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

[Vi-va]

The US won't clarify it for you even they know the truth.

Their Ford class is now in huge trouble, and to authenticate Fujian supercarrier it is only going to demoralize their own allies, not beneficial to them at all.

No matter how Fujian is superior with its EMALS, as long it is conventional powered, it is never going to be as threatening/intimidating as a nuclear powered supercarrier.

If Fujian has been officially proven to have nuclear powered propulsion, it is going to be another level.

You seem obsessed with nuclear power carriers.

My points in previous posts are:

1. The control of the sea is no longer dominated by aircraft carriers since many years ago.
2. Conventional power is more cost-efficient than nuclear power.
3. There is no big difference between a nuclear-powered carrier and a conventional one for China, at least at this stage.
4. It's unwise to invest a huge amount of money in a potentially outdated weapon platform.
5. You have witnessed thousands of Russian tanks easily destroyed by hundreds of bucks of drones.

We won't win the future war if our minds stick to the Japanese battleship Yamato for World War II.

The era of aircraft carriers' dominance is fading, just move on, dude.

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.

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.

 

[Vi-va]

@ChineseTiger1986

Oh, by the way,

The USS Kitty Hawks speeds 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour advertised ), but it can run at 38 knots. The Hawks range 14,805 at 20 knots or 7,400 at 30 knots

Kitty Hawks has more than enough power to run, run, run.
http://www.yellowairplane.com/USS_Kitty_Hawk_CV63.htm

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

You seem obsessed with nuclear power carriers.
My points in previous posts are:

1. The control of the sea is no longer dominated by aircraft carriers since many years ago.
2. Conventional power is more cost-efficient than nuclear power.
3. There is no big difference between a nuclear-powered carrier and a conventional one for China, at least at this stage.
4. It's unwise to invest a huge amount of money in a potentially outdated weapon platform.
5. You have witnessed thousands of Russian tanks easily destroyed by drones, which are worth hundreds of bucks.

We won't win the future war if our minds stick to the Japanese battleship Yamato for World War II.

The era of aircraft carriers' dominance is fading, just move on, dude.

If Fujian is truly matched the specification of a conventional powered carrier, I would be totally fine with that.

However, Fujian has clearly a missing puzzle in its propulsion.

The military pundit in CCTV7 has acknowledged that Fujian has gas turbines, and the missing piece should be clearly a small PWR like Linglong one.

Also, I am totally against to build a white elephant like A1B, since the A1B PWR has been proven to be not so effectively playing the EMALS.

China's near future marine nuclear propulsion should be the thorium-based reactor.

Fujian has been proven with far greater range/endurance than any conventional powered carrier, but it can sail over 25 knots for 3 weeks without getting refueled.

I am only fascinating to find the missing puzzle, and I think its propulsion system is more intriguing than a pure pressurized water reactor.

 

[Vi-va]

If Fujian is truly matched the specification of a conventional powered carrier, I would be totally fine with that.

However, Fujian has clearly a missing puzzle in its propulsion.

The military pundit in CCTV7 has acknowledged that Fujian has gas turbines, and the missing piece should be clearly a small PWR like Linglong one.

Also, I am totally against to build a white elephant like A1B, since the A1B PWR has been proven to be not so effectively playing the EMALS.

China's near future marine nuclear propulsion should be the thorium-based reactor.

Fujian has been proven with far greater range/endurance than any conventional powered carrier, but it can sail over 25 knots for 3 weeks without getting refueled.

I am only fascinating to find the missing puzzle, and I think its propulsion system is more intriguing than a pure pressurized water reactor.

I hope you are right, and I will be extremely happy if things prove that you are right.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

@ChineseTiger1986

Oh, by the way,

The USS Kitty Hawks speeds 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour advertised ), but it can run at 38 knots. The Hawks range 14,805 at 20 knots or 7,400 at 30 knots

Kitty Hawks has more than enough power to run, run, run.
http://www.yellowairplane.com/USS_Kitty_Hawk_CV63.htm

First of all, the KH is 20,000 tonnes lighter than Fujian, and it doesn't have the EMALS and AAG, or any of those power consuming super AESA radars.

The KH is not in the same league with Fujian.

And it can only sail 7400 km or 4000 nm with 30 knots.

Fujian has been proven to have nearly unlimited endurance during its second sea trial.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I hope you are right, and I will be extremely happy if things prove that you are right.

Type 003 & 004: small PWR with gas turbines

Type 005 & 006: powerful thorium-based reactors far superior to A1B

I am totally against that China to waste any time & resources to build a useless white elephant like A1B.

However, we are becoming a blue navy, and our aircraft carrier needs greater endurance.

If the thorium-based reactor is not ready yet, then small PWR + gas turbines gonna be the perfect propulsion system for our giant supercarriers.

 

[Vi-va]

First of all, the KH is 20,000 tonnes lighter than Fujian, and it doesn't the EMALS and AAG, or any of those power consuming super AESA radars.

The KH is not in the same league with Fujian.

And it can only sail 7400 km or 4000 nm with 30 knots.

Fujian has been proven to have nearly unlimited endurance during its second sea trial.

EMALS power consumption is not a big deal at all.

Each three-second launch can consume as much as 100 million watts of electricity. That's 100 kWh.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

EMALS power consumption is not a big deal at all.

Each three-second launch can consume as much as 100 million watts of electricity. That's 100 kWh.

It is going to become a big deal if you wanna perform 200 sorties per day during the wartime.

Not mentioning those super power-consuming AESA radars that needs to be activated daily during the wartime.

The KH is an obsolete design of carrier that cannot meet the demand of Fujian.

 

[Vi-va]

Type 003 & 004: small PWR with gas turbines

Type 005 & 006: powerful thorium-based reactors far superior to A1B

I am totally against that China to waste any time & resources to build a useless white elephant like A1B.

However, we are becoming a blue navy, and our aircraft carrier needs greater endurance.

If the thorium-based reactor is not ready yet, then small PWR + gas turbines gonna be the perfect propulsion system for our giant supercarriers.

I am a realist.

Your preferred powerful nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are docking within the first island chain.

It means that your rivals are only hundreds of kilometers away from your carriers, and they can launch hundreds of anti-ship missiles at any time, such as LRASM or hypersonic missiles.

America's Strategy in World Politics​

Nicholas John Spykman

https://singlelogin.re/book/21466296/2956e1/americas-strategy-in-world-politics.html

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I am a realist.

Your preferred powerful nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are docking within the first island chain.

It means that your rivals are only hundreds of kilometers away from your carriers, and they can launch hundreds of anti-ship missiles at any time, such as LRASM or hypersonic missiles.

America's Strategy in World Politics​

Nicholas John Spykman
View attachment 53442

https://singlelogin.re/book/21466296/2956e1/americas-strategy-in-world-politics.html

The supercarrier is to project our influence that following our maritime routes.

If you wanna name the best weapons for the duel within the first/second/third island chain, the hypersonic missile gonna be the ideal weapon.

A 100,000 tonnes conventional carrier gonna be a gas guzzler with reduced efficiency.

A 100,000 tonnes hybrid carrier like Fujian gonna greatly relieve the stress of our logistic replenishment.

A hybrid carrier possesses the greater endurance of a nuclear powered carrier, yet it also possesses greater flexibility than a nuclear powered carrier when it comes to electricity conversion.

Fujian is simply a masterpiece with state of art technology as its flexibility & attendance is far greater than any known nuclear/conventional carrier by performing 3 major sea trials within 2 months.

 

[Vi-va]

It is going to become a big deal if you wanna perform 200 sorties per day during the wartime.

Not mentioning those super power-consuming AESA radars that needs to be activated daily during the wartime.

The KH is an obsolete design of carrier that cannot meet the demand of Fujian.

The A1B reactors are likely to produce enough steam to generate 125 megawatts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor

Each three-second launch can consume as much as 100 million watts of electricity. That's 100 kWh.

So what's the big deal, bro? 200 sorties cost the AIB reactor 160 seconds to generate the power.

You dare not keep your super carriers AESA radars activated daily during the wartime. You will be an easy target.

The AESA of destroyers and cruisers are activated instead.

It seems you have some misunderstanding of sea warfare.

EMALS power consumption is not a big deal at all.

Each three-second launch can consume as much as 100 million watts of electricity. That's 100 kWh.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The A1B reactors are likely to produce enough steam to generate 125 megawatts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor

Each three-second launch can consume as much as 100 million watts of electricity. That's 100 kWh.

So what's the big deal, bro? 200 sorties cost the AIB reactor 160 seconds to generate the power.

You dare not keep your super carriers AESA radars activated daily during the wartime. You will be an easy target.

The AESA of destroyers and cruisers are activated instead.

It seems you have some misunderstanding of sea warfare.

On the paper, the A1B looks fine to power the Ford class with its full equipment.

However, in the real life, it is another story.

I think Fujian will be proven to be superior to the Ford class, even in the endurance/range department, Fujian will not be far behind.

I think we will soon witness that.

Fujian has already been proven to sail over 20000 km with high speed without getting refueled.

It is without any doubt a supercarrier with long ranged strike capability within a global reach.

 

[Harbyharb]

If Fujian is truly matched the specification of a conventional powered carrier, I would be totally fine with that.

However, Fujian has clearly a missing puzzle in its propulsion.

The military pundit in CCTV7 has acknowledged that Fujian has gas turbines, and the missing piece should be clearly a small PWR like Linglong one.

Also, I am totally against to build a white elephant like A1B, since the A1B PWR has been proven to be not so effectively playing the EMALS.

China's near future marine nuclear propulsion should be the thorium-based reactor.

Fujian has been proven with far greater range/endurance than any conventional powered carrier, but it can sail over 25 knots for 3 weeks without getting refueled.

I am only fascinating to find the missing puzzle, and I think its propulsion system is more intriguing than a pure pressurized water reactor.

There's zero reason to employ a hybrid powerplant layout unless your nuclear reactors are so unreliable that you need a conventional backup like the Pr 1144 cruisers.

Having a conventional powerplant that requires its own smokestacks greatly enlarges the bridge and significantly limits the placement of the superstructure, one of the greatest negative contributing factors against the quest for greater sortie rates and overall aviation efficiency, something that the Fujian is already struggling due to unexpected elongation of the catapult infringing into the staging area, and the employment of oversized T-10K derived platforms for the foreseeable future.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

There's zero reason to employ a hybrid powerplant layout unless your nuclear reactors are so unreliable that you need a conventional backup like the Pr 1144 cruisers.

Having a conventional powerplant that requires its own smokestacks greatly enlarges the bridge and significantly limits the placement of the superstructure, one of the greatest negative contributing factors against the quest for greater sortie rates and overall aviation efficiency, something that the Fujian is already struggling due to unexpected elongation of the catapult infringing into the staging area, and the employment of oversized T-10K derived platforms for the foreseeable future.

The PWR of Fujian is small compared to the A1B; 385 MW vs 700 MW.

All 80,000+ tons nuclear supercarrier needs its total output above 1000 MW.

Ford: 2 X 700 MW = 1400 MW

Nimitz: 2 X 550 MW = 1100 MW

Enterprise: 8 X 150 MW = 1200 MW

Ulyanovsk: 4 X 300 MW = 1200 MW

Fujian: 2 X 385 MW = 770 MW

Dual PWR has been proven with greater efficiency than 8 or 4 as the Ford/Nimitz have proven to be more successful than Enterprise or Ulyanovsk.

The hybrid propulsion works when your PWR is not powerful enough, in the meantime, you need to acquire the unlimited endurance/range.

2 X 385 MW PWR + gas turbines work better than 4 X 385 MW PWR.

China has already submitted a patent to prove that back in 2016.

US10378389B2 - Gas turbine and pressurized water reactor steam turbine combined circulation system - Google Patents

Disclosed is a gas turbine and pressurized water reactor steam turbine combined circulation system, using a heavy duty gas turbine and a pressurized water reactor steam turbine to form a combined circulation system. Heat of the tail gas of the gas turbine is utilized to raise the temperature of...

patents.google.com

 

[Vi-va]

The supercarrier is to project our influence that following our maritime routes.

If you wanna name the best weapons for the duel within the first/second/third island chain, the hypersonic missile gonna be the ideal weapon.

A 100,000 tonnes conventional carrier gonna be a gas guzzler with reduced efficiency.

A 100,000 tonnes hybrid carrier like Fujian gonna greatly relieve the stress of our logistic replenishment.

A hybrid carrier possesses the greater endurance of a nuclear powered carrier, yet it also possesses greater flexibility than a nuclear powered carrier when it comes to electricity conversion.

Fujian is simply a masterpiece with state of art technology as its flexibility & attendance is far greater than any known nuclear/conventional carrier by performing 3 major sea trials within 2 months.

I totally disagree.

Hypersonic or whatever missiles are very expensive. They are just part of the war machine. You can't win a damn world war against another superpower and it's allies by using thousands of missiles.

Your rivals are not some tiny country that can be destroyed in a short period of assault. The war will last a very long time until one is completely exhausted.

Your preferred powerful nuclear-powered carriers will be destroyed in the first week, or maybe the first day, if you are taking another superpower that is within hundreds of kilometers on the first island chain.

I have emphasized multiple times that carriers are outdated platforms for sea control. It's useful to deter some smaller countries that are far away from China.

I think we should learn how to win a war first instead of focusing on specific weapons. I believe that the histories of World War I, World War II, and the Ukraine War are useful resources.

I am going to bed.