Military Review

China needs a technological breakthrough to build an atomic aircraft carrier

18
China has sufficient production capacity for the construction of an atomic aircraft carrier, but many key technologies, primarily nuclear, are missing, mil.news.sina.com.cn writes today.


The United States is the most developed country in the design and construction of nuclear aircraft carriers. This country has developed three types of ships of this class - "Enterprise", "Nimitz" and "Ford".

Enterprise is the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the world. fleet in 1961. The ship is equipped with eight nuclear reactors and is capable of carrying up to 90 aircraft, a crew of 5800 people. For 51 years of operation, the ship took part in the blockade of Cuba, was sent seven times to participate in the Vietnam War, and was an active participant in the events during the Cold War. The aircraft carrier was withdrawn from the Navy in December 2012 and sent for dismantlement.

The Nimitz class aircraft carriers are the second generation of American AVMAs (according to the Soviet foreign classification, the multipurpose atomic aircraft carrier - approx. "VP") and are currently the largest warships in the world, 10 units built. The lead Nimitz was laid in the 1968 year, accepted into the fleet in the 1975 year, the construction of the last ship of the series “George. Bush began in the 2003 year, joined the Navy in the 2009 year. The crew of the aircraft carrier 5600 man, capable of carrying up to 90 aircraft and helicopters.

"Gerald Ford" is the third generation of American nuclear aircraft carriers, according to the plan should join the fleet in 2015 year, before 2058, it is planned to build 10 ships of this type. The ship is equipped with two powerful water-cooled reactors, the crew of a 4500 man capable of carrying at least 75 aircraft.

10 class aircraft carriers “Nimitz” have a total displacement of almost 1 million tons, which has become synonymous with a powerful military fleet. The second country to build an atomic aircraft carrier is France.

The aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" began to be built from 1987, in 2000, the ship received a more extended flight deck, which housed the AEW "Hokai" aircraft. The entire project was spent 80 billion francs, which is almost 6 times the original estimate. These expenses have become a huge "black hole" of the military budget of France.

However, an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 40 thousand tons does not fully meet the requirements of the French Navy. There was no dock in the country for building an aircraft carrier of large dimensions and displacement, the two K-15 nuclear reactors used on the ship (the French SSBNs are equipped with them - according to the Soviet foreign classification, “submarine nuclear ballistic missiles” - approx. VP) the shaft is only 76200 hp, which allows the ship to reach a maximum speed of all 25 nodes. It is the slowest aircraft carrier in the world, built after the Second World War, and besides it often crashes. As the French say, if the “Charles de Gaulle” went out to sea, wait for him to catch the harbor before the time.

Compared with France, China has large building docks. In 2007, three major shipbuilding and ship repair centers appeared in Shanghai (Changxing), Qingdao (Heihu Bay) and Guangzhou (Longju). At present, there are 8 docks in China, where it is possible to build ships with a displacement of more than 300 thousand tons, by the year 2015 their number can approach 40. For the construction of an atomic aircraft carrier, a new dock in Dalian and Changxing can be used (the length of the last 365 m, width 82 m, depth 14,1, there is one 800-ton gantry crane). In the US, aircraft carriers are built at the shipyard with a dock length 488 m, width 76,2 m, for comparison, the length of the dock at the shipyard in Brest, where the Charles de Gaulle was built, is only 270 m.

But for the construction of a nuclear aircraft carrier is not enough only large production areas. First of all, China needs to master the production of high-power nuclear reactors, the existing nuclear power units for submarines are not suitable for equipping an aircraft carrier. For example, the aircraft carrier Nimitz is equipped with two powerful 130 reactors, thousand hp. (total power 260 thousand hp). China does not possess such technology.

In addition, China is lagging behind the developed nuclear countries in the production of highly enriched uranium for fuel rods of nuclear reactors, as well as in the field of advanced materials used in nuclear energy. It is also necessary to achieve a high level of nuclear safety. If a catastrophe occurs on an atomic aircraft carrier, great harm will be caused to the ecology of the sea and the life of a crew of several thousand people will be put at risk.

Thus, it is not enough to simply increase the number of large shipyards, we need a breakthrough in the field of critical technologies, the author of the article stresses.
Originator:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 22 August 2013 10: 22 New
    12
    Of course, the Chinese need this breakthrough, because their claims are far from small (yes, and by the way, their appetites too!). Including the desire to create a truly ocean fleet ...
    But here it is desirable for us (and not only for us, but also for India, for example) that in the near future they will not make this same leap. And even more so, you should not transfer technology to them. We will be the last fools if we do this ...
    1. Hauptmann emil
      Hauptmann emil 22 August 2013 13: 35 New
      +5
      The main thing is that we do not find "wise men" who will transfer technology.
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 22 August 2013 23: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: Hauptmann Emil
        The main thing is that we do not find "wise men" who will transfer technology.


        Yes, let them be. Wise men to the nearest aspen, which is undoubtedly useful, and the Chinaez will be 10 years behind in terms of developing their own technologies :)
    2. the polar
      the polar 22 August 2013 16: 49 New
      +2
      Quote: Chicot 1
      Of course, the Chinese need this breakthrough, because their claims are far from small (yes, and by the way, their appetites too!). Including the desire to create a truly ocean fleet ...
      But here it is desirable for us (and not only for us, but also for India, for example) that in the near future they will not make this same leap. And even more so, you should not transfer technology to them. We will be the last fools if we do this ...

      -------------------------
      But in this you are just wrong. It is beneficial for Russia today to help create an aircraft carrier group for China, but not by transferring technology, but by transferring a nuclear power unit manufactured by Russian enterprises for an aircraft carrier. It is beneficial for us to maintain the power of China as the main economic rival of the United States, a collision with which is inevitable.
      We also benefit from the development and strengthening of the Indian Navy as a potential rival to China in the Indian Ocean. Russia, with its technological achievements and prudent policies in Asia, without getting involved in any military conflicts, can deplete the US economy and bring down its state and financial systems.
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 22 August 2013 23: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Polar
        It is beneficial for Russia today to help create an aircraft carrier group for China, but not by transferring technology, but by transferring a nuclear power unit manufactured by Russian enterprises for an aircraft carrier.


        ABOUT ! It turns out there are like-minded people. hi Not everything is still gone ...

        Quote: Polar
        It is beneficial for us to maintain the power of China as the main economic rival of the United States, a collision with which is inevitable.


        The USA is already gone. Remained remnants. In the coming years, their army will simply strangle the miserable remnants of their own economies and, with their ranks, will catch a glimpse into history as being certainly outstanding, but useless. The only cant is that when leaving, they can slam the door very loudly.
    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 22 August 2013 23: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Chicot 1
      Thus, it is not enough to simply increase the number of large shipyards, we need a breakthrough in the field of critical technologies, the author of the article stresses.


      What I'm talking about all the time. China must first grow an engineering school, its own unique Chinese, and then build dry docks for super-ships. Let them continue to copy our developments. The more the better. Just do not get out of the last century.

      Right at one time they were presented with nuclear energy, of course they immediately bombed the bomb and began to protrude, but now they are building all the nuclear facilities according to the drawings of the USSR 80 years ago. The same nuclear submarine, their nuclear submarine fleet is an unlicensed copy of our boats built in the 60s. The aircraft carrier, again, yes, let them build a hull, but let the power plant torment. They will either drive on fuel oil or buy from us, which in turn is a dead end for them ... laughing

      something like
  2. Jacob31
    Jacob31 22 August 2013 10: 31 New
    +3
    Neither the US nor Russia will share such technologies with the Chinese. So China will have to close the niche with non-nuclear aircraft carriers or, as always, steal and copy from Russia, as is usually the case with our weapons))))
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 22 August 2013 23: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Jacob31
      Neither the US nor Russia will share such technologies with the Chinese. So China will have to close the niche with non-nuclear aircraft carriers or, as always, steal and copy from Russia, as is usually the case with our weapons))))


      Why so? Wasn’t there a little that was designed during the union of devices that are now not necessary for another ?? Give them a ready-made powerplant project from for our failed nuclear carrier, let them rejoice.

      Honestly, I do not understand why they stubbornly do not want to create their own technologies. The most difficult part has already been done for them - they built a reactor, now it remains only to conduct research and design the same only more power. At the same time, they would forever close the topic of the lack of nuclear technology.
  3. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 22 August 2013 10: 38 New
    +3
    The Chinese dragon is unpredictable and treacherous .. stumbling over there quietly and what no one knows on their mind .. Until everyone copies (and not bad) And if they come up with what the thread is ..)))
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 22 August 2013 23: 45 New
      0
      Quote: MIKHAN
      The Chinese dragon is unpredictable and treacherous .. stumbling over there quietly and what no one knows on their mind .. Until everyone copies (and not bad) And if they come up with what the thread is ..)))


      And only speaks Chinese. Translators regularly hawks and wonders where the forks constantly turn out to be in the priest.
  4. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 22 August 2013 10: 42 New
    +8
    Soon, the Nimitz class aircraft carriers filled with the inscription "made in china" will fill the world ocean.
    1. strange and pretty meaningless
      strange and pretty meaningless 22 August 2013 12: 22 New
      +1
      In the light of the events discussed on the branch http://topwar.ru/32159-amerika-v-dolgovoy-yame.html, these may be the same “Nimits” - only painted with hieroglyphs. Not all, of course - but it was somehow on the topsvar:

      The secretary of the US Department of Defense announced the upcoming reduction of the country's armed forces. Instead of 11 aircraft carriers, 8 or 9 will remain in service ... Of the aircraft carriers, they may get rid of George Washington ..., John C. Stennis and Harry Truman.

      Here amers will put us a pig - they will give these dishes to the Khitans for debts. These "lords of the seas", for example ... The Great Helmsman, Sun Tzu, and ... Laovay wassat Just kidding
  5. Trailer
    Trailer 22 August 2013 10: 44 New
    +1
    It is good that Ukraine does not have nuclear technology.
    1. Guun
      Guun 22 August 2013 11: 06 New
      +4
      There is in Ukraine - there is in China.
  6. andrei332809
    andrei332809 22 August 2013 10: 50 New
    +6
    I think they’re getting slammed. our bureaucrats are greedy, but China will find money for this. or maybe everything will be simpler - a redhead for some bribe of specialists to China will be sent to China and will also explain how it is beneficial to Russia
    1. Al shahini
      Al shahini 22 August 2013 13: 35 New
      +2
      I'm afraid your assumptions are not far from the truth. We have too many bablofilov.
  7. Guun
    Guun 22 August 2013 10: 55 New
    +6
    I’m thinking that if the Chinese built docks (and the Chinese aren’t fools) for the aircraft carriers, then the technology (they stole, bought) and people were already found or lured. Many people wrote that the Chinese did not know how to fight in the past, but time changes everything. As already happened in stories, strong nations turned into weak ones and vice versa. After all, no one will say now about the Mongols that they once crushed the floor of the world for themselves. Never underestimate a potential adversary.
    1. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 22 August 2013 12: 15 New
      +3
      Quote: Guun
      Never underestimate a potential adversary.

      That’s the whole point ... But the more likely the adversary has problems, the later he will be able to transfer (or never, at all!) To the category of potential ... wink
      So it is very desirable that the "great" China never end its problems ... I think that this will benefit Kazakhstan no less than Russia (or India) ... smile
      1. Guun
        Guun 22 August 2013 12: 38 New
        +2
        A weak China is beneficial for Kazakhstan (yes, a strong China seems unprofitable for everyone). Fortunately, we have few of them, but they come to a scanty pace. But those tendencies along which China is running in a couple of years (if they are not slowed down), and maybe no one else will be stronger than them on the planet. And the resources are quietly melting.
        1. Chicot 1
          Chicot 1 22 August 2013 17: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: Guun
          like everyone is disadvantageous strong China

          I can name a couple of countries that need a strong China. These are Pakistan (with which Beijing is friends against India) and the DPRK (well, here the reasons are traditionally ideological) ...
          The rest - yes, a strong China is not needed, that's right ...
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 22 August 2013 23: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: Guun
      I’m thinking that if the Chinese built docks (and the Chinese aren’t fools) for aircraft carriers, then the technology (stolen, bought) and people were already found or lured ....
      After all, no one will say now about the Mongols that they once crushed the floor of the world for themselves. Never underestimate a potential adversary.


      Docks were built for the construction of super-vehicles, and not for aircraft carriers. This is a profitable business with three Panamax class ships. Designing the hull of a large ship is a task for a student who has passed the compromising evidence by 5. They will draw it, he will count and say what to do. But the reactor in the parameters is already only a team in forces.

      By the way. Monogols at one time slaughtered 70% of the population of China, in particular 99% of men. You think where they are now a billion? Not by the wind ... And now where are these Mongols?
  8. Andrew 447
    Andrew 447 22 August 2013 14: 27 New
    +1
    From the drawings, the Chinese are of little use, they need a "living" instance and technology for the manufacture of materials for the reactor.
  9. lilit.193
    lilit.193 22 August 2013 15: 58 New
    +2
    Yes, the Chinese do not need a nuclear carrier. Not needed. Only they themselves do not yet know about it. wink laughing laughing laughing
  10. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 22 August 2013 16: 22 New
    +1
    This is a toy - an atomic aircraft carrier. The Americans are already cutting back, not pulling. So they have everything arranged. And the Chinese need to develop their own, and this is an increased cost. So let them push, let them tear. And in our country countermeasures have been developed even against Amer’s AUGs. There are submarines - killers of aircraft carriers, there are cruisers - killers of aircraft carriers. There are flocked cruise missiles with collective artificial intelligence. Maybe something else.