There's no hint, it is nuclear powered. Chinese state media already announced it a while ago.
460
MercantileReptile13 hr ago
+7
Did they not announce it as a riddle, leading to another spot in a scavenger hunt? I feel as though the headline has lied to me!
7
Thurak01 day ago
+167
That has been known/speculated since 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_004_aircraft_carrier
167
Tannerd1011 day ago
+169
I couldn't imagine new aircraft carriers not being nuclear powered
169
Pale_Change_6661 day ago
+94
Type 003 , and queen elizabeth class all conventional powered
94
SeaworthinessSome45414 hr ago
-17
Yeah, bc UK doesn’t take defense seriously. They’re a f****** joke. Even just to operate regionally, UK needs at least 4 queen Elizabeth’s. 2 doesn’t even come close to cutting it once you factor in maintained and downtime. You need at least double what you want to have on the water at any one time. Really double plus a backup.
-17
phido300012 hr ago
+2
Or is it because the UK has no workflow for decommissioning nuclear powered ships, and that all its submarines, including the first nuclear powered one, are still awaiting disposal, after being decommissioned 46 years ago.
The UK carriers warped the RN significantly. Making them Nuclear would have done so even more.
2
Somecommentator80081 day ago
+49
I can, it can be too expensive to build and operate a nuclear aircraft carrier.
49
Pale_Change_6661 day ago
+51
The maintenance costs over the life time will exceed the initial cost of acquiring of the ship. Same goes for nuclear submarines
51
Critical-Row798523 hr ago
+17
Same goes for for any "Warship". One might argue no nation should be commissioning these things at all.
17
T-Husky19 hr ago
+13
‘Great powers’ that lack force projection end up looking like Russia, relying on nuclear threats and political interference to merely survive.
13
SeaworthinessSome45414 hr ago
+2
Yup. You’re not a superpower unless you can project power in a different theatre. The US is the only military superpower atm. Russia used to be and China will be within about a decade.
2
dougmcclean22 hr ago
+19
Also goes for basically anything that floats.
19
Critical-Row79851 day ago
+14
A goddam aircraft carrier doctrinally should be as independent as possible. Relying on fueling and supply chains should be limited much as possible. Assuming you are operating in a theatre of war, long standing deployment and resilience far away from friendly support should be paramount. This is not a WWII sortie, nor an e***** vessel. It's a projection of air power to be deployed in any place where there is water. If you're going to have an aircraft carrier at all (which I am not arguing for) it should be the centrepiece around which all of your navy and air force rally. Is a diesel powered aircraft carrier c****? I would think, go nukes. I'm open to opposing viewpoints however.
14
mangalore-x_x1 day ago
+60
that does not work. Those planes are supposed to fly. In all navies the carrier group e****** aren't nuclear either.
Hence carrier strike groups are fuel guzzlers and heavily dependent on supply ships no matter how the carrier is powered.
The calculation for conventional carriers is to my knowledge that they need to get supplies so often that getting refueled in those intervals as well is not actually considered much of a difference in complexity and you get a cheaper ship without special tech the rest of the navy does not run on.
I would say it is excess power generation and possibly how much sustained top speeds can be reached and how much more effective volume you can use for its tonnage than carriers being doctrinally independent since they aren't.
Not saying nuclear carriers are not more performant, but it is always a calculation of purpose, pay off and mission. In the end British carriers have a far smaller mission set than US carriers. Britain does not plan to reconquer India any time soon.
60
517A564dD17 hr ago
+7
The US used to have nuclear powered e******, as well. Just a fun fact.
7
Dt2_013 hr ago
+5
The big benefit of a nuclear carrier is all that space you use to store fuel for the conventional carrier can be converted to store jet fuel, weapons, food, etc. to keep the carrier stocked longer and allow for higher tempo combat ops.
5
grchelp201821 hr ago
+2
How often would the carrier need to be refuelled?
2
Critical-Row798523 hr ago
-6
Yes. Ideally the carrier is a tanker of jer fuel for the air strikes. If there are no sorties, it just idles. Jet fighters require jet fuel, but if they don't fly, the air craft carrier just sits there and looms as an existential threat. But a carrier that is incapable or redeploy or retreat is is floating target worth untold trillions. I would put the extra dollars into making sure that platform has the ability to move. And GTFO if necessary. The jets and accessories are replaceable in a way the carrier is not.
-6
Otaraka21 hr ago
+15
They have to be constantly resupplied no matter what they do. An aircraft carrier that cant be resupplied is screwed regardless of its power supply.
15
ahypeman20 hr ago
+6
You mean the people on board aren't nuclear powered as well?
6
mangalore-x_x11 hr ago
+1
An aircraft carrier is no threat unless its jets fly. It needs them in the air to establish control of the airspace around the carrier. The e****** need to circle it to prevent infiltration, it needs to move to not be a sitting duck => constant fuel use
Imo you approach this too binary. On its own the carrier is just a floating air strip. Threat: Zero. What makes it an existential threat is the air wing. To demonstrate being a looming threat (and also to show it is not a vulnerable target) it needs to have those jets be in the air. That is why they need all those e******. And that is why it and its task force needs constant supplies.
I slightly agree if you are talking solely about peace time transit but in war conditions things are different. Ironically yes, the carrier is nuclear powered and can steam around without effort, but all its e****** and supply ships run themselves ragged to keep it supplied and protected in the meantime.
1
burgonies20 hr ago
+10
Airplanes need fuel and 2,500 sailors need to be fed a carrier can’t just loiter out at sea unsupported
10
Ok_Lettuce_793923 hr ago
+7
Doesn't it depend on doctrine? If PLAAN is A2/AD in and around it's territorial waters, why does it need to be able to sortie without refueling if it never needs to leave as far, say, Western Australia? Or has PLA/CPC changed and now wants to be able to project power from sea-to-sea?
7
Critical-Row798523 hr ago
+3
That's true, but ytf would you need an aircraft carrier to protect power in your own territorial waters? An aircraft carrier is strictly an offensive projection. Otherwise you just run sorties from your own air fields. Unless they're all destroyed, at which point you're fucked anyway. Bottom line is, no one needs aircraft carriers unless they want to project power globally. Not defens their own territory.
3
torpedospurs17 hr ago
+1
The need should be obvious by the events over the last two months. It needs a carrier group or two at the Persian Gulf to prevent the Americans from imposing a blockade.
1
Persimmon-Mission15 hr ago
+1
The strait of malacca is probably a bigger risk point for China.
1
jimicus9 hr ago
+1
Most aircraft carriers have pretty poor defences and instead rely on e***** ships of some sort. Your argument only makes sense if those e***** ships are similarly equipped.
Any argument that you should operate independently of supply lines in war is doomed to failure. Reduce what you need, sure, but pretending you can go any extended period without any sort of supply line is a tad optimistic.
1
WavingWookiee21 hr ago
+1
You need to resupply jet fuel...
1
Critical-Row798521 hr ago
-4
Sure, but again, not if your jets don't fly. The concept is to project power. If you actually want to get into a shooting war, none of that shit is sustainable. An aircraft carrier is like a nuke. Its best use is to be like, "OooOOOooOOOOooo look out, don't f*** with us." In practicality, it's far less effective than it is as an existential threat.
-4
O_PLUTO_O14 hr ago
+1
Yes but given the current energy crisis surrounding oil it wouldn’t make any sense to have them be fossil fuel-based
1
DungeonDefense22 hr ago
+7
Then you must be surprised. Besides the US and France, everyone else uses conventional carriers.
7
Tannerd10122 hr ago
+3
I am surprised! I had no idea tbh lol
3
subtle_bullshit15 hr ago
+1
We haven’t seen any powerful militaries attempt to destroy or disable one, so time will tell if it’s worth the cost.
1
SpareDot86851 day ago
+8
Should be powered by LOVE like the Care Bears.
8
AmazingSugar11 day ago
+16
They already laid the keel in October 2025
16
Captain_Wag1 day ago
+8
Why is this a surprise to anyone? Why wouldn't they use nuclear power just like the US does? They're not exactly neanderthals when it comes to nuclear fission.
8
Imbendo15 hr ago
+7
Nuclear reactor technology on a boat is quite difficult to achieve. China cant even build a reliable airliner for export despite trying their hardest for 40 years. It’s a lot trickier than you would assume. Our sub reactors are among the most closely guarded secrets our govt has.
7
Captain_Wag14 hr ago
+5
I suppose you're right. It's not exactly the same thing. Nuclear reactors are already not an easy thing to maintain. I imagine the reactor being inside a pressurized submarine makes it extra tricky. Especially when the submarine changes depths which changes the pressure. That must be a whole lot of math involved to not kill everyone.
5
Ok-Bar60119 hr ago
+3
Some disagreements about the usefulness of nuclear powered carriers. I would’ve thought that as an instrument of power projection which could be deployed anywhere in the ocean at a moment’s notice, having nuclear power would be paramount. Yes it has a carrier group to protect it but if the US decided it needs air superiority in an area where the carrier group is not required to be maintained 100% for it’s purpose the carrier could still move to the desired location and have fuel enough to wage a short campaign against another country. That is the luxury of having that option: testy relations with a South American country with no subs? Send the closest carrier to loiter offshore and hold the country to ransom. That’s what nuclear power offers, options at short notice.
3
BendicantMias1 day ago
+31
People make too much of a big deal out of aircraft carriers. They're the backbone of the US navy, but most other navies don't revolve around them. And neither does China's. China already has parity in submarines for instance. They're not as long range, but that doesn't matter since China isn't planning on fighting far from home. Carriers are for power projection, particularly inland. But they're not the be all and end all of conflict at sea, against other navies.
31
wompical1 day ago
+65
Submarines are one thing that China does NOT have parity with the US in.
65
Loose_Skill664123 hr ago
-25
Chinese subs can swim inland and US cannot!
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CJeOz7-b1Lg&ra=m](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CJeOz7-b1Lg&ra=m)
-25
devi831 day ago
+46
>China already has parity in submarines for instance.
source?
46
m9878922 hr ago
+37
Source: trustmebropedia
37
mangalore-x_x1 day ago
+7
Well, the deal is not so much that you need it as a country that just wants to be left alone and live in peace, but that a country building aircraft carriers intends to mess your shit up and be right in your business.
It is a claim to super power status and the intent to project power globally.
7
Prestigious_Face77271 day ago
-2
Well, they're planning to take Taiwan, and pretty soon given their oil stockpile (which has been accidentally useful just recently).
I assume that aircraft carriers are essential for that job
-2
FratStarWorldWide22 hr ago
+4
How woulda. Carrier help China with Taiwan? Taiwan is in complete range of all their land based airbases. They don't need carriers for Taiwan they need landing craft& subs more than they need a carrier for that. Carriers are meant for longer range projection of power. It's definitely a deterrent for other Asian pacific nations like Australia, Philippines, Japan. They need a fleet that can project power outside the south Chinese sea. People can say what they want but carrier groups are floating medieval castles (naval batteries) in modern terms It helps form choke points in important water ways you couldn't domestically impact.
4
kal1414420 hr ago
+2
Carriers would be to try and cut off Taiwan from getting help not to actually take the island. In any China/Taiwan conflict china’s first move will be a blockade and an attempt to “convince” the US Japan and Korea to not enter the war. The ability to threaten Tokyo and Seoul are a big part of that.
2
FratStarWorldWide19 hr ago
That's what subs and destroyers are for in the age of drones carriers do nothing for blockades. Look at the US now not a single carrier is working on the blockade of Hormuz my guy
0
kal1414419 hr ago
+3
The US blockade of Iran is uncontested in any serious sense. It tells you roughly nothing as far as what assets you’d need to enforce a blockade against American Japanese and Korean combined opposition. A destroyer can’t merrily board a tanker that’s being protected by the USS Ford. Or even one that’s being shadowed by US submarines. You need significant anti submarine warfare capabilities, the ability to counter enemy carriers and the ability to sink ships even if they go places where you can’t effectively go due to submarines and other area denial assets. Carriers provide all that. They can sink a commercial vessel 1000 km away without breaking a sweat. And if they’re part of a task force they can do that in the middle of the pacific or in the Tokyo bay while remaining reasonably well defended.
3
BendicantMias1 day ago
-1
Tbh I think that purpose is also well past its sell-by date. There's an even better option for doing that that has almost no defense, and is only prevented by adherence to a treaty - satellites. The Outer Space Treaty forbids the militarization of space, but it's the ultimate high ground, and beyond most nations' ability to stop. I expect in the coming years we'll see the Outer Space Treaty be abandoned.
It's worth noting that China has its own space station. They're not part of the ISS, but they built a space station on their own...
-1
faffc26021 hr ago
+3
nah, a sattelite network that could hit anywhere on the planet in a reasonable amount of time would cost more than the entire US defense budget by a large margin, and more satellites than we have in space currently combined as the world, for each and every nation looking to militarize space.
3
SchemeWestern33881 day ago
+29
With the rapid rise of long range anti ship missiles (including hypersonic), carriers are looking less useful every year. Great for bullying small nations, not so useful in a peer conflict.
29
tegat1 day ago
+12
True, but peer conflicts across nuclear powers are rare (nonexistent or fought through proxy wars) and use different tactics and weapons. War against inferior armies are far more common and thus it makes sense for China to build aircraft carrier. China doesn't have bases like US or a large network of allies, so there is limited number of refueling places. Nuclear just makes sense.
12
Pale_Change_6661 day ago
+20
Well that's what the soviet naval doctrine was. They knew they can't match the Americans in carrier capability, so their navy focused on neutralizing aircraft carriers with long range supersonic anti ship missiles like the p 700granit.
20
wndtrbn1 day ago
+3
It's useful to move on from being a small nation and become a peer.
3
johnlocke35722 hr ago
+9
China has big plans to get into the "bullying small nations" business in the near to medium term future.
They would be pretty unhelpful in a full scale war against the us, but its a sign of china's shipbuilding dominance and strategic flexibility, that they are making simultaneous preparations for the possibilities of both imminent hot war, and protracted cold war.
9
Slickbeat23 hr ago
+8
No, until someone can produce an accurate, absurdly fast and long ranged anti-ship missile, that can somehow also outrange long distance carrier-based fighters/bombers (and midair refuelers supporting them), carriers will continue to be the backbone for a long time.
Considering the size of the ocean, that missiles range would have to be nearing the circumference of the earth. The larger the missile the lower the capacity (if ship based), the longer the range the more difficult it is to hit a moving target. If static airfields are as vulnerable as they are in modern warfare, why would a mobile aircraft carrier not be a major asset? Why do you think China is still building carriers?
The only reason the US is in a pickle right now is because they didn’t foresee facing a peer adversary in the near future. So they gave up their long range carrier based interceptor (F-14) for a shorter range fighter-bomber (F/A-18). The US Navy is currently trying to produce a longer range replacement, but is also testing midair refueling drones in the meantime.
I’d also like to see a source for that submarine parity claim. I’m fairly certain that isn’t true.
8
angelbelle16 hr ago
+1
Is it really peer adversary just because they figured out something the US had 70 years ago?
1
Alexexy21 hr ago
China currently has mach 10 missiles for their anti carrier needs.
Their submarines kinda suck lol.
0
Slickbeat17 hr ago
+2
Yeah, but they still have range limitations and lose accuracy over range on a moving target.
2
Thurak022 hr ago
+5
> They're the backbone of the US navy, but most other navies don't revolve around them.
You do realise that it enable the USN to project power around the globe wherever they want? That's what China needs/wants: being able to send warplanes where they have no bases.
5
lebennaia19 hr ago
No, it's the network of bases in friendly countries that lets the US do that.
0
PM_ME_WHOEVER14 hr ago
+1
Chinese submarines is arguably the one branch that is catching up the slowest.
They may have a decent number of nuclear subs, but design-wise probably not up to par.
1
WasThatInappropriate1 day ago
-1
Carriers only need to be nuclear powered if their mission is to float menancingly off soneones coast for extended periods doing nothing too. As soon as they're actually in combat they need jet fuel and munitions resupply just like any other carriers (and other carriers can refuel while doing that anyway)
-1
faffc26021 hr ago
+4
the nuclear power allows them to maneuver much faster, allowing them to perform evasive maneuvers from say incoming anti ship and ballistic missiles a whole lot better. refueling isn't much of an issue cause they need resupply of so many other things that it could happen during any of those and it could operate as long as you have diesel....and their entire e****** are diesel powered, so need refueling anyways. nuclear for aircraft carriers is about performance and capacity. for subs it's about duration of deployment though.
4
angelbelle16 hr ago
+5
Also save a lot of space from not having to carry fuel for itself and instead reclaim it for more jet fuel for its wings/ordinance/supplies/whatever.
People point out that you still have to resupply for the crew and other consumables but not having to do it for energy makes a huge difference and idling = vulnerable.
5
WasThatInappropriate20 hr ago
-4
It doesnt though cos the engines are still steam turbine driven and need to spin up. Modern carriers are electric driven and so have near instant full torque
-4
Boysoythesoyboy23 hr ago
+1
I think the quite part not being said out loud yet is at some point china will be getting more assertive on the world stage and countering us power projection.
1
kal1414420 hr ago
+1
I mean that’s the point tho. That’s precisely why the US Navy is in a class of its own.
1
iPcFc20 hr ago
You're right. Nowadays, the battle is about drones and Ukraine is a prime example that you can sink a flagship by using them.
0
PoolRamen1 day ago
+2
We've all known for a long time
2
RoleTall202513 hr ago
+1
kinda been wondering lately how much further carriers will go on.
We're going to be able to see planes take off from anywhere in the world and go anywhere else in the world without needing a forward base in the next few years i think.
1
k_elo13 hr ago
+1
Chinese neighbors rn feeling the pressure that china felt with the US.
Let’s see how “not imperial” china will be once it has established carrier battle groups in the open oceans.
1
Zestyclose-Pear-927611 hr ago
+1
China doesn’t need carriers - it has 4000 merchant vessels and containerised weapon systems.
1
macross19841 day ago
+4
Nuclear powered aircraft carrier is immensely expensive to construct and maintain but China is wealthy enough not only to afford it but at an accelerated pace compared to US.
While China is rapidly catching up on hardware, mastering the high level of training efficiency US has developed over century will still take some time is the way I see it.
4
Thurak022 hr ago
+5
They do have three conventional aircraft carriers in service and are most certainly trying/doing their best to train up the expertise needed.
5
kal1414419 hr ago
+2
China has a lot of expertise in onshore and submarine nuclear power and is building a lot of expertise on (non nuclear) carrier operations. Marrying that together probably isn’t trivial but it is far from building it from scratch. You take a naval nuclear engineer and put him on a carrier he might not know everything but he has a pretty large head start over someone who didn’t.
2
Admiral_de_Ruyter14 hr ago
+1
The Liaoning is since 2002 in service so they are already training for more than 20 years.
1
CipherWeaver1 day ago
-13
I'm surprised it's not solar powered. China is leagues ahead in battery and solar tech.
Then again, small Thorium reactors are probably the future.
-13
Loose_Skill664123 hr ago
+4
Because the weight of the batteries would be insane, it's the same reason you don't see any electric 747's flying around
even just building 18 wheel electric shipping truck is hard, several companies have tried and failed due to their trucks being unable to compete with diesel trucks on performance, carrying capacity and cost
4
hahaha0135721 hr ago
They can't compete even with zero fuel cost? I thought fuel cost is the biggest cost for shipping companies? I'm sure with the pace of battery development, they'll be able to build something in the short term.
0
CipherWeaver23 hr ago
-2
Yes I know it's a joke.
-2
Takis121 day ago
-5
Damn…that oil crisis hits China more than anyone thought.
-5
Miyukachi20 hr ago
+2
Except that China stockpiled a massive amount of Oil before the closure. Estimated they added 1.4b barrels (approx 120 days worth) to their stock pile in just 2026 before the closure.
And planning a nuclear carrier is on a way longer timeline than a few years.
2
Takis1213 hr ago
+1
Do I need to post /s ? Really?
1
Threebridges222 hr ago
-4
Only 65 years later than the US!
-4
Loose_Skill664123 hr ago
-3
but but.. listnook told me China didn't need nuclear power because it has no desire to be a global navy
-3
Typingdude31 day ago
-10
China getting those 1930s Japan vibes.
-10
Finorkina1 day ago
+10
That would be the US giving off 1930s Japan vibes seeing as how the US wants to build a new battleship while attacking multiple other countries.
10
Pale_Change_6661 day ago
+5
So is japan with their " helicopter carriers" lol.
5
Well__shit1 day ago
+1
Japan sees the writing on the wall
1
noir_lord1 day ago
+6
The writing is in crayon and written on the wall of an Oval Office.
6
TyrusX1 day ago
-4
Can I have an nuclear power car next
-4
phicks_law17 hr ago
I mean they are already touting their ability to use MSRs for merchant vessels, having a carrier be nuclear isn't surprising.
0
DaySecure76421 day ago
-6
By the end of the century China will probably have similar numbers of carrier groups as the US. The US needs to prepare for that eventuality.
-6
hahaha0135721 hr ago
They don't need to. They only have one ocean to worry about.
0
kal1414421 hr ago
We’re unfortunately headed toward a world where freedom of navigation in international waters is not guaranteed so China will need to be able to defend shipping lanes its commerce depends on anywhere in the world.
0
BallSmashingForever21 hr ago
-9
AND FINALLY over sixty years after USA, China accomplishes something.
INCREDIBLE!
-9
ChaoticSenior20 hr ago
-3
And a few guys in zodiacs can take it out of commission.
101 Comments