Next Chinese aircraft carrier - Type 002 'Shandong' and Type 003 'Fujian'

Latest update on the PLANS-18 Fujian“ from today and in comparison to the images posted previously today, the mock-ups have been rearranged on deck as well as the huge LNG-tanker/carrier is no longer there.
What also impresses me
1f62f.png
1f62e.png
are the production halls that have been built there in the last few years!
In principle, the modules for any next aircraft carrier - be that either a 003.2 or 004 - could be almost finished and we simply wouldn't notice anything!

PLN CV-18 Fujian - 20240424.jpg
 
What also impresses me
1f62f.png

1f62e.png

are the production halls that have been built there in the last few years!
In principle, the modules for any next aircraft carrier - be that either a 003.2 or 004 - could be almost finished and we simply wouldn't notice anything!
Click to expand...

Between those airplane photo shots, NRO spysats plus Maxar -like commercial imagery: I would say this is hardly surprising...

By the way @Deino I'd like to ask: does anybody knows how many carriers the chinese intend to build ? do they want parity of numbers with USN, so 10-11 ?
 
Archibald said:
Between those airplane photo shots, NRO spysats plus Maxar -like commercial imagery: I would say this is hardly surprising...

By the way @Deino I'd like to ask: does anybody knows how many carriers the chinese intend to build ? do they want parity of numbers with USN, so 10-11 ?
Click to expand...
That's certainly my assumption, though I'm also assuming that they want them all nuclear. So the conventional carriers currently building to develop the core competencies will be on top of the ~10 nuclear carriers.
 
The Politburo knows the US intelligence apparatus is breathing down their necks 24/7. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they resorted to manufacturing military hardware away from prying eyes.
 
NMaude said:
I wonder how progress is going on the Type-004 CVN which I understand is basically a nuclear-powered Type-003?
Click to expand...
We will have some warning on that, in the shape of a new set of nuclear reactors getting built somewhere and all the techs marching to work...

Plus I suspect the Chinese want some time with the 003 operating aircraft before they commit to the nuclear version.
 
I do not think that the Type 004 will be nuclear powered, I think that for now the PLAN will stick to conventional carriers and then start work on the next air craft carrier the Type 005 which will be nuclear powered. But that may not see the light of day until the end of the current decade and maybe even into the first half of the 2030s.
 
Take a look at the time difference between 002 and 003, and also by induction of new carriers of other countries, 004 should be a few years away, to rectify issues of 003
 
The PLAN don't want to rush the Type 004 and especially not since the 003 has only entered sea trials.
 
I often appreciate the USN pragmatism before CVN-68 Nimitz.
1-They first defined a "supercarrier template" with CVA-59 Forrestal.
2-Then they improved it with the Kitty Hawks.
3-Before a first try (not conclusive enough) with Enterprise.
4-So back to a pair of conventional carriers (America & JFK)
5-before second try with CVN-68: Nimitz.
6-Once they got the Nimitz recipe - a decent nuclear carrier - they build only them and ten of them.

I think the chinese are equally pragmatic. Once they get the EMALS working correctly, they will probably churn a few 003s before trying their hand at a nuclear carrier.
 
Archibald said:
I often appreciate the USN pragmatism before CVN-68 Nimitz.
1-They first defined a "supercarrier template" with CVA-59 Forrestal.
2-Then they improved it with the Kitty Hawks.
3-Before a first try (not conclusive enough) with Enterprise.
4-So back to a pair of conventional carriers (America & JFK)
5-before second try with CVN-68: Nimitz.
6-Once they got the Nimitz recipe - a decent nuclear carrier - they build only them and ten of them.

I think the chinese are equally pragmatic.
Click to expand...
Agreed up to this point.



Archibald said:
Once they get the EMALS working correctly, they will probably churn a few 003s before trying their hand at a nuclear carrier.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if they made more than 3 total 003s before going nuclear powered. Also, I suspect that the Chinese are working on designing a nuclear plant that will fit in the carriers just fine as we speak. They just haven't prototyped it yet. A bunch of dudes marching around a nuclear plant is a dead giveaway that someone is plotting military usage.

(The real advantage of a nuclear powered carrier is that it has vastly more jet fuel storage space, so only needs to refill the avfuel tanks weekly even when running intensive flight ops.)
 
I do wonder how many reactors the nuclear powered carrier will have? For instance the worlds first nuclear powered carrier the USS Enterprise had four reactors, somehow I do not think that the PLAN nuclear carrier will use that many.
 
FighterJock said:
I do wonder how many reactors the nuclear powered carrier will have? For instance the worlds first nuclear powered carrier the USS Enterprise had four reactors, somehow I do not think that the PLAN nuclear carrier will use that many.
Click to expand...
Enterprise had eight, and I agree, any hypothetical Type 004 won't have that many.

Now, on paper, China should be able to put just two in a Type 004, their civilian industry is quite capable of making gigawatt-scale reactors (the A4W is 550 MW and A1B 770 MW), but AFAIK marine reactors have to be more compact than land-based, so we'll see if that impacts the issue.

Still, I'd expect two reactors to be the most likely configuration.
 
FighterJock said:
I do wonder how many reactors the nuclear powered carrier will have? For instance the worlds first nuclear powered carrier the USS Enterprise had four reactors, somehow I do not think that the PLAN nuclear carrier will use that many.
Click to expand...
Actually Big E had eight, although apparently it could meet its power and propulsion needs with just six.

It is preferable to operate two reactors for the sake of redundancy. Any more than that uses an unnecessary amount of very hard to train reactor crewmen. However if the PLAN were to use an existing submarine reactor as a short cut, they may be obligated to run more of them. I think CdG uses a pair of French SSBN reactors, but it is small enough to run on just the two. Fujian is a lot larger.
 
Thanks CV12Hornet and Josh_TN I did not know Enterprise had that many reactors. The new PLAN nuclear carrier won't need that many due to the advancement of technology but as Josh_TN says it will probably need at least two for redundancy.
 
It is possible that it will have more than two if they use existing submarine reactors as a shortcut to producing a CVN. Designing naval reactors on the scale of a carrier is a daunting task. But I suspect they put the effort in and make a CVN specific reactor and just settle for conventional carriers until then.
 
Using the submarine reactors may help accelerate the development of the nuclear powered carrier in the short time and get it into service quicker than developing a new dedicated reactor to begin with.
 
FighterJock said:
Using the submarine reactors may help accelerate the development of the nuclear powered carrier in the short time and get it into service quicker than developing a new dedicated reactor to begin with.
Click to expand...
Definitely. It also might introduce some economies of scale for training and reactor production. But it only makes sense to do that if you totally give up on having a separate customized reactor for your carrier. If they are going to develop a dedicated CVN reactor, it is better to wait for that then create a carrier that is a one off.
 
Archibald said:
Apprezzo spesso il pragmatismo dell'USN prima del CVN-68 Nimitz.
1-Per prima cosa hanno definito un "modello di superportaerei" con CVA-59 Forrestal.
2-Poi l'hanno migliorato con i Kitty Hawks.
3-Prima di un primo tentativo (non abbastanza conclusivo) con Enterprise.
4-Quindi torniamo a una coppia di vettori convenzionali (America e JFK)
5-prima del secondo tentativo con CVN-68: Nimitz.
6-Una volta ottenuta la ricetta Nimitz - un decente vettore nucleare - ne costruiscono solo dieci e ne costruiscono dieci.

Penso che i cinesi siano altrettanto pragmatici. Una volta che riusciranno a far funzionare correttamente l'EMALS, probabilmente sforneranno qualche 003 prima di cimentarsi con un vettore nucleare.
Click to expand...
Not so true: Kitty Hawk and Enterprise are contemporary: the lay down of the first was at the end of 1956, the lay down of enterprise was in 1958, but both were launched in 1960. Simply the USA can't bet all it's cards on a prototype.
 
FighterJock said:
I do wonder how many reactors the nuclear powered carrier will have? For instance the worlds first nuclear powered carrier the USS Enterprise had four reactors, somehow I do not think that the PLAN nuclear carrier will use that many.
Click to expand...
As mentioned, Enterprise had 8 (as many reactors as conventional carriers had boilers), but I'd expect the Chinese carrier to have 2-4. 4 if they have to run submarine reactors they can't scale up easily, 2 if they can scale up a submarine reactor without too much trouble.

In any case, we'd see a new reactor getting built on land first to test things out, and all the techs around it will be marching around (so the PLAN might as well put that carrier reactor prototype on their existing Nuke School site).
 
mirco1961 said:
Not so true: Kitty Hawk and Enterprise are contemporary: the lay down of the first was at the end of 1956, the lay down of enterprise was in 1958, but both were launched in 1960. Simply the USA can't bet all it's cards on a prototype.
Click to expand...

No problem. I even discovered that my posts can shift to italian, somewhat magically. :D Ti amo Italia !
 
I am very pleased with this situation as it--not US SPACE FORCE--is the chief way to financially curtail China's space aspirations.

They sent us the Little Red Book..

So we sent them "The Rickover Effect."

What's "Proxmire" in Mandarin?

I'll have to ask Swallwell's girlfriend after I smuggle Sgt. York plans to her and send Gary Hudson over there as a cooler.

He'll hex their whole space program.
 
Last edited:
CVA-67 JFK was ordered April 1964 as CVAN-67, with 4 A3W reactors, but the design was reverted to 8 oil-fueled boilers before her keel was laid in October 1964 - mainly for financial reasons.

Due to her planned propulsion there were a lot of changes both internally and externally - even after reverting to a conventional propulsion plant many of the other changes remained (to reduce redesign time and cost).
 
I did not know that CVA-67 JFK was originally going to be a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the same thing may happen to the PLAN if they struggle to design a brand new nuclear reactor from the ground up. That is why they should take their time over the development of the reactor and not try to rush things.
 
BlackBat242 said:
CVA-67 JFK was ordered April 1964 as CVAN-67, with 4 A3W reactors, but the design was reverted to 8 oil-fueled boilers before her keel was laid in October 1964 - mainly for financial reasons.

Due to her planned propulsion there were a lot of changes both internally and externally - even after reverting to a conventional propulsion plant many of the other changes remained (to reduce redesign time and cost).
Click to expand...
CV-67 was programmed for a CVAN to SCB-212, with the four A3W reactors, but reordered as an improved KITTY HAWK design to SCB-127C., but never ordered as CVN.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As mentioned, Enterprise had 8 (as many reactors as conventional carriers had boilers), but I'd expect the Chinese carrier to have 2-4. 4 if they have to run submarine reactors they can't scale up easily, 2 if they can scale up a submarine reactor without too much trouble.

In any case, we'd see a new reactor getting built on land first to test things out, and all the techs around it will be marching around (so the PLAN might as well put that carrier reactor prototype on their existing Nuke School site).
Click to expand...
When I was on Enterprise during our 82/83 West Pac, I had a buddy who was a nuke MM and he stated we cruised the IO on 4 reactors but we were not performing flight ops. The Big E was overpowered.
 
Hydroman said:
When I was on Enterprise during our 82/83 West Pac, I had a buddy who was a nuke MM and he stated we cruised the IO on 4 reactors but we were not performing flight ops. The Big E was overpowered.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think The Beast of the East was one of the few carriers that could make full speed while still doing flight ops because of all the steam she could make.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, I think The Beast of the East was one of the few carriers that could make full speed while still doing flight ops because of all the steam she could make.
Click to expand...

I’ve been told she didn’t even need two reactors when conducting flight ops and that they rotate which ones were at a low power output to even out the reactor life of the cores. Don’t know for sure if that’s true but heard it more than once anecdotally.
 
mirco1961 said:
CV-67 was programmed for a CVAN to SCB-212, with the four A3W reactors, but reordered as an improved KITTY HAWK design to SCB-127C., but never ordered as CVN.
Click to expand...
Interesting... I was under the impression that one could only "reorder" something that had already been ordered.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom