Intrepid
Major
Do you mean Enterprise with its bundle of eight small reactors?
PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.
- Thread starter antiterror13
- Start date
Yes I meant the eight small reactors.
That arrangement compromised (if not killed) the advantage of nuclear power plant over conventional power plant in terms of space, maintenance and long life time. But that was not an issue for USN as Enterprise was a intermediate design (stepping stone or experiment) to a final long term design in big numbers of ships. But the RN has no such luxury of big fleet.
Hehe
, now I realize that I was thinking Enterprise when typing Nimitz.They could, but what real advantage would they gain when they have to shift to a new larger reactor design anyway?
When Enterprise was built 50+ years ago, nuclear power plants (whether military or commercial) were actually very new.
But now they are a known quantity and there is widespread expertise and standardisation in the field.
I suspect that nuclear reactors are not a simple conversion from civilian to naval application, or they would have done it already.
When Enterprise was built, it was the first generation of both civilian and military nuclear reactors in use, and they were a completely new technology.
But now, China is already on the 3rd generation of military submarine reactors and also 3rd/4th generation of large civilian reactors.
So China might as well start with full size reactors instead of smaller ones for its aircraft carriers when they're ready
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Designing a new AC reactor is not beyond China's capability . They have long years of experience with good safety record. In fact the civilian reactor program is an offshoot of the military program
I believe effort now is underway to design AC reactor from scratch judging from reading the news
It is matter of priority and naval doctrine
Naval reactor is identical to commercial PWR with minor modification as this
Current U.S. naval reactors are all , which are identical to PWR commercial reactors producing electricity, except that:
Long-term integrity of the compact reactor pressure vessel is maintained by providing an internal neutron shield. (This is in contrast to early Soviet civil PWR designs where embrittlement occurs due to neutron bombardment of a very narrow pressure vessel.)
Reactor sizes range up to ~500 (about 165 MWe) in the larger submarines and surface ships. The French have a 48 MW reactor that needs no refueling for 30 years.
I believe effort now is underway to design AC reactor from scratch judging from reading the news
It is matter of priority and naval doctrine
Naval reactor is identical to commercial PWR with minor modification as this
Current U.S. naval reactors are all , which are identical to PWR commercial reactors producing electricity, except that:
- they have a high power density in a small volume and run either on low-enriched uranium (as do some French and Chinese submarines) or on highly (>20% U-235, current U.S. submarines use fuel enriched to at least 93%, compared to between 21–45% in current Russian models, although Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker reactors are enriched up to 90%),[]
- they have long core lives, so that refueling is needed only after 10 or more years, and new cores are designed to last 25 years in carriers and 10–33 years in submarines,
- the design enables a compact pressure vessel while maintaining safety.[]
Long-term integrity of the compact reactor pressure vessel is maintained by providing an internal neutron shield. (This is in contrast to early Soviet civil PWR designs where embrittlement occurs due to neutron bombardment of a very narrow pressure vessel.)
Reactor sizes range up to ~500 (about 165 MWe) in the larger submarines and surface ships. The French have a 48 MW reactor that needs no refueling for 30 years.
The "except" part isn't exactly all that easy, especially a higher density in a smaller volume. I'm not saying it can't be done by current Chinese technology, merely that a submarine reactor may be a more expedient carrier solution until the larger naval reactor is finished developing if the PLAN wants one sooner. As nobody on this forum knows the present state of PLAN naval reactor technology or its timetable regarding nuclearized carriers (if there is even to be one), there is nothing to suggest this isn't an available option.
From a strategic requirements point of view, there isn't a huge rush to getting any more aircraft carriers into service, given that they don't add much capability towards addressing China's core interests which are all in the immediate area.
There are already 2 STOBARs which would be enough for low-intensity scenarios.