00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[iewgnem]

No they didn't. That's basically saying that China is planning to emulate the US global empire, which certainly isn't what the Chinese government is aiming for. Where did that assertion even come from?

I dont think China built the worlds largest navy and now nuke carriers to hang out in Asia

Global power projection does not equal global empire, for one China's enemy has a global empire so you need global projection to fight it

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I dont think China built the worlds largest navy and now nuke carriers to hang out in Asia

Global power projection does not equal global empire, for one China's enemy has a global empire so you need global projection to fight it

Global power projection requires a massive logistical network to back it. Those logistical networks require nodes where aircrafts and ships will transmit through in order to support the forward-deployed forces required to establish and maintain presence at various locations that are far-flung from home.

Air bases, naval bases and various types of stations and facilities are pretty much part-and-parcels of this logistical network - And this is also pretty much how the US establish its global empire for decades. How else are you going to do global power projection without it?

 

[tphuang]

This is a very interesting post by 爱若丰狂SOYO历 on possible propulsion for 004. ACP100S. But I think the part about the electricity requirement from propulsion and weapon system is problem even more relevant.
He is saving >= 200 MW for electric propulsion and another 170MW for onboard systems. That's a lot of electric power.
using 4 reactors, we'd get 500MW of power generation and it would fit in the current 004 carrier.

 

[huemens]

This is a very interesting post by 爱若丰狂SOYO历 on possible propulsion for 004. ACP100S. But I think the part about the electricity requirement from propulsion and weapon system is problem even more relevant.
He is saving >= 200 MW for electric propulsion and another 170MW for onboard systems. That's a lot of electric power.
using 4 reactors, we'd get 500MW of power generation and it would fit in the current 004 carrier.

View attachment 154804

This reactor has a refueling cycle of 2 years. Isn't that too short for an Aircraft Carrier?

 

[tphuang]

This reactor has a refueling cycle of 2 years. Isn't that too short for an Aircraft Carrier?

I'm not an expert on nuclear reactors, but I would imagine that with some modifications, you can use more highly enriched uranium in there.

 

[lcloo]

This reactor has a refueling cycle of 2 years. Isn't that too short for an Aircraft Carrier?

Can you show us the link or source for the 2 years refueling cycle? This is more like refueling cycle of a civilian land based nuclear power station.

Aircraft carrier nuclear reactor in US navy has refueling cycle of 25 years, and refueling is done during MLU which can take upto 4 years or more in a drydock.

Aircraft carrier usually serve for 50 years, so they would only need one refueling in their whole service life.

Edit: I found the source to the 2 years refueling cycle on ACP100S. Therefore I don't think the reactor on 004 is ACP100S.

 

[hkky]

I'm not an expert on nuclear reactors, but I would imagine that with some modifications, you can use more highly enriched uranium in there.

This is not minor tweak, you'd have to design from the start to get 20-year use between refueling.

Today's PWRs mostly operate 18-month cycles (some low power density PWRs are operating 24-month cycles). To get to even 24-month cycle requires major change in fuel enrichment and reactivity control, not to mention fuel rod design challenges operating to higher burnup. The US nuclear industry is actively pursuing 24-month cycle, which may requirement enrichment increase from 5 to 7%.

For military application, they could operate at lower coolant temperature for more margin, and can reduce reactivity control/power peaking problems, but it would be a stretch to get to even 3 or 4 years using an existing commercial PWR design.

 

[sunnymaxi]

This is not minor tweak, you'd have to design from the start to get 20-year use between refueling.

Today's PWRs mostly operate 18-month cycles (some low power density PWRs are operating 24-month cycles). To get to even 24-month cycle requires major change in fuel enrichment and reactivity control, not to mention fuel rod design challenges operating to higher burnup. The US nuclear industry is actively pursuing 24-month cycle, which may requirement enrichment increase from 5 to 7%.

For military application, they could operate at lower coolant temperature for more margin, and can reduce reactivity control/power peaking problems, but it would be a stretch to get to even 3 or 4 years using an existing commercial PWR design.

they are talking about refueling cycle of a civilian land based nuclear power station which is ACP100S.

for military applications, there will be HEU reactor.

 

[dingyibvs]

they are talking about refueling cycle of a civilian land based nuclear power station which is ACP100S.

for military applications, there will be HEU reactor.

Yes, but the OP was about how the ACP100S is going to be the reactor used in the 004. I imagine in order for it to be possible there must be a new carrier design which allows for more frequent refueling.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Yes, but the OP was about how the ACP100S is going to be the reactor used in the 004. I imagine in order for it to be possible there must be a new carrier design which allows for more frequent refueling.

but why frequent refueling ?? what are the advantages of LEU reactor on carrier.

when all PLAN nuke submarines using HEU reactor, they even design new reactor for type 095 SSN.