PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

weig2000 said:

Check out the PLAN Type 093/094/095 thread post #526, where I provided some link a while back.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

That link of yours seems to suggest a submarine reactor. Going by the similar nuclear submarines in USN, Virginia class, it seems that reactor should be around 30MW shaft, so it should be something around 100MW thermal. ACP100 is 300MW thermal, 100MW electrical, it is 3 times more than a submarine reactor. So I still don't think ACP100 is a direct development from that SSN reactor, but sharing same technologies. I would guess ACP100 is from a CVN reactor design if it is from a military reactor.

However, this thought of mine does not contradict your opinion of ACP100 is from a military reactor, but rather pointing out its root is other than SSN.

taxiya said:

Thanks for that.

That link of yours seems to suggest a submarine reactor. Going by the similar nuclear submarines in USN, Virginia class, it seems that reactor should be around 30MW shaft, so it should be something around 100MW thermal. ACP100 is 300MW thermal, 100MW electrical, it is 3 times more than a submarine reactor. So I still don't think ACP100 is a direct development from that SSN reactor, but sharing same technologies. I would guess ACP100 is from a CVN reactor design if it is from a military reactor.

However, this thought of mine does not contradict your opinion of ACP100 is from a military reactor, but rather pointing out its root is other than SSN.

Click to expand...

The size might have been influenced by a need to transport the largest part of the power plant by rail. If that allows you to go to 300 MW thermal why remain at the 100 MW thermal of the previous design that is used in submarines?

delft said:

The size might have been influenced by a need to transport the largest part of the power plant by rail. If that allows you to go to 300 MW thermal why remain at the 100 MW thermal of the previous design that is used in submarines?

Click to expand...

If I understand you right, you meant "why not use a 300MWt reactor for SSN if the size is small enough"?

300MWt(100MWe) is too much for a SSN, it really doesn't need that much power, on the contrary, if one can make 100MWt in a smaller size than previous version, one should go for reduced size, the internal volume of a SSN is more important than excessive power.

As I understood, the minimum power output of a single ACP100 (module) is 300MWt, so its military counterpart is about the same, meaning too big for SSN, but perfect for a CVN (two of them), that is what Ford Class is using. With two you have redundancy, but not complexity of many (more than 2) reactors.

taxiya said:

If I understand you right, you meant "why not use a 300MWt reactor for SSN if the size is small enough"?

300MWt(100MWe) is too much for a SSN, it really doesn't need that much power, on the contrary, if one can make 100MWt in a smaller size than previous version, one should go for reduced size, the internal volume of a SSN is more important than excessive power.

As I understood, the minimum power output of a single ACP100 (module) is 300MWt, so its military counterpart is about the same, meaning too big for SSN, but perfect for a CVN (two of them), that is what Ford Class is using. With two you have redundancy, but not complexity of many (more than 2) reactors.

Click to expand...

No I mean having designed a reactor for the submarine of 100 MWt and tasked with with designing a civilian power plant on the basis of this experience and then looking at the specification such as being able to transport the largest part, the pressure vessel, by rail you choose a power suitable to the size of that pressure vessel.
It it still too early to be producing nuclear power plants for flattops. These will come to be designed in about ten years time and I hope they will be able to use molten salt thorium reactors which are smaller and lighter than PWR's of the same electric power, using higher temperatures and thus having a higher thermal efficiency as well as being inherently smaller, and needing much less shielding. It is clearly too early to make the choice.

taxiya said:

As I understood, the minimum power output of a single ACP100 (module) is 300MWt, so its military counterpart is about the same, meaning too big for SSN, but perfect for a CVN (two of them), that is what Ford Class is using. With two you have redundancy, but not complexity of many (more than 2) reactors.

Click to expand...

ACP100 electricity output is 100 MWe, about the same as the A4W, which powers the Nimitz class carriers. The Ford class uses the much more powerful A1B, with electricity output of 300 MWe.

Now, ACP100 is a civilian reactor, so we're not making apple-to-apple comparison here strictly speaking. It's just power output comparison.

weig2000 said:

ACP100 electricity output is 100 MWe, about the same as the A4W, which powers the Nimitz class carriers. The Ford class uses the much more powerful A1B, with electricity output of 300 MWe.

Now, ACP100 is a civilian reactor, so we're not making apple-to-apple comparison here strictly speaking. It's just power output comparison.

Click to expand...

Agreed on the second part.

To the first part, there is very limited returns from a google search. I found this link

The person tried to deduct something about A1B and A4W. First he quoted from wiki, as you said, A1B is claimed by wiki as 3 times more than A4W, 300MWe vs 100MW shaft plus unspecfied electricity. In this case, A1B is less than 3 times. Then he quoted another figure of A1B (realistic) which is 100MWe.

I don't fully understand how he reached that 100MWe, but if true, A1B is not revolutionary more powerful than the supposed military counterpart of ACP100. And although I believe in the US's long experience in nuclear development, but without a revolutionary breakthrough, I don't believe a 3 times power in roughly the same physical size. Also, if we use the commercial reactor technology development whose information is pretty open as a yard stick, I don't see USN has that kind of advancement than the rest of the world.

With the scarce reliable information about these reactors, I think I can not go any further in the discussion.

Update on 4 May 2016


All Credits and Big Thanks to the Original Creator of these Graphics '果壳军事'

Does anyone know the specifications of the 001A regarding elevators? How many will it have? The US Navy designed the Ford class with separate high capacity elevators for ordnance because they found it helps minimize planes launching time; will this also be the case?

sangye said:

Does anyone know the specifications of the 001A regarding elevators? How many will it have? The US Navy designed the Ford class with separate high capacity elevators for ordnance because they found it helps minimize planes launching time; will this also be the case?

Click to expand...

CV-16 Liaoning (and Kuznetsov) both do have elevators for munitions.

I expect 001A to definitely have elevators for munitions as well, but whether they're the same as Liaoning or if they would be changed is another matter.