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

[Vi-va]

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.

Thanks man. Some reasonable analysis comes finally.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

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I have emphasized multiple times that carriers are outdated platforms for sea control.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.

The hot war between China & US will only be a nuclear one, all conventional weapons will be sitting duck.

We are in an arm race with the US, and of course, we have to develop better conventional weapons to show to the world that we are going to win this arm race.

Most countries in the world would feel safer to trade with us.

 

[Harbyharb]

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.

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.

I agree that the Fujian is PLAN's magnum opus for it marked the successful integration of most of the next-gen subsystems that we would see on all PLAN carriers for a significant part of this century, but it would not be the best carrier that the world has seen, nor the best carrier that the PLAN would employ in the decades to come.

In terms of deducted sortie efficiency considering the staging area layout, location of refuelling and rearmament stations, and the size of the T-10K family, the Fujian is more comparable than the USS Forrestal, most likely slightly less efficient than Kitty Hawk (just in terms of sortie rate), and certainly below Nimitz and Ford. If the PLAN truly wishes to build a carrier that would exceed the Ford, I hope they would strive for even greater heights and employ even more ambitious designs. Keep in mind that the USS Ford we see today is but the least ambitious among the designs produced by the CVNX program, with more performant and innovative options denied by either budgetary or infrastructure limitations.

If the PLAN truly want "better conventional weapons" that goes beyond, perhaps they would revive designs like the ECBL when they build the 005/006 carriers.

 

[Vi-va]

The hot war between China & US will only be a nuclear one, all conventional weapons will be sitting duck.

We are in an arm race with the US, and of course, we have to develop better conventional weapons to show to the world that we are going to win this arm race.

Most countries in the world would be safer to trade with us.

Being a realist is very important for you.

No other country will be on our side if we can't win the war. On the other hand, the U.S. has multiple allies around the world.

That makes a big difference since you don't want to face a two-front war or even a three-front war.

Our geography and our neighbors shape our foreign policy and security strategy.

You can't win the war by a pure arms race in a nuclear weapon era.

Clearly, China adopted a much smarter strategy than the Soviet Union.

I would learn from the failure of the Soviets before jumping into a risky Arms Race.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I agree that the Fujian is PLAN's magnum opus for it marked the successful integration of most of the next-gen subsystems that we would see on all PLAN carriers for a significant part of this century, but it would not be the best carrier that the world has seen, nor the best carrier that the PLAN would employ in the decades to come.

In terms of deducted sortie efficiency considering the staging area layout, location of refuelling and rearmament stations, and the size of the T-10K family, the Fujian is more comparable than the USS Forrestal, most likely slightly less efficient than Kitty Hawk (just in terms of sortie rate), and certainly below Nimitz and Ford. If the PLAN truly wishes to build a carrier that would exceed the Ford, I hope they would strive for even greater heights and employ even more ambitious designs. Keep in mind that the USS Ford we see today is but the least ambitious among the designs produced by the CVNX program, with more performant and innovative options denied by either budgetary or infrastructure limitations.

If the PLAN truly want "better conventional weapons" that goes beyond, perhaps they would revive designs like the ECBL when they build the 005/006 carriers.

The Forrestal & KH were old relics of early era of the Cold War.

I don't know why people keep comparing them with a super modern carrier like Fujian, just because they all belong to 320 meters length?

I have already proven with correct formula that Fujian outweighs KH by 20K tons, and Forrestal by 25K tons.

Fujian's 3 catapults are by far more efficient than any steam catapult, even the EMALS of the Ford is no match for Fujian's EMALS.

With the reliabity of Fujian's EMALS, it can easily perform 160-200 sorties during the operational time.

The only shortcoming for Fujian is the flight deck is a bit short for its top notch tonnage, because it was originally modified/upgraded from a 80,000 tons conventional carrier with steam catapult.

Time will tell Fujian's real performance.

So far it has unprecedentedly performed 3 sea trials within 2 months, and never saw other nuclear/conventional carriers achieved this feat.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Being a realist is very important for you.

No other country will be on our side if we can't win the war. On the other hand, the U.S. has multiple allies around the world.

That makes a big difference since you don't want to face a two-front war or even a three-front war.

Our geography and our neighbors shape our foreign policy and security strategy.

You can't win the war by a pure arms race in a nuclear weapon era.

Clearly, China adopted a much smarter strategy than the Soviet Union.

I would learn from the failure of the Soviets before jumping into a risky Arms Race.

I don't know why you keep contradicting yourself.

I said that a hot war is very unlikey happened between China and the US, because the only outcome will turn into a nuclear war.

So the new cold war/arm race is the only possibility for this rivalry.

So we have more reason to build superior weapons/technologies compared to the US to make sure that most country in the world will feel safer to trade with us, not to succumb to the US coercion that tried to isolate us.

Also, don't compare us to USSR, we have by far more superior industrial power, and even the US is no match for us.

The US can only fudge their fake bloated GDP number to make them appear bigger, but when it comes to the real industrial might, they are actually 1/3 to 1/4 of our power.

Time is on our side.

 

[BP2]

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.

View attachment 53235

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

A classical carrier has to refuel far more often than a nuclear one. Nearly twice more or a little bit more.

 

[BP2]

the EMALS of the Ford is no match for Fujian's EMALS.

source? evidence?

 

[Harbyharb]

The Forrestal & KH were old relics of early era of the Cold War.

I don't know why people keep comparing them with a super modern carrier like Fujian, just because they all belong to 320 meters length?

I have already proven with correct formula that Fujian outweighs KH by 20K tons, and Forrestal by 25K tons.

Fujian's 3 catapults are by far more efficient than any steam catapult, even the EMALS of the Ford is no match for Fujian's EMALS.

With the reliabity of Fujian's EMALS, it can easily perform 160-200 sorties during the operational time.

The only shortcoming for Fujian is the flight deck is a bit short for its top notch tonnage, because it was originally modified/upgraded from a 80,000 tons conventional carrier with steam catapult.

Time will tell Fujian's real performance.

So far it has unprecedentedly performed 3 sea trials within 2 months, and never saw other nuclear/conventional carriers achieved this feat.

Because Fujian and Forrestal have a comparable available key deck area for effective continuous sortie, aka the "triangle zone".

Left to right: 003, Forrestal, Kitty Hawk.

I have no doubt that the subsystems of Fujian are superior to that of the Forrestal, but advanced EMALS catapults does not magically make your deck larger, permit more flights to stage and arm simultaneously, and circulating carrier aviation across decks quicker.

 

[Vi-va]

A classical carrier has to refuel far more often than a nuclear one. Nearly twice more or a little bit more.

So, what's a big deal? As I said earlier, it only costs several millions to refuel the carrier.

From a cost perspective, it's fine. China's carrier will not go to the Western Hemisphere at this stage. The Indian Ocean is not far from China.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

source? evidence?

Ford's EMALS was rushed, and it is not so reliable as most people expected.

The second ship of the Ford class is also building with a snail speed.

Sorry France, you may eventually beg China for the EMALS technology for your PANG carrier.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Because Fujian and Forrestal have a comparable available key deck area for effective continuous sortie, aka the "triangle zone".

View attachment 53501
Left to right: 003, Forrestal, Kitty Hawk.

I have no doubt that the subsystems of Fujian are superior to that of the Forrestal, but advanced EMALS catapults does not magically make your deck larger, permit more flights to stage and arm simultaneously, and circulating carrier aviation across decks quicker.

China has developed the steam catapult with the performance close to C-13, but it got destroyed by China's EMALS in a contest of launching aircraft.

KH and Forrestal's steam catapults would require to desalinate huge amount of saltwater into fresh water to power its steam catapult, and its cruising speed will also be affected with each batch of sorties.

The EMALS has unparalleled leverage compared to the steam catapult.

 

[Vi-va]

China has developed the steam catapult with the performance close to C-13, but it got destroyed by China's EMALS in a contest of launching aircraft.

KH and Forrestal's steam catapults would require to desalinate huge amount of saltwater into fresh water to power its steam catapult, and its cruising speed will also be affected with each batch of sorties.

The EMALS has unparalleled leverage compared to the steam catapult.

Type 003 EMALS likely will operate much more smoothly than problematic Ford.

China's technology and industry in related fields are more advanced and mature.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Type 003 EMALS likely will operate much more smoothly than problematic Ford.

China's technology and industry in related fields are more advanced and mature.

That's why I believe Fujian's hybrid propulsion (PWR + steam turbines + gas turbines) is so far the best model to power the EMALS, far more efficient than PWR + steam turbines.

You don't want to believe it, that's fine, and time will tell everything.

The model of China's next-gen CVN will focus on thorium-based reactor + CO2 generators.

Our supply chain will be 100% dedicated to build thorium-based nuclear ships for both civilian and military purpose.

China has revealed 'world's largest' nuclear-powered container ship

The KUN-24AP, presented by Jiangnan Shipyard at the Marintec China 2023 exhibition in Shanghai, is poised to be the largest container ship ever built, boasting a load capacity of 24,000 standard containers.

interestingengineering.com

 

[Vi-va]

That's why I believe Fujian's hybrid propulsion (PWR + steam turbines + gas turbines) is so far the best model to power the EMALS, far more efficient than PWR + steam turbines.

You don't want to believe it, that's fine, and time will tell everything.

The model of China's next-gen CVN will focus on thorium-based reactor + CO2 generators.

Our supply chain will be 100% dedicated to build thorium-based nuclear ships for both civilian and military purpose.

China has revealed 'world's largest' nuclear-powered container ship

The KUN-24AP, presented by Jiangnan Shipyard at the Marintec China 2023 exhibition in Shanghai, is poised to be the largest container ship ever built, boasting a load capacity of 24,000 standard containers.

interestingengineering.com

I am not convinced yet, but more than happy to see it come true.