some kind of bragging right as to who has the biggest ?

France's aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, has faced a number of issues over the years, including:

• Electrical faults
  In 2010, a four-month cruise was cut short to a single day due to an electrical fault in the ship's propulsion system.
• Maintenance
  The French Navy can't afford to keep the carrier deployed for as long as the US Navy because long deployments require long maintenance periods. This can be a problem if a crisis occurs during that time.
• Crew
  The French Navy only has one carrier, so the ship's company is largely unable to move between ships once they're trained.
• Cost
  The French Navy finds it expensive to keep the carrier running.
• In 2017, the Charles de Gaulle underwent an 18-month midlife upgrade and refit, which included refueling the nuclear reactor, completing standard maintenance, and modernizing the ship's combat system. In April 2024, the carrier resumed operations after interim maintenance and deployed under NATO command for the first time.
  

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

We’ll see how many sorties they can generate, and probably from that we will see the design improved from the experience with the type 003, and realized in the Type 004. It will then become more apparent if a nuclear reactor is needed, despite the high cost.

We have to remember that China will be building dozens of reactors to power its SSNs and SSBNs, so the cost of a couple reactors per carrier will be amortized over the total reactor program.

The PWR is obsolete, and China doesn't want to spend a lot of time and resources to build a white elephant like the A1B.

We have to focus on the superior thorium-based reactor, and it will be available after 2030.

However, to power a huge supercarrier like Fujian, the nuclear reactor is also indispensable.

That's why China has used the hybrid propulsion with smaller PWR like Linglong one + gas turbines to power Type 003 and Type 004.

The Type 005 and Type 006 will use the next-gen thorium-based reactor, and it will not be available before 2030.

 

[FuturePAF]

The PWR is obsolete, and China doesn't want to spend a lot of time and resources to build a white elephant like the A1B.

We have to focus on the superior thorium-based reactor, and it will be available after 2030.

However, to power a huge supercarrier like Fujian, the nuclear reactor is also indispensable.

That's why China has used the hybrid propulsion with smaller PWR like Linglong one + gas turbines to power Type 003 and Type 004.

The Type 005 and Type 006 will use the next-gen thorium-based reactor, and it will not be available before 2030.

It does seem likely Type 004 will be conventionally powered, if only to have enough ships to build up the force to be available and reliable.

It will give more time to get the reactor they want fully ready. Therefore Type 005 will be another experimental ship, but the Type 006 will be the full design CVN, by then, China will be ready to go all the way to the Persian gulf with a carrier and manage its SLOCs in force, by 2035-2040.