PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Intrepid said:

Thank You!

So it's nonsense to claim that EMALS would be possible only in conjunction with a nuclear reactor as a power source?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily nonsense. Emals require a lot of energy than steam cats and conventional boilers may face a deficit in other areas of power requirements if a huge chunk of it is dedicated to the EMALS system. It's all about power management.
Keep in mind that as carriers become more sophisticated and automated, it becomes more power hungry than previous ones. There is a reason why USN went all nuke with their carriers.... They require a lot of power and power generation is something you need to future proof right from the start.you can always replace with more powerful reactors down the road but you can't replace CODAG, COGAG etc with nuclear reactors.

There is also the AAG system which I feel should be part and parcel of any EMALS discussion. Kinda go hand in hand IMHO.

kwaigonegin said:

Not necessarily nonsense. Emals require a lot of energy than steam cats and conventional boilers may face a deficit in other areas of power requirements if a huge chunk of it is dedicated to the EMALS system. It's all about power management.
Keep in mind that as carriers become more sophisticated and automated, it becomes more power hungry than previous ones. There is a reason why USN went all nuke with their carriers.... They require a lot of power and power generation is something you need to future proof right from the start.you can always replace with more powerful reactors down the road but you can't replace CODAG, COGAG etc with nuclear reactors.

There is also the AAG system which I feel should be part and parcel of any EMALS discussion. Kinda go hand in hand IMHO.

Click to expand...

Nuclear power is not the best but its capacity versus volume of power generating equipment is better compared to other systems. Upon one reactor more than 5 power generation steam turbines can work. Same steam may be used for purify water, generate oxygen, burn/dispose waste and for heating requirement.
Any power generating system which is able to meet the peek pulse requirements can meet this demand. EMALS are power intensive and very sensitive to power availability in short spans of time slots. It is not only power but storage, discharge and recharge efficiency matter much for satisfactory operations of aircraft's launching in a timely manner.

EMALS are running in test environment without using nuclear power reactors. In these cases aircraft is not launched with in 5 minutes of the previous launch. Researchers await for charging of energy storage device and evaluation of the system performance. System equipment inspection is carried out and there is none of pressures which may arise in an aircraft carrier expedition.

Aircraft carriers do not have unlimited space for power generation. For huge power requirement nuclear reactor is a safe bet. Two power generating steam turnbines run at 60% capacity catering propulsion/normal requirements/EMALS normal functioning and two other turbines shoot up from 10-20% to 100% when there is a surge in power demand. It doest not huge amount of fuel supply and space available is used for other necessary / critical supporting facilities.

Intrepid said:

Thank You!

So it's nonsense to claim that EMALS would be possible only in conjunction with a nuclear reactor as a power source?

Click to expand...

It is pretty much nonsense. Laws of Conservation of Energy means that getting the same aircraft from zero to lift-off speed requires the same energy. So, energy requirement comes down to efficiency of each approach, and EMALS is much more efficient.

95% of the energy going into a steam catapult is wasted. It is not news that carrier faces deficit in other areas of power requirements when a huge chunk of power is dedicated to steam catapults, such as during periods of sustained launches. Steam catapult also requires enormous amount of purified fresh water, and running the water distillery units takes up power too.

Keep in mind that as aircraft get more modern, they get heavier, and the amount of energy requires for launch gets higher. With steam catapult, launching one extra ton requires extra energy input of launching 20 tons! It is no coincidence that modern carriers with steam catapults all run on nuclear power. EMALS will make CATOBAR carriers feasible again with conventional power plant.

Talk about nuclear reactor - does China have reliable military nuclear reactor technology?

So far PLAN only have Type 091, Type 092, Type 093, Type 094 that use naval/military nuclear reactors. The Type 091 was horrible enough that it was rumored to have killed its crews because of reactor accident.

So to put unreliable nuclear reactor into future nuclear power aircraft carrier would be quite unthinkable - a single accident could kill thousands not to mention the prestige of PLAN. They would also need to make it extra safe as an aircraft carrier is a gigantic target that can't be hidden like the nuclear submarine, so when facing the OpFor they should expect the OpFor to target the reactor, which means they would need to design safety measures incase of reactor breach.

Ultra said:

Talk about nuclear reactor - does China have reliable military nuclear reactor technology?

So far PLAN only have Type 091, Type 092, Type 093, Type 094 that use naval/military nuclear reactors. The Type 091 was horrible enough that it was rumored to have killed its crews because of reactor accident.

So to put unreliable nuclear reactor into future nuclear power aircraft carrier would be quite unthinkable - a single accident could kill thousands not to mention the prestige of PLAN. They would also need to make it extra safe as an aircraft carrier is a gigantic target that can't be hidden like the nuclear submarine, so when facing the OpFor they should expect the OpFor to target the reactor, which means they would need to design safety measures incase of reactor breach.

Click to expand...

In that respect Thorium reactors are safer as well as more efficient and much smaller and lighters. They also need much less lead shielding. If the first Chinese nuclear powered flattop appears around 2030 the Thorium reactors are likely to be sufficiently developed to be used.
Another point is that a smaller CVN, as CdG, is much less efficient than a "full sized" one, i.e. all USN CVN's, while a smaller CVN with Thorium reactors suffers less. So China might continue with flattops all of the same size as Liaoning building one every two or three years in two yards, against USN one every five years in one yard, thus winning from the competition between the yards.

Gas cooled reactors are better compared to current generation one. Thorium cycle is ideal but it needs more work and commercial acceptance. Higher capacity fuel sells would also be part of backup and emergency supplies in near future. I wish they may replace the other sources.

As the things are going I am suspecting China is building VTOL-carriers or massive cruiser type-055 before aircraft carriers. May be the both would go through production run and may be build sooner than later. Initially may be inducted in 2015-16 time frame. PLAN may ultimately build 5 each.
China is not in hurry to make aircraft carriers. Rumour mill is going on but nothing is concrete. It is all deductive and wish full scenarios. It is my guess. China would build Aircraft Carrier Zero CVN-17 in the capacity of 75000 ton with two launching and one landing EMALS. It would have 410m by 120m flat top but still would be experimental one.
It would increase the stability of the aircraft carrier. Later on more EMALS tracks would be added to the deck. It would be used to test J-15 and its next iteration. Chine just like to keep only under 50 air-crafts on it. It would test modified J-15 that has heavy airframe, higher missile numbers to be carried and extended range.
After evaluating this PLAN would go for decide about the future carriers and their role. It may happen in 1917-19 when construction would start.
China may modify the Aircraft Carrier minus one CV_16 to add EMALS after the testing it on CV-17.
China is not desperate to bring aircraft carrier groups. PLAN is taking its time and deliberations are ongoing since 2007.

Melcane said:

Gas cooled reactors are better compared to current generation one. Thorium cycle is ideal but it needs more work and commercial acceptance. Higher capacity fuel sells would also be part of backup and emergency supplies in near future. I wish they may replace the other sources.

Click to expand...

I understood that the power density of gas cooled reactors is lower that that of light water cooled ones and that they are for that reason unsuitable for naval use.
Naval reactors do not need commercial acceptance. I read that it is intended that Thorium reactors will be developed by 2020 after which naval use and power station use can be developed in parallel.