CV-18 Fujian - Type 003 Aircraft Carrier News & Discussions

[samsara]

Ähhhm ... From Type 001 to Type 003 I count only 001, 002 & 003 to three?! So how do they come to 4?

The article assumed that 003 would be repeated (once) so the fourth carrier would remain be 003.

It's mentioned in the lines you quoted above, it should have set its wording more explicit

"From type 001 to type 003, China would have 4 aircraft carriers in 2025. In 2025, it is estimated that China's fourth aircraft carrier type 003 will be launched into service. By then, China will have at least 4 aircraft carriers."

 

[vi-va]

Even if we are off-topic again (sorry since I'm guilty for that!) the PLA declassified IMO nothing. And concerning CD, may I ask what you mean with CD forum? I have the feeling that we both speak of different CD-forums (http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php#1)?

https://lt.cjdby.net/

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

If that's confirmed in next 2 years, I need a whole box of beer.

I think nuclear or not, has nothing to do with tonnage. Conventional propulsion can generate as much power as nuclear, but it will waste a lot of space and tonnage for fuel, as well as venting.

I was banned from CD many years ago. Never want to register this $hitty forum again.
I hate CD, most mods in CD are just retard, especially in aviation sub forum.

A conventional powered carrier over 80,000 tons is surely going to be a gas guzzler, especially China got very few military bases around the world.

 

[vi-va]

A conventional powered carrier over 80,000 tons is surely going to be a gas guzzler, especially China got very few military bases around the world.

gas operational fee will be sky high. boiling water with heavy oil is possible. Just like Liaoning and shandong

 

[Figaro]

gas operational fee will be sky high. boiling water with heavy oil is possible. Just like Liaoning and shandong

Very non efficient compared with a nuclear powered carrier ... IMHO it would not make sense using conventional propulsion for a carrier the size of the 003.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

gas operational fee will be sky high. boiling water with heavy oil is possible. Just like Liaoning and shandong

The boilers are outdated technology, and it has never propelled any aircraft carrier that displaced over 80,000 tonnes.

And the aircraft carrier with gas turbines has never gone anything beyond 65,000 tonnes.

The most risk averse way is going through nuclear propulsion.

 

[vi-va]

The boilers are outdated technology, and it has never propelled any aircraft carrier that displaced over 80,000 tonnes.

And the aircraft carrier with gas turbines has never gone anything beyond 65,000 tonnes.

The most risk averse way is going through nuclear propulsion.

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.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Boilers are not outdated technology, it can power any tonnage you want. Just take more space for fuel and venting.

Boilers are have also cons, they give big IR signature and also have Big RCS and slower than gas turbine/Nuclear reactors

 

[shanlung]

A conventional powered carrier over 80,000 tons is surely going to be a gas guzzler, especially China got very few military bases around the world.

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.

Unless they want to go to 4th Island Chain and Frisco Bay to do Chinese FONOP in Frisco Bay itself

 

[vi-va]

Boilers are have also cons, they give big IR signature and also have Big RCS and slower than gas turbine/Nuclear reactors

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.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

gas operation fee is not affordable. Fuel consumption is rocket high.

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.

 

[vi-va]

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.

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.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

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

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.

 

[LKJ86]

Via @老王RR涡扇花动机 from Weibo

 

[samsara]

View attachment 693386
Via @老王RR涡扇花动机 from Weibo


View attachment 693388

Would someone do a favor and put a rectangular box around the carrier's boundary to have an unmistaken look...

It happened that our fellow member here @lcloo already did and shared it at SDF.