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

[White and Green with M/S]

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is worst among all and tell me than why all navies of the world are not using boilers in their Aircraft carriers its outdated technology and its has more cons than pros and also takes lots of space

 

[Deino]

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.

View attachment 693414

Impressive. By the way, any info on up to which deck it is already constructed and how many more deck levels will be added?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Impressive. By the way, any info on up to which deck it is already constructed and how many more deck levels will be added?

Maybe only one more layer?

 

[Deino]

Maybe only one more layer?


View attachment 693525

View attachment 693526

And that layer equals 4 or 5 decks?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

And that layer equals 4 or 5 decks?

Maybe it should be 4-5 layers in that deck?

It looks like they are about to seal the propulsion compartment with the current level of the hull.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

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.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

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.

Just google the ACP100.

It is widely believed that the military version of the ACP100 will be used to power the Type 003.

 

[vi-va]

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.

https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/INPRO/df13/Presentations/011_CNNC%27s%20ACP100%20SMR-Technique%20Features%20and%20Progress%20in%20China.pdf

A1B reactor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A4W reactor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CIA Mole]

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]

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

https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/INPRO/df13/Presentations/011_CNNC%27s%20ACP100%20SMR-Technique%20Features%20and%20Progress%20in%20China.pdf

A1B reactor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A4W reactor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

 

[Daniel808]

From CJDBY

Indeed, a Truly Supercarrier

 

[samsara]

It looks like @ChineseTiger1986 starts to garner some strong support from his beloved CD 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

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

From CJDBY
View attachment 693680View attachment 693679View attachment 693678

Indeed, a Truly Supercarrier

The Ford class in its waterline + bulbous bow is around 327 meters, and its flight deck is 332 meters.

So a carrier like the size of the Type 003 cannot be conventional powered, and Sutton got wrong about this.

It looks like @ChineseTiger1986 starts to garner some strong support from his beloved CD 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

The silent majority of the CD forum all supports the Type 003 being nuclear powered.

Only the mods and big shrimps of there are not that bright.

After the debacle of the prediction on the Type 003, I hope there will be a reform in that place.

 

[vi-va]

The Ford class in its waterline + bulbous bow is around 327 meters, and its flight deck is 332 meters.

So a carrier like the size of the Type 003 cannot be conventional powered, and Sutton got wrong about this.


The silent majority of the CD forum all supports the Type 003 being nuclear powered.

Only the mods and big shrimps of there are not that bright.

After the debacle of the prediction on the Type 003, I hope there will be a reform in that place.

CD is not a good place for discussion. It's for fun.

 

[Beidou2020]

If @ChineseTiger1986 is right about the Type 003 he should be made a Think Tank.