CV-XX (003 carrier) Thread I ... News & Discussions


silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
Flywheels are also used in telecoms for providing power storage for land lines in remote sites. Still I think this is kind of old tech. I expected something better. I don't know, something solid state like ultracapacitors, or something else like that. I guess they still don't have enough power density. With flywheels you either make them heavier or you make them spin faster. Supposedly you can even make them out of carbon fiber composites and spin them really quickly. But this is a kind of niche application.
Flywheel storage is used in many places where the desirable properties are high reliability, low maintenance, long performance life. Some examples are hospitals and server farms
 

taxiya

Colonel
Registered Member
Flywheels are also used in telecoms for providing power storage for land lines in remote sites. Still I think this is kind of old tech. I expected something better. I don't know, something solid state like ultracapacitors, or something else like that. I guess they still don't have enough power density. With flywheels you either make them heavier or you make them spin faster. Supposedly you can even make them out of carbon fiber composites and spin them really quickly. But this is a kind of niche application.
  1. Flywheels are old but mature and reliable.
  2. super-capacitors have highest power density but lower energy density than flywheel. meaning they take larger space or weight to store the same amount of energy, but discharge the same amount of energy in much shorter time (higher power).
  3. There are many different type of flywheel applications. The EM catapult is unique in that its charge time is long in many minutes, but discharge in 2 or 3 seconds. No other flywheel does that.
  4. If super-capacitors can reduce their footprint (volume), they are better than flywheel in EM catapult for their high power density. But that is not realized yet, so flywheel is the only option for the moment for 003 particularly.
  5. However, super-capacitors are used in rail-guns because the much lower energy density requirement than catapult.
 

asdf1234

New Member
Registered Member
  1. Flywheels are old but mature and reliable.
  2. super-capacitors have highest power density but lower energy density than flywheel. meaning they take larger space or weight to store the same amount of energy, but discharge the same amount of energy in much shorter time (higher power).
  3. There are many different type of flywheel applications. The EM catapult is unique in that its charge time is long in many minutes, but discharge in 2 or 3 seconds. No other flywheel does that.
  4. If super-capacitors can reduce their footprint (volume), they are better than flywheel in EM catapult for their high power density. But that is not realized yet, so flywheel is the only option for the moment for 003 particularly.
  5. However, super-capacitors are used in rail-guns because the much lower energy density requirement than catapult.
Stupid question: What is the real advantage of having a nuclear powerplant instead of burning bunker fuel besides range?

I have experience in commercial shipping and if taking the large commercial bulkers/tankers/containers as reference, a conventionally powered ship can perform voyages for 50-100 days after a single bunker stop depending on speed (50d at full speed and 100d on eco, that‘s about 3000nm or half the globe).

Now I would imagine that 3.5 months is pretty much stretching food provisions (ignoring the crew now, crew changes in commercial shipping happenevery 6 odd months) so a resupply will be needed in any case without which the combination of vessel+crew isn‘t able to function properly anymore. Open waters ship-to-ship transfers aren‘t exactly an exotic thing either and for what I guess the operational area to be, an MR tanker would be more than enough.

So in absence of having to sail halfway across the globe and still be able to fight battles at arrival, what would be the other operational benefits of being nuclear powered?
 

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
Stupid question: What is the real advantage of having a nuclear powerplant instead of burning bunker fuel besides range?
...
So in absence of having to sail halfway across the globe and still be able to fight battles at arrival, what would be the other operational benefits of being nuclear powered?
Well it makes you less dependent on supplies. Yes you have unlimited range. Some modern nuclear reactors can even last 30 years without refueling. Traditional ones required a refueling every 5 years or something like that. You have so much power you can desalinate water easily. So you basically can have all the drinking water and bath water on board you want. And unlike in commercial shipping for cargo you will have thousands of people operating aboard the carrier. You have the crew, and all the support staff for the aircraft. This includes crew, mechanics, you name it. Easily thousands of people. The reactor is compact. You basically don't need the space you would use for fuel tanks. That can instead be used for other things be it cargo or more aircraft.
 

taxiya

Colonel
Registered Member
Ford has three sets of four Wheels each for four catapults. The connecting device between three sets to for catapults was a big issue.
Thanks.

As four wheels is a set that drive a rail, three sets means that three catapults can be launching at the same time. As of the issue, I am curious what that could be.

Another interesting difference between the Chinese and the American systems are that China uses self-excitation generator while US use permanent magnet.
 

taxiya

Colonel
Registered Member
Stupid question: What is the real advantage of having a nuclear powerplant instead of burning bunker fuel besides range?

I have experience in commercial shipping and if taking the large commercial bulkers/tankers/containers as reference, a conventionally powered ship can perform voyages for 50-100 days after a single bunker stop depending on speed (50d at full speed and 100d on eco, that‘s about 3000nm or half the globe).

Now I would imagine that 3.5 months is pretty much stretching food provisions (ignoring the crew now, crew changes in commercial shipping happenevery 6 odd months) so a resupply will be needed in any case without which the combination of vessel+crew isn‘t able to function properly anymore. Open waters ship-to-ship transfers aren‘t exactly an exotic thing either and for what I guess the operational area to be, an MR tanker would be more than enough.

So in absence of having to sail halfway across the globe and still be able to fight battles at arrival, what would be the other operational benefits of being nuclear powered?
I am only into the catapult things. Not knowledgeable in the power-plant. The subject of Nuclear vs. conventional power-plant for a carrier has been hotly debated everywhere including this forum. Maybe some other members can better answering you, or you can try to read through the old posts, I know it is tiresome. :) The only advantage that I heard that makes sense to me is that a nuclear CV will save its bunker fuel space for ammunition and aircraft fuel, it also reduce fuel replenish demand that can be used by other ships in the battle group.

In short though, I can say, it really depends on your mission profile, doctrine, oversea bases etc. when choosing one over the other.
 

Intrepid

Captain
The only advantage that I heard that makes sense to me is that a nuclear CV will save its bunker fuel space for ammunition and aircraft fuel, it also reduce fuel replenish demand that can be used by other ships in the battle group.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the battle group.

A nuclear powered aircraft carrier can travel at high speed over long distances. A conventional aircraft carrier can travel even at very high speed, but only for a short time. Both generate enough energy for the catapults, whether in the form of steam or electricity.
 

Orthan

Junior Member
Stupid question: What is the real advantage of having a nuclear powerplant instead of burning bunker fuel besides range?
This post of mine can also inform.

This GAO document is from 1998 but it helps explain the difference betwen conventional and nuclear propulsion for carriers. It estimates that nuclears carriers have life-cycle costs of $22,2 billion while conventional carriers have $14,1 billion. Also, conventional carriers spend less time on extended maintenance and have more flexibility on this. It found little difference in the operational effectiveness betwen them. It mentions that nuclear carriers can acelerate faster than conventional ones

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top