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

[ChineseTiger1986]

so many years passed, I bet the 003 be using different boilers.

The boiler belongs to a technology tree with a dead end, you can literally forget about it.

The most recent aircraft carrier using the boilers is the Type 002, but it is not a top notch supercarrier like the Type 003.

 

[FuturePAF]

1. No matter how many nukes we have, US is 12000 km away from us.
2. US nukes can be less than 1000 km away from us potentially, which is Okinawa. US has the options open to deploy nukes forward, we don't.
3. We need to penetrate THAAD like systems, which has already been deployed forward in South Korea. There is no way we can deploy THAAD like system in Canada or Mexco.
4. The more nukes we have, the eager Japan ask more protection and safety which make sense. Either from US or themselves, which means remilitarized Japan and nuke armed Japan. Just like how Pakistan responded to India.
5. Another potential damage for more nukes is China-Russia relationship. The more nukes we have, the more suspicious Russian feels. The conventional power balance is on our side, but nukes deterrence is on Russia side, that's the foundation of our relationship.
6. China can have either certain degree of trust of Russians or equal nuclear deterrence. We can't have both.

I did my nuclear strategy homework some years ago, no good options imo.

Unless China based forward in Venezuela and pulls a Cuban missile crisis style trade; Nukes out of Venezuela in exchange for nukes out of the western Pacific.

It would be a dramatic escalation and basically a military confrontation, like the 1962 standoff. No going back after that. People will see China as a military threat first and foremost.

 

[Figaro]

so many years passed, I bet the 003 be using different boilers.

No doubt but even advanced boilers cannot come close to the efficiency offered by nuclear reactors. China has the technology and has put a EM catapult on the next carrier, so why not make the extra leap?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

No doubt but even advanced boilers cannot come close to the efficiency offered by nuclear reactors. China has the technology and has put a EM catapult on the next carrier, so why not make the extra leap?

The twin A4W reactors of the Nimitz class can provide the power to the generators to generate a total electric power of 64 MW. And the twin A1B reactors of the Ford class is even more impressive at 192 MW.

In contrast, the boilers of the Kitty Hawk class can only do a measly 14 MW.

Not mentioned that the Soviet boilers used by the Type 001/002 are much more inferior to those used by the Kitty Hawk class.

The only conventional option for the Type 003 is the gas turbines with the QE class as an example.

However, the QE class is only 2/3 the size of the Type 003, and I doubt the gas turbines can handle this.

 

[vi-va]

The twin A4W reactors of the Nimitz class can provide the power to the generators to generate a total electric power of 64 MW. And the twin A1B reactors of the Ford class is even more impressive at 192 MW.

In contrast, the boilers of the Kitty Hawk class can only do a measly 14 MW.

Not mentioned that the Soviet boilers used by the Type 001/002 are much more inferior to those used by the Kitty Hawk class.

The only conventional option for the Type 003 is the gas turbines with the QE class as an example.

However, the QE class is only 2/3 the size of the Type 003, and I doubt the gas turbines can handle this.

1. I bet China can build better boiler than Kitty Hawk in 1961, I am sure.
2. If you compare the power consumption data of Kitty Hawk and Nimitz, Kitty Hawk has more horsepower per tonnage, and better speed.
3. If you compare the power consumption data of Kitty Hawk and Ford, Ford has around 560mw of power in total including shaft horsepower and electricity. Ford has 2.67 times of power of Kitty Hawk.
4. As long as China can build better boiler than Kitty Hawk which is for sure, I don't see problem to power 003.

Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier

In commission:

21 April 1961 – 31 January 2009

Displacement:

60,933 long tons (61,911 t) light 81,780 long tons (83,090 t) full load

32 kn

• 8 x steam boilers with Westinghouse geared steam turbines
• 4 x shafts
• 280,000 shp (210 MW)

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier

Displacement:

100,000 to 104,600 long tons

30+ knots

• 260,000 shp (194 MW)

Ford A1B reactor

In excess of 30 knots
About 100,000 long tons (100,000 tonnes) (full load)[4]

These generate enough steam to produce approximately 100 MW of electricity, plus 140,000 shaft horsepower (104 MW) for each of the ship's four shafts – two per propulsion plant

 

[Han Patriot]

No doubt but even advanced boilers cannot come close to the efficiency offered by nuclear reactors. China has the technology and has put a EM catapult on the next carrier, so why not make the extra leap?

Bro, sorry to say this reactors will use steam too and if China can make superheated steam which what is used in ultra super critical boilers, they can use the reactor to heat steam to that pressure and temperature. The key lies with material for the tubing.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

so many years passed, I bet the 003 be using different boilers.

how can you refuel boiler powered aircraft carrier in deep pacific and Indian oceans, water nuclear reactors are take years to refuel, please answer my question???

 

[vi-va]

how can you refuel boiler powered aircraft carrier in deep pacific and Indian oceans, water nuclear reactors are take years to refuel, please answer my question???

Please do your basic homework before asking any simple questions.
There are tons of threads on PDF you can search and get the answer all by yourself.

Type 901 fast combat support ship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Type 903 replenishment ship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[vi-va]

Bro, sorry to say this reactors will use steam too and if China can make superheated steam which what is used in ultra super critical boilers, they can use the reactor to heat steam to that pressure and temperature. The key lies with material for the tubing.

China is the largest user of ultra-supercritical power generator in the world. There is no technology issues at all.

Supercritical steam generator - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A State-of-the-art Review of Chemical Component Study of theCandidate Steel for 650 ℃ Ultra-supercritical Boiler Tube

http://www.mater-rep.com/CN/10.11896/j.issn.1005-023X.2018.13.005

Yuhuan 1,000MW Ultra-Supercritical Pressure Boilers

Yuhuan 1,000MW Ultra-Supercritical Pressure Boilers

The Huaneng Yuhuan power plant located on the coast of East China’s Zhejiang Province has China’s first 1,000MW ultra-supercritical pressure boilers.

www.power-technology.com

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

1. I bet China can build better boiler than Kitty Hawk in 1961, I am sure.
2. If you compare the power consumption data of Kitty Hawk and Nimitz, Kitty Hawk has more horsepower per tonnage, and better speed.
3. If you compare the power consumption data of Kitty Hawk and Ford, Ford has around 560mw of power in total including shaft horsepower and electricity. Ford has 2.67 times of power of Kitty Hawk.
4. As long as China can build better boiler than Kitty Hawk which is for sure, I don't see problem to power 003.

Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier

In commission:

21 April 1961 – 31 January 2009

Displacement:

60,933 long tons (61,911 t) light 81,780 long tons (83,090 t) full load

32 kn

• 8 x steam boilers with Westinghouse geared steam turbines
• 4 x shafts
• 280,000 shp (210 MW)

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier

Displacement:

100,000 to 104,600 long tons

30+ knots

• 260,000 shp (194 MW)

Ford A1B reactor

In excess of 30 knots
About 100,000 long tons (100,000 tonnes) (full load)[4]

These generate enough steam to produce approximately 100 MW of electricity, plus 140,000 shaft horsepower (104 MW) for each of the ship's four shafts – two per propulsion plant

Many people have failed to understand that 280,000 or 260,000 is the shaft horsepower provided by the steam turbines, which has the purpose to propel the ship.

However, the power generated by the boilers can only feed those steam turbines, but it will fail to provide the electric power for a modern supercarrier like the Type 003 with the EMALS/AAG/dual band radars.

Look at the powerful A1B twin reactors of the Ford class, it can feed enough power to propel those steam turbines at 280,000 shaft horsepower, meanwhile also provide enough electric power to feed those EMALS/AAG/dual band radars. And this something that the boilers can never achieve.

 

[CIA Mole]

Maybe they will use batteries and ultracapacitors for torque and the EMALS?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Maybe they will use batteries and ultracapacitors for torque and the EMALS?

Most ships will use the electric generators.

The nuclear reactor will first produce heat that generates the steam from the steam turbines in order to propel the ship.

Then the steam turbine is also connected with the electric generators to produce the electricity.

BTW, the boilers of the Kitty Hawk class can only generate 14 MW of electricity after feeding the steam turbines, so no way it can satisfy the electric power of a modern supercarrier.

 

[CIA Mole]

Most ship will use the electric generators.

The nuclear reactor will first produce heat that generates the steam from the steam turbines in order to propel the ship.

Then the steam turbine is also connected with the electric generators to produce the electricity.

BTW, the boilers of the Kitty Hawk class can only generate 14 MW of electricity after feeding the steam turbines, so no way it can satisfy the electric power of a modern supercarrier.

Why not just add more generators?
Is it cheaper to go nuclear? Or cheaper to stay with oil?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Why not just add more generators?
Is it cheaper to go nuclear? Or cheaper to stay with oil?

The generators are only converting the power from the plant into electricity.

When your boilers are the source power of the plant, and it is weak, there still won't be enough power to be converting into electricity.

 

[vi-va]

Many people have failed to understand that 280,000 or 260,000 is the shaft horsepower provided by the steam turbines, which has the purpose to propel the ship.

However, the power generated by the boilers can only feed those steam turbines, but it will fail to provide the electric power for a modern supercarrier like the Type 003 with the EMALS/AAG/dual band radars.

Look at the powerful A1B twin reactors of the Ford class, it can feed enough power to propel those steam turbines at 280,000 shaft horsepower, meanwhile also provide enough electric power to feed those EMALS/AAG/dual band radars. And this something that the boilers can never achieve.

The MHI boilers have a main steam pressure of 27.5MPa, the main steam temperature of 605°C and a reheat steam temperature of 603°C.
That Chinese boiler commissioned in 2006

Yuhuan 1,000MW Ultra-Supercritical Pressure Boilers

The Huaneng Yuhuan power plant located on the coast of East China’s Zhejiang Province has China’s first 1,000MW ultra-supercritical pressure boilers.

www.power-technology.com

The Kitty Hawk used a boiler with 8,300 kPa, while Chinese Ultra-Supercritical Pressure Boilers is 27.5MPa, the main steam temperature of 605°C.

I bet China is capable to build a much more efficient/compact boiler as well as steam turbines than Kitty Hawk.

Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why not just add more generators?
Is it cheaper to go nuclear? Or cheaper to stay with oil?

I think space, weight and efficiency are some constrains. Please see my another post for more details.
The better way is increasing the pressure, and temperature of boiler, as well as improving the steam turbines
Ultra-supercritical pressure boilers