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

[MH.Yang]

I hope next one will be similar design of Queen Elizabeth class

Nuclear power pack is unnecessary and expensive, high maintenance, waste of money and time.

If considering the maintenance cost of fighter and electronic instruments, nuclear powered aircraft carriers are cheaper than conventional aircraft carriers.
Sooner or later, we will use nuclear powered aircraft carriers, which is a historical necessity.

 

[Wergeland]

If considering the maintenance cost of fighter and electronic instruments, nuclear powered aircraft carriers are cheaper than conventional aircraft carriers.
Sooner or later, we will use nuclear powered aircraft carriers, which is a historical necessity.

The single biggest benefit is the virtually unlimited range of nuclear carriers.

 

[S10]

No, it would two years, until we a first module, two more at least for construction and then one more for fitting out! And only THEN sea trials could start which for a whole new system would surely again add another or more years so at best in 7+ years a serivce entry.

I would think China could outfit a carrier a lot faster. Look at the amount of time it took to refit 001, compared to building 002 and 003. The intervals are getting shorter each time. When they streamline the process and design, they likely to churn it out faster.

 

[Polestar 2]

The single biggest benefit is the virtually unlimited range of nuclear carriers.

Yes, it can have unlimited range but can't have unlimited food, ammunition (bombs and missiles) and aviation fuel. There are 5000 personnel onboard an USN aircraft carrier. The food onboard can last maximum 30 days only.

Unlike SSBN which has only max 100 crew onboard and food onboard can even last a year without surfacing plus their mission are to fire all nuke ICBM to destroy other nation which unlike aircraft carrier which missions are to carry out hundreds of sorties to support land operation. That means replenishment of aviation bombs and aviation fuel are often which cancel off the advantage of nuclear power carrier.

A well trained navy can carry out ship fuel, food and aviation ammunition replenishment together for an aircraft carrier at the same time. A big reason why USN prefer nuclear carrier is the need to cut down number of boiler and make more space for more equipment.

 

[Wergeland]

Yes, it can have unlimited range but can't have unlimited food, ammunition (bombs and missiles) and aviation fuel. There are 5000 personnel onboard an USN aircraft carrier. The food onboard can last maximum 30 days only.

True.
That also applies to non-nuclear CV’s.
The difference is that nuclear CV’s dont have to refuel for years, giving it a strategic advantage in case refueling options are limited. If it goes empty of fuel for its aviation wing or/and denied access to aviation fuel, it can in theory always return to home port regardless.

 

[vi-va]

If considering the maintenance cost of fighter and electronic instruments, nuclear powered aircraft carriers are cheaper than conventional aircraft carriers.
Sooner or later, we will use nuclear powered aircraft carriers, which is a historical necessity.

The single biggest benefit is the virtually unlimited range of nuclear carriers.

I disagree.

The destroyers are conventional, the idea of unlimited range is just a myth. Not to mention food, ammunition. The so-called unlimited range is unrealistic and unnecessary.

The regular maintenance doesn't include fighters, fighters can be replaced by spare ones.

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) maintenace is relatively much lower than conventional steam piston.

Queen Elizabeth class is so far the best design of future aircraft carrier.

U.S. stick to nuclear power pack due to politics and interest group, as well as apportioned cost of nuclear subs.

 

[ozranger]

Yes, it can have unlimited range but can't have unlimited food, ammunition (bombs and missiles) and aviation fuel. There are 5000 personnel onboard an USN aircraft carrier. The food onboard can last maximum 30 days only.

Unlike SSBN which has only max 100 crew onboard and food onboard can even last a year without surfacing plus their mission are to fire all nuke ICBM to destroy other nation which unlike aircraft carrier which missions are to carry out hundreds of sorties to support land operation. That means replenishment of aviation bombs and aviation fuel are often which cancel off the advantage of nuclear power carrier.

A well trained navy can carry out ship fuel, food and aviation ammunition replenishment together for an aircraft carrier at the same time. A big reason why USN prefer nuclear carrier is the need to cut down number of boiler and make more space for more equipment.

After decades of actual operations of modern carriers by USN, it becomes pretty obvious that nuclear powered carriers are having poorer battle readiness and higher maintenance costs compared to ones with conventional power, despite their unlimited sailing distances.

Remember nuclear powered carriers are not necessarily having greater power outputs than conventional ones. Looking at historical data, USN operated Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with only propulsion power output 260,000 shp (194 MW) while Kitty Hawk has 280,000 shp (210 MW).

However, by the moment, USN can only rely on nuclear powered carriers as America's national goal is maintaining their global hegemony and a single carrier task group can already crush air defense of a small country at ease. Nonetheless this kind of strategy in my opinion might not work well for today's competition with China in Pacific and Indian Oceans.

• PLAN does need carriers. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to create encirclement around Taiwan with strong physical deployment which can only be challenged by USN. What it means is, PLAN will use carriers to hold some positions in the sea. Then US can only intervene by also sending their carriers for a confrontation. Therefore China can use such a stand-off to check if the US would like to have some miscalculation. DDGs will not work well in this situation as you will need fighter jets to expel US warplanes in real time during the stand-off. China's wartime goal is create a formidable no-fly-zone over the Taiwan island together with support from land based aircrafts and rocket forces, as shown in the recent carrier Liaoning's drill.
• PLAN does not rely on carriers to sink US carriers. So all the fighter jets on their carriers can be dedicated for air defense when in great sea battles, which makes them vastly different to the US carriers.

 

[Luosifen]

A conventionally powered carrier needs more frequent at sea replenishment than a nuclear one, during which time it is restricted in speed and maneuverability and puts it at risk of potential attack. That resupply ship also needs to service the escorts, so with a nuclear carrier the overall endurance of the battle group is improved since diesel/gas fuel for the ship engines needs to be shared with one less vessel (which also consumes that fuel at a faster rate than its escorts).

That type 901 resupply ship could also allocate more storage space for jet fuel if dealing with a CVN.

 

[vi-va]

After decades of actual operations of modern carriers by USN, it becomes pretty obvious that nuclear powered carriers are having poorer battle readiness and higher maintenance costs compared to ones with conventional power, despite their unlimited sailing distances.

Remember nuclear powered carriers are not necessarily having greater power outputs than conventional ones. Looking at historical data, USN operated Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with only propulsion power output 260,000 shp (194 MW) while Kitty Hawk has 280,000 shp (210 MW).

However, by the moment, USN can only rely on nuclear powered carriers as America's national goal is maintaining their global hegemony and a single carrier task group can already crush air defense of a small country at ease. Nonetheless this kind of strategy in my opinion might not work well for today's competition with China in Pacific and Indian Oceans.

• PLAN does need carriers. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to create encirclement around Taiwan with strong physical deployment which can only be challenged by USN. What it means is, PLAN will use carriers to hold some positions in the sea. Then US can only intervene by also sending their carriers for a confrontation. Therefore China can use such a stand-off to check if the US would like to have some miscalculation. DDGs will not work well in this situation as you will need fighter jets to expel US warplanes in real time during the stand-off. China's wartime goal is create a formidable no-fly-zone over the Taiwan island together with support from land based aircrafts and rocket forces, as shown in the recent carrier Liaoning's drill.
• PLAN does not rely on carriers to sink US carriers. So all the fighter jets on their carriers carriers can be dedicated for air defense when in great sea battles, which makes them vastly different to the US carriers.

Agree.

Aircraft carrier played a big role in sea dominance after WW2, not anymore.

Aircraft carrier is like main battle tank in land attack, still necessarily to have, but gradually outdated. There are many kinds of aircraft carrier killer, and there will be more and more, better killers.

The sea dominance does NOT rely on aircraft carrier anymore, what's the point of having an extremely expensive, fragile nuclear carrier?

Carrier is still one of the best platform for power projection, especially for bullying small, medium countries.

In the case of great power confrontation, carrier is so fragile and easy to be destroyed in frontline.

Bomber is the future carrier, the sea dominator.

 

[mili]

In 2020s, China's priority is western Pacific, conventional carriers are good, especially cost/benefit.
In 2030s, when priority is eastern Pacific or even Atlantic, then nuclear may be way to go.

 

[flowerfan2020]

Agree.

Aircraft carrier played a big role in sea dominance after WW2, not anymore.

Aircraft carrier is like main battle tank in land attack, still necessarily to have, but gradually outdated. There are many kinds of aircraft carrier killer, and there will be more and more, better killers.

The sea dominance does NOT rely on aircraft carrier anymore, what's the point of having an extremely expensive, fragile nuclear carrier?

Carrier is still one of the best platform for power projection, especially for bullying small, medium countries.

In the case of great power confrontation, carrier is so fragile and easy to be destroyed in frontline.

Bomber is the future carrier, the sea dominator.

What a foolish post. I really think you are a U.S agent.

 

[kungfugymnast]

Agree.

Aircraft carrier played a big role in sea dominance after WW2, not anymore.

Aircraft carrier is like main battle tank in land attack, still necessarily to have, but gradually outdated. There are many kinds of aircraft carrier killer, and there will be more and more, better killers.

The sea dominance does NOT rely on aircraft carrier anymore, what's the point of having an extremely expensive, fragile nuclear carrier?

Carrier is still one of the best platform for power projection, especially for bullying small, medium countries.

In the case of great power confrontation, carrier is so fragile and easy to be destroyed in frontline.

Bomber is the future carrier, the sea dominator.

Aircraft carrier is not like main battle tank but more of mobile surface to surface missile platform that could deliver heavy punch package to somewhere far beyond reach of fixed stationary based missiles launcher. Aircraft carrier is not outdated if the fighters it carries could fly far beyond 500nm to deliver missiles/bombs, destroying enemy ships and killing enemy fighters, bombers before they get into effective anti-ship or cruise missiles range threatening the carrier fleet bringing the fight further away from home country shore. If fighters combat radius only barely 300nm then it would make the aircraft carrier obsolete being too close to enemy fighters, bombers, ships. Navalized fighters ideal combat radius today is to have 900nm.

Bomber is getting obsolete as it lacks air to air capability, even with stealth, if the enemy is country such as US or China, they could detect incoming stealth bomber and scramble fighters to intercept. Answer to bomber today is large fighter bomber that has AESA radar, able to pull 5G and carry air to air and air to ground missiles apart from having powerful ECM and carrying lots of chaff/flare having ferry range of over 5000Nm.

Anyone knows what is the latest update of Type 003? There's no further follow up lately and the J-15B/D top speed will not finalize without the EMALS launch carrier operational.

In 2020s, China's priority is western Pacific, conventional carriers are good, especially cost/benefit.
In 2030s, when priority is eastern Pacific or even Atlantic, then nuclear may be way to go.

Ya, betul, benar sekali. Conventional aircraft carrier is for home shore to middle range defensive/offensive operations while Nuclear powered aircraft carrier is mainly for long range offensive operations

What a foolish post. I really think you are a U.S agent.

viva is not US agent, he is telling facts from neutral perspective

 

[kungfugymnast]

Ukraine war lessons spur China military shipbuilding surge: experts

Satellite images confirm reports shipyards are rushing to complete aircraft carrier and other warships delayed by pandemic.

www.scmp.com

Minnie Chan from SCMP posted articles on Type 003 resuming construction. Hope it will complete construction the soonest

 

[Deino]

Maybe a hint for next week‘s launch?

 

[onebyone]

https://mobile.twitter.com/home