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

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yes, but having 2 critical parts - installing the nuclear power engine on CV and EMALS for first time simultaneously are just too risky for the project and following maintenance.

Let's not be over-optimistic like Indian fanboys

Not kidding, the EMALS to integrate with the outdated steam boiler propulsion is perhaps a more difficult task for China to achieve than directly building a nuclear one.

This is the realism, and it has nothing to do with the over-optimism.

You have to take into account that the US procurement program is a complete joke and that it's completely corrupted by the defense contractors who juice it like a lemon, plus China has a bigger experience in making huge advancements at once successfully compared to the US. Also, encountering difficulties with the 003 might be a risk China is willing to take if it means the 004 will be built sooner, they might prefer to put the risk on 003 and use it as a technological test bed before refining the design for the 004.

Spot on, most likely the Type 003 is the first trial, therefore it takes a bit more time.

The following ships will be built faster with more experience, also being more refined.

EMALS have been tested as a separate system and China has been building nuclear propulsion for ages. There is no "great risk" here. Just people who don't understand engineering.

Yep, many people have regarded the nuclear propulsion as some kind of alien technology.

In fact, it is not as fancy as many people tend to believe.

Oh please Can you please stop acting

China has built how many carriers? So far 1

US has built how many over 80 and over a dozen nuclear powered ones

You got more experience with one than someone who has built over dozen or 80? No definitely no

But China doesn't have to build every type of the carriers that the US had built in the past, right?

China always builds something that is suitable to its need, it is not about a pissing contest.

The conventional carriers have too much replenishment pressure compared to the nuclear ones, especially when your oversea military bases are very few in number.

 

[Armchair]

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the new carrier would be in the 80,000 t range.

 

[obj 705A]

China has a late commer's advantage, back when the US began building CVs, nuclear propulsion was not even present, let alone EMALS, China on the other hand already has EMALS which (if I remember correctly) have been described as being at least as good if not better than that of the US, & China has had nuclear propulsion since the Mao Zedong era (for the submarines), I'm pretty sure those 40 years were enough for China's nuclear propulsion to mature enough for large surface vessels, why reinvent the wheel when you already have all the ingredients (& the money) to make the latest & greatest weapon.
usually when some people talk about Chinese weapons development they say the US took an x number of years (eg:70 years for carriers since WWII) to reach this point, when talking about China what we should do is take those 70 years of American experience & throw them out of the window because they are irrelevant, China has it's own speed of doing things.

 

[aziqbal]

You have to take into account that the US procurement program is a complete joke and that it's completely corrupted by the defense contractors who juice it like a lemon, plus China has a bigger experience in making huge advancements at once successfully compared to the US. Also, encountering difficulties with the 003 might be a risk China is willing to take if it means the 004 will be built sooner, they might prefer to put the risk on 003 and use it as a technological test bed before refining the design for the 004.

Oh please sit down

which probably explains why after 14 years and building 8 x LPD China still has more LPD than LCAC, how long have those LCAC been sitting in JNCX more than 22 months and its 10 units collecting dust

have we ever seen a LPD with a full deck of LCAC loaded with vehicles ? have we ever even seen after more than a decade a video of loaded LCAC entering and leaving the well deck? how about VERTREP? how about 4 x Z8 in the hanger ? where is the advancedmemts here ?

China has made some amazing developments and progressed very fast but dont be so childish and dont be blinded by how it actually works in the real world as opposed to this fairy land world you are living in

 

[ILC]

I think the main load for a Chinese LPD 71 is a ZBD-05 amphibious vehicle family instead of LCAC.

 

[laser911]

Oh please sit down

which probably explains why after 14 years and building 8 x LPD China still has more LPD than LCAC, how long have those LCAC been sitting in JNCX more than 22 months and its 10 units collecting dust

have we ever seen a LPD with a full deck of LCAC loaded with vehicles ? have we ever even seen after more than a decade a video of loaded LCAC entering and leaving the well deck? how about VERTREP? how about 4 x Z8 in the hanger ? where is the advancedmemts here ?

China has made some amazing developments and progressed very fast but dont be so childish and dont be blinded by how it actually works in the real world as opposed to this fairy land world you are living in

The LCAC is a different story, the number is limited by their engines. These engines need to be light weight and powerful which is very similar to adv jet engines. This is one of the weak points of China but nothing to do with CV. The 003 will unlikely be a nuclear powered but it will have EMALS.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the new carrier would be in the 80,000 t range.

Metric tons wise, anything over 80,000 tons will be automatically nuclear powered.

The Kitty Hawk class was the largest conventional carriers ever built, and it displaced less than 80,000 metric tons.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-63-specs.htm

The Type 003 is indeed larger than the Kitty Hawk class.

China has a late commer's advantage, back when the US began building CVs, nuclear propulsion was not even present, let alone EMALS, China on the other hand already has EMALS which (if I remember correctly) have been described as being at least as good if not better than that of the US, & China has had nuclear propulsion since the Mao Zedong era (for the submarines), I'm pretty sure those 40 years were enough for China's nuclear propulsion to mature enough for large surface vessels, why reinvent the wheel when you already have all the ingredients (& the money) to make the latest & greatest weapon.
usually when some people talk about Chinese weapons development they say the US took an x number of years (eg:70 years for carriers since WWII) to reach this point, when talking about China what we should do is take those 70 years of American experience & throw them out of the window because they are irrelevant, China has it's own speed of doing things.

China's new miniaturized nuclear reactor for the maritime project is comparable to the A1B reactor.

http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-begin-construction-small-modular-reactor-hai/

 

[Mohrenn]

Oh please sit down

which probably explains why after 14 years and building 8 x LPD China still has more LPD than LCAC, how long have those LCAC been sitting in JNCX more than 22 months and its 10 units collecting dust

have we ever seen a LPD with a full deck of LCAC loaded with vehicles ? have we ever even seen after more than a decade a video of loaded LCAC entering and leaving the well deck? how about VERTREP? how about 4 x Z8 in the hanger ? where is the advancedmemts here ?

China has made some amazing developments and progressed very fast but dont be so childish and dont be blinded by how it actually works in the real world as opposed to this fairy land world you are living in

You're making a number of implicit assumptions that you're making up just because it suits your narrative, for example you're assuming China gives the same level of importance and ressources to improving its Aircraft Carrier technology than it does to building LCACs. What's important is that China has shown that they're able to manage huge advancements better than the US despite having less experience overall, so your arguments were invalid and you're trying to save them with more invalid arguments.

 

[Daniel808]

Oh please sit down

which probably explains why after 14 years and building 8 x LPD China still has more LPD than LCAC, how long have those LCAC been sitting in JNCX more than 22 months and its 10 units collecting dust

have we ever seen a LPD with a full deck of LCAC loaded with vehicles ? have we ever even seen after more than a decade a video of loaded LCAC entering and leaving the well deck? how about VERTREP? how about 4 x Z8 in the hanger ? where is the advancedmemts here ?

China has made some amazing developments and progressed very fast but dont be so childish and dont be blinded by how it actually works in the real world as opposed to this fairy land world you are living in

Relax

Its called Priority.

You don't think China cannot mass produce small QC-70 Gas Turbine for Type 726 LCAC, while they can mass produce Heavy R-0110 Powerful Gas Turbine for their Heavy Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers since many years ago, don't you?

China R-0110 Heavy Powerful Gas Turbine

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Relax

Its called Priority.

You don't think China cannot mass produce small QC-70 Gas Turbine for Type 726 LCAC, while they can mass produce Heavy R-0110 Powerful Gas Turbine for their Heavy Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers since many years ago, don't you?

China R-0110 Heavy Powerful Gas Turbine
View attachment 638894

The layout of the engine room of the Type 003 shows that the ship will still use the steam turbines.

However, it is unlikely that it will be powered by eight steam boilers, more likely being powered by the twin nuclear reactors.

 

[Deino]

 

[samsara]

Deino, do you have any idea what's the remote/sat pic telling indeed? I wonder who can really tell from this single pic alone angel:

 

[Deino]

Deino, do you have any idea what's the remote/sat pic telling indeed? I wonder who can really tell from this single pic alone angel:

Good question ... for me this telly us only that the barge is in the basin and being prepared for action (allegedly later this year from September on) and that I cannot identify any progress on the ship itself.

 

[obj 705A]

going back to the issue of what kind of propulsion it will have, let us assume that it will have a nuclear reactor (I realize we don't really have much evidence so the chances of it being either conventional or nuclear are 50/50) so what reactor will it use? the reactor which @ChineseTiger1986 mentioned in his post (the ACP 100) will only finish construction in 2025, at least this is what is in the link, or did I understand it completely the wrong way?
if the ACP 100 is (I assume) not ready (again correct me if I'm mistaken) may be they could use this one in a similar way to what the US did with the Enterprise.
https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/mil...ld-30000-tonne-nuclear-powered-ship-described

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

going back to the issue of what kind of propulsion it will have, let us assume that it will have a nuclear reactor (I realize we don't really have much evidence so the chances of it being either conventional or nuclear are 50/50) so what reactor will it use? the reactor which @ChineseTiger1986 mentioned in his post (the ACP 100) will only finish construction in 2025, at least this is what is in the link, or did I understand it completely the wrong way?
if the ACP 100 is (I assume) not ready (again correct me if I'm mistaken) may be they could use this one in a similar way to what the US did with the Enterprise.
https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/mil...ld-30000-tonne-nuclear-powered-ship-described

The floating nuclear power plant with the ACP100 is expecting to be operational by 2025.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/December-construction-start-for-Chinese-SMR

Back in 2018, the CSIC also hinted that China's first CVN will be operational by 2025.

So the Type 003 is the only option for that time frame.