What's new

Type 00X/003 (former Type 002) Aircraft Carrier News & Discussions

ChineseTiger1986

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 27, 2010
23,003
11
40,822
Country
China
Location
Canada
Are Chinese carriers required to go all over the world like Murica carriers?

I thought the furthest Chinese carriers need to go to will be to 3rd Island Chain in a real time warfare.

Unless they want to go to 4th Island Chain and Frisco Bay to do Chinese FONOP in Frisco Bay itself
:D :cheers:
China's DF-26/DF-27 can easily destroy the 2nd/3rd Island Chain in a real time warfare.

The revelation of the Type 003 is like a psychological warfare like @hirobo2 said, it is about to demonstrate China's technological superiority over the US.

China never built any ship power by nuclear larger than 15000 tons. I highly doubt they will do that in such a hurry.
I hope 003 is nuclear powered, and I hope technology is mature, which means there was other big ships powered by nuclear but we just don't know.
Boilers are not outdated technology, it can power any tonnage you want. Just take more space for fuel and venting.
The Type 002 is the latest aircraft carrier with boilers, and I don't think the PLAN is very satisfied with it.

Also, the boilers used by the Type 002 are actually inferior to the ones used by the Kitty Hawk class, and it would have struggled to power a CATOBAR carrier of the same size as the Type 002.

boiler isn't so bad. remember Kitty Hawk was steam boiler, has 20k tons less displacement (80k) than Nimitz (100k), but only carries 10-15 less aircraft. also, boiler can use cheap bunker fuel like tankers and freighters in order to share cost.

much of that extra tonnage is for shielding and containment requirements. boilers don't have the rigorous shielding and containment requirements.
The earliest Nimitz class carriers actually weigh about 88k, and only the latest version has approached 100k.

Right now the Type 003 is undoubtedly heavier than the Nimitz class, and I don't know how they can suddenly pull out a super boiler that is more powerful than the one used by the Kitty Hawk class without any single trace of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Oct 29, 2020
1,424
0
731
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
gas operation fee is not affordable. Fuel consumption is rocket high. Let's say 50 years of operation, it will cost 2 times of nuclear reactor. China definitely will choose nuclear over gas.

While boiler cost will be something similar to nuclear.

Boiler definitely has cons and pros. China can rent Gwadar of Pakistan to refuel 003, or some other friendly countries. Pakistanis won't worry about nuclear leakage. It's less sensitive as well. While nuclear need very special equipment and infrastructure for maintenance.

Also if China doesn't use carriers as much as US, most of time the fuel consumption is zero. While nuclear reactor cost will be the same no matter you use it or not.

If nuclear reactor is not mature, China will have no choice but boiler. A boiler carrier is 100 times better than no carrier.
Its Power to weight ratio is worst among all and tell me than why all navies of the world are not using boilers in their Aircraft carriers its outdated technology and its has more cons than pros and also takes lots of space
 

FairAndUnbiased

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 25, 2011
7,204
0
10,670
Country
China
Location
United States
Also if there is any damage during the war, boiler is much easier to fix compare with nuclear.
nuclear reactor is not possible to be fixed at all.
yep, boiler is an interchangable machine component that can be mass produced and replacable, nuclear is essentially custom made and is completely integrated with the hull.

the other thing is, with China's innovations in coal liquefaction and carbon dioxide reduction, soon even having to use petroleum fuel would not be such a big constraint.

in reality, a CBG still need a ton of oil even with nuclear carrier because the destroyers still need oil. the biggest constraint is for subs which care far more about underwater endurance.
The Type 002 is the latest aircraft carrier with boilers, and I don't think the PLAN is very satisfied with it.

Also, the boilers used by the Type 002 are actually inferior to the ones used by the Kitty Hawk class, and it would have struggled to power a CATOBAR carrier of the same size as the Type 002.


The earliest Nimitz class carriers actually weigh about 88k, and only the latest version has approached 100k.

Right now the Type 003 is undoubtedly heavier than the Nimitz class, and I don't know how they can suddenly pull out a super boiler that is more powerful than the one used by the Kitty Hawk class without any single trace of evidence.
But there's also no evidence for a reactor 5x more powerful than China's sub reactors, and you can't just stack small reactors, as France found out for De Gaulle.
 

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
4,576
-1
10,938
Country
China
Location
United States
Just google the ACP100.

It is widely believed that the military version of the ACP100 will be used to power the Type 003.
If that's true, the military version will replace the fuel from 4.35% 235u enrichment to something like 97.3 %. The refueling will be like 20-50 years.

1607226633542.png


1607226705023.png







 

CIA Mole

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2019
1,097
-2
953
Country
United States
Location
Pakistan
Are the internals on each module pretty much complete before finally assembly? And they just need to connect the pipes and wires and stuff?
 

ChineseTiger1986

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 27, 2010
23,003
11
40,822
Country
China
Location
Canada
If that's true, the military version will replace the fuel from 4.35% 235u enrichment to something like 97.3 %. The refueling will be like 20-50 years.

View attachment 693573

View attachment 693574






I think so, since China most likely has developed the military version first, then later derived the civilian version from it with lower enrichment and cost.

That's the routine, it should always be the military one first, then nurturing the civilian one.

Are the internals on each module pretty much complete before finally assembly? And they just need to connect the pipes and wires and stuff?
The modules from the waterline part is the most complicated to weld, because here is where the safety measurement needs the most.

I think in next month they will start to put the modules of the flight deck above the waterline.
 
Last edited:

samsara

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 28, 2016
2,636
8
7,702
Country
Lao Peoples Democratic Republic
Location
China
It looks like @ChineseTiger1986 starts to garner some strong support from his beloved CD :p: a very good sign that he may be proved as correct in his many rather visionary standings... perhaps at some time later

btw those in CD seemed to read my earlier plea for some marking on those distant / aerial / sat. grainy pics :P
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 3, Members: 0, Guests: 3)


Top Bottom