Yes, you're correct in that no one really knows on whether the PLA-N wanted 4 catapults or not. We could be dealing with the shipyard imposing their views. Perhaps there's a statement that I missed from an Admiral about this? The paper that taxiya posted seems to be inline with the third carrier being built. Thus far, Beijing haven't shown any inclination to be in situations requiring 'high intensity attacks." Naturally, that can quickly change based on the geopolitical situation Beijing finds itself in.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Yes, you're correct in that no one really knows on whether the PLA-N wanted 4 catapults or not. We could be dealing with the shipyard imposing their views. Perhaps there's a statement that I missed from an Admiral about this? The paper that taxiya posted seems to be inline with the third carrier being built. Thus far, Beijing haven't shown any inclination to be in situations requiring 'high intensity attacks." Naturally, that can quickly change based on the geopolitical situation Beijing finds itself in.
Since we are talking about future Chinese supercarriers to be powered by LEU reactors (let's call her CVN-2X), then I believe the closest example we have right now is the Charles de Gaulle (CDG) carrier:
- 42.5 thousand tons;
- 2x K15 PWR (<20% LEU) with output of 150 MWt each;
- Top speed of 27 knots;
- Needs refueling every 7-8 years; and
- The two refueling since commissioning took 15 and 18 months, respectively.
China surely can follow the path of France's CDG's, but there are massive differences between CDG and the CVN-2X, including:
- CVN-2X is expected to displace at least 100 thousand tons, i.e. at least 2.35 times that of the CDG;
- CVN-2X is expected to sail at top speed of at least 30 knots, i.e. at least 3 knots faster than CDG;
- CVN-2X is expected to be much more power hungry than the CDG, considering the larger number of facilities and equipment onboard; and
- CVN2X is expected to operate a much larger airwing than the CDG.
The upcoming PA-NG meant to succeed CDG could offer a clue on what CVN-2X could refer to:
- 75 thousand tons;
- 2x K22 PWR (presumably also <20% LEU) with output of 220 MWt each;
- Top speed of 30 knots;
- Aims to lengthen the need for refueling to every 10 years; and
- Aims to reduce the refueling duration to 12-15 months.
Closer yes, but still, PA-NG is only 75% that of the CVN-2X by displacement. Other caveats vis-a-vis CDG compared to CVN-2X can also be applied to PA-NG, though being pronounced to a lower degree.
Furthermore, while we don't know about the expected service life of CVN-2X and PA-NG, we do know that the CDG is expected to serve until 2036 only, i.e. a 35-year service life. I'm not sure if China wants to follow the same path as the CDG.
The way I see it, there are several ways to go forward with China's CVN-2X:
1. Forget about nuclear reactors, stick with conventional propulsion;
2. Install two larger-size and larger-output LEU reactors per ship;
3. Install three or four similar-size and similar-output LEU reactors per ship;
4. Use MEU (30-50%) instead of LEU for ship reactor fuel; or
5. Install two similar-size and similar-output LEU reactors per ship, but improvise faster and easier refueling methods (say, 9-12 months instead of 15-18 months).
Another feasible way to work around the limitations of LEU and MEU would be to plan the procurement and deployment of the CVN-2X carriers properly, such that while one CVN-2X is refueling in drydock, another CVN-2X is always ready for combat.
- 42.5 thousand tons;
- 2x K15 PWR (<20% LEU) with output of 150 MWt each;
- Top speed of 27 knots;
- Needs refueling every 7-8 years; and
- The two refueling since commissioning took 15 and 18 months, respectively.
China surely can follow the path of France's CDG's, but there are massive differences between CDG and the CVN-2X, including:
- CVN-2X is expected to displace at least 100 thousand tons, i.e. at least 2.35 times that of the CDG;
- CVN-2X is expected to sail at top speed of at least 30 knots, i.e. at least 3 knots faster than CDG;
- CVN-2X is expected to be much more power hungry than the CDG, considering the larger number of facilities and equipment onboard; and
- CVN2X is expected to operate a much larger airwing than the CDG.
The upcoming PA-NG meant to succeed CDG could offer a clue on what CVN-2X could refer to:
- 75 thousand tons;
- 2x K22 PWR (presumably also <20% LEU) with output of 220 MWt each;
- Top speed of 30 knots;
- Aims to lengthen the need for refueling to every 10 years; and
- Aims to reduce the refueling duration to 12-15 months.
Closer yes, but still, PA-NG is only 75% that of the CVN-2X by displacement. Other caveats vis-a-vis CDG compared to CVN-2X can also be applied to PA-NG, though being pronounced to a lower degree.
Furthermore, while we don't know about the expected service life of CVN-2X and PA-NG, we do know that the CDG is expected to serve until 2036 only, i.e. a 35-year service life. I'm not sure if China wants to follow the same path as the CDG.
The way I see it, there are several ways to go forward with China's CVN-2X:
1. Forget about nuclear reactors, stick with conventional propulsion;
2. Install two larger-size and larger-output LEU reactors per ship;
3. Install three or four similar-size and similar-output LEU reactors per ship;
4. Use MEU (30-50%) instead of LEU for ship reactor fuel; or
5. Install two similar-size and similar-output LEU reactors per ship, but improvise faster and easier refueling methods (say, 9-12 months instead of 15-18 months).
Another feasible way to work around the limitations of LEU and MEU would be to plan the procurement and deployment of the CVN-2X carriers properly, such that while one CVN-2X is refueling in drydock, another CVN-2X is always ready for combat.
Last edited:
No exactly, SWU only defines the ecnomic cost of enrichment. Most of the enrichment facilities in place are not setup to enrichment above 5%. This is not to say they can't enrich above 5%, but the plants may not be configured to do so. Criticality is a key concern with processing enriched uranium. Geometry control have to be strictly considered to avoid criticality events. The 1999 Tokaimura event is a good example when geometry control is ignored by the workers.
People here think you can just select your enrichment and the only impact is refueling frequency. That is not the case. When you load more fuel (U-235) the reactivity increases and you will have to design your sytem to hold down the power for majority of the time the reactor operates. This would normally be a non-starter from efficiency perspective for commercial reactors since you'd need so much parasitic neutron absorber to keep power down, but for military application, this may be acceptable. When you have such excessive reactivity, power distribution within the core can can be problematic. Higher enrichment will therefore require much more elaborate reactivity control mechanisms in the reactor design and this may not be a simple matter.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Yes that is right.. It's extremely rare if ever 4 cats are used. For one ea shooter only oversees a launch. Almost never you see 4 shooters all at once.
So very true. On the seven major deployments I made the only time I ever saw all 4 cats used was when the air-wing flew off the ship when returning to homeport or at deployments end. Most times, as stated by kwaigonegin, only two or three cats are used.
Two cats maybe just as good than four...[/b]
I posted this long ago in this forum. Maybe some of you were in primary/elementary school when I posted this.
I explained once why a ship with two bow cats could out launch a ship with four.
Posted by me on 05.14.2007 in a defunct thread....
I posted this long ago in this forum. Maybe some of you were in primary/elementary school when I posted this.
I explained once why a ship with two bow cats could out launch a ship with four.
Posted by me on 05.14.2007 in a defunct thread....
kwaigonegin
Colonel
A4s were b4 me but I can totally see how the launch and recovery cycles would be much faster than the tomcats and rhinos.
Makes very intuitive sense. I'd like to liken it to an assembly line operations. Operating two cats will be much more streamlined operation, whereas three or four cats will create more complex traffic and deck operation patterns, in a very limited space. So there is a tradeoff between the two (# of cats vs complexity of operations), and more cats do not necessarily translate into higher launch rate.
My friend you got it!...When I first worked the flight deck on Midway the MAIN thing I noticed was how smooth the operation was compared to the JFK.