CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Lethe]

Surprised you didn't mention the Enterprise experience, which shows you can easily do it that way, and is in fact the path of least resistance, i.e. least risk and least expense.

You don't want to build a ship with eight reactors for the same reasons you don't want to build a ship with eight diesel engines or gas turbines. Enterprise was a first ... and then USN went and did it a better way.


From

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

lecture (18:00).

If PLAN does field nuclear carriers post-2025 I expect they will use custom large reactors and related components, roughly on par with Ford-class systems.

 

[Iron Man]

You don't want to build a ship with eight reactors for the same reasons you don't want to build a ship with eight diesel engines or gas turbines. Enterprise was a first ... and then USN went and did it a better way.

If PLAN does field nuclear carriers post-2025 I expect they will use custom large reactors and related components, roughly on par with Ford-class systems.

I never said 8 reactors was ideal, I said it was the most expedient, which it is. This is the same reason Enterprise and CdG were built with submarine-sized reactors. I would expect that if the first PLAN nuclear CATOBAR carriers use smaller reactors, that this would have been chosen to be the low-risk option while a larger reactor was still being designed for later carriers. Or potentially the PLAN could go for intermediate-sized reactors (i.e. 4 reactors/carrier) as a stepping stone towards a large 2 reactor/carrier design.

 

[Lethe]

If PLAN wanted to build a nuclear-powered carrier in the "most expedient" way possible then they would've already done it. Nuclear power on surface vessels does not offer the kind of transformational capability that would tempt PLAN to accept a "rough and ready" solution. The alternative to an efficient nuclear-powered carrier is a conventional carrier, not an inefficient nuclear-powered carrier. Indeed, I suspect that designing reactors small enough for submarine operations and requiring a high level of quieting measures is a good deal more challenging than designing larger reactors for larger vessels. If PLAN decides to pursue nuclear powered aircraft carriers, I expect they will wait until they can do the job efficiently with a larger, purpose-built reactor design.

 

[Iron Man]

If PLAN wanted to build a nuclear-powered carrier in the "most expedient" way possible then they would've already done it. Nuclear power on surface vessels does not offer the kind of transformational capability that would tempt PLAN to accept a "rough and ready" solution. The alternative to an efficient nuclear-powered carrier is a conventional carrier, not an inefficient nuclear-powered carrier. Indeed, I suspect that designing reactors small enough for submarine operations and requiring a high level of quieting measures is a good deal more challenging than designing larger reactors for larger vessels. If PLAN decides to pursue nuclear powered aircraft carriers, I expect they will wait until they can do the job efficiently with a larger, purpose-built reactor design.

Nah, I don't think so. It's not so easy as you are assuming to design a large carrier, or they would've already done it. That's using your same logic. In reality, there are many factors that go into choosing and building a design, including cost, intent, politics, technological maturity, etc. We just don't know what the PLAN wants with their future carrier ambitions and to assume that we do is just groundless speculation. And if the alternative to an efficient nuclear carrier is a conventional carrier, then maybe you should tell the designers of the Enterprise and CdG that they are a bunch of morons and that you know better than they do (did).

 

[kwaigonegin]

Nah, I don't think so. It's not so easy as you are assuming to design a large carrier, or they would've already done it. That's using your same logic. In reality, there are many factors that go into choosing and building a design, including cost, intent, politics, technological maturity, etc. We just don't know what the PLAN wants with their future carrier ambitions and to assume that we do is just groundless speculation. And if the alternative to an efficient nuclear carrier is a conventional carrier, then maybe you should tell the designers of the Enterprise and CdG that they are a bunch of morons and that you know better than they do (did).

I think that last line sarcasm to Lethe was totally unnecessary, .. anyway I do think it is pretty safe to assume PLAN's ambition is a CVN down the road.
Do I know it as 100% irrefutable fact? ... no .... however I would bet the 8 dollars I have in my wallet on it

 

[Iron Man]

I think that last line sarcasm to Lethe was totally unnecessary, .. anyway I do think it is pretty safe to assume PLAN's ambition is a CVN down the road.
Do I know it as 100% irrefutable fact? ... no .... however I would bet the 8 dollars I have in my wallet on it

Sarcasm here framed the glaring contrast between opinion and fact that non-sarcasm never could.

 

[Lethe]

Exactly, expedient solutions come at the cost of efficiency. Do you have some kind of crystal ball as to which the PLAN prefers in the next 10 to 15 years? I know I don't, but you sound like you do....

Why would PLAN be in a rush to field a nuclear-powered carrier? It is not like fielding a first long-range air defence ship, or first ballistic missile submarine, or some other transformational capability where one would be willing to accept compromises to get the capability in service sooner rather than later, it is simply a different method of propulsion. Essentially nuclear power on large surface ships reduces lifecycle cost but increases acquisition cost -- that's it.

If China was in a rush to get carriers into service they wouldn't bother with nuclear power in the first place for reasons of both cost and risk, and if they're not in a rush then they'll wait to do it properly rather than repurposing submarine reactors for the job.

What for to be less expensive different my Lady worck fine

Apart from having spent half of its life in the dockyard? Having to refuel the tiny submarine reactors every six years because they've been thrashed by the demands of carrier operations is a pretty serious problem for a Navy that only has one carrier. "Please, ISIS, don't attack us now because our carrier won't be seaworthy for another 12 months." That's not a serious capability, it's a training vessel -- just like Admiral Kuznetsov or Liaoning.​

 

[Lethe]

If the intention is to field carriers in the SCS and project naval power through the first island chain though persistence and independence from the fuel supply chain are huge reasons to go nuclear.

Undoubtedly nuclear carriers have greater persistence and are easier to support than non-nuclear carriers, but they are in no way independent of the supply chain:

1) the escorts require fuel
2) the air wing requires fuel
3) munitions are finite
4) crews require food (and rest)

In practice, therefore, the persistence and sustainability advantages of a nuclear carrier relative to a conventional one are incremental rather than transformative in nature. It may well be that PLAN decides to field nuclear-powered carriers in future, but the advantages are not such that they would rush to develop the capability ASAP using existing submarine reactors rather than taking the time to design a bespoke powertrain that maximises capability and availability and minimises lifecycle costs. Further, if PLAN were in a rush, i.e. attempting to maximise capability in the short-term, they would simply churn out conventional carriers which have significantly lower acquisition cost and lower technical risk profile.

 

[latenlazy]

Undoubtedly nuclear carriers have greater persistence and are easier to support than non-nuclear carriers, but they are in no way independent of the supply chain:

1) the escorts require fuel
2) the air wing requires fuel
3) munitions are finite
4) crews require food (and rest)

In practice, therefore, the persistence and sustainability advantages of a nuclear carrier relative to a conventional one are incremental rather than transformative in nature. It may well be that PLAN decides to field nuclear-powered carriers in future, but the benefits are not such that they would rush to develop the capability ASAP using existing submarine reactors rather than taking the time to design a bespoke powertrain that maximises capability and availability and minimises lifecycle costs.

Your options for restocking fuel, sustenance, and munitions are much lighter and more flexible if you take the big chunk needed to power a 70-100k tonne ship out (especially wrt dependence on docking). I don't think the needs are urgent enough to go with a suboptimal solution, but the benefits may be appealing enough to expedite development of an optimal one.

 

[Lethe]

I think it would depend in part on the maturity of the underlying reactor technology. PLAN would not want to design and field a reactor for large vessel applications that is rapidly superseded by new technology. They would wait until the pace of development slows, as it approaches the state of the art, such that further improvements would require significantly greater investments of time and money, before committing to a design.