00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Jaym]

No, I did not misunderstand you.

The builders and operators of the following ships and boats clearly disagree with you:
1. Ford CVNs
2. Columbia SSBNs
3. Virginia SSNs
4. Borei SSBNs
5. Khabarovsk SSNs
6. Yasen SSNs
7. 004/005 CVNs
8. 094B SSBNs
9. 095 SSNs
10. 093B SSNs
11. Dreadnought SSBNs
12. Astute SSNs
13. SNLE 3G SSBNs
14. Suffren SSNs

Sure, the release of radioactive material from the breach of reactor vessels will result in contamination of the location where the ship or boat is critically damaged or sunk. However, the world's oceans are ginormous bodies of ever continuously-flowing water, meaning that the resultant contaminants would've been diluted as they spread far and wide in durations measured in weeks.

Also, a reactor vessel that is blown apart will not be able to return to criticality, meaning the fission reaction inside the reactor vessel would've completely stopped beyond just natural fission in the uranium fuel (i.e. decay heat). There is only slim to nil chance of an accidental nuclear detonation that could result from a missile directly blasting a reactor vessel wide open, even with the weapons-grade HEU used in the marine reactors typically found on USN CVNs and SS(B)Ns.

Moreover, as a matter of fact - Water itself is an excellent radiation shield. That's why nuclear power plants use water to moderate the temperature of the reactor fuel inside the reactor (when in operation) and cool down the reactor fuel outside the reactor (prior to fuel disposal/recycling) - The latter of which actually happens in open water (i.e. humans can directly see the reactor fuel underwater). With enough depth for a wrecked CVN to sink to (which is pretty much always the case, as CVNs typically operate in open waters that are often at least more than a kilometer deep), the reactor vessels would've been shielded by thick layers of water above it.

So there's that.

you think all you have to worry about is radiation....theres something called bioaccumulation... that stuff will probably make it up into the local food chain (think permanent cancer cluster)... and tide dynamics can bring that stuff in land...also theres a psychological component you hear nuclear contamination there goes the real estate prices... to some a cvn is a fancy new toy but there are real risks.

thats why a wise course is to consider conventional before nuclear if you must have a carrier. keep that nuke carrier far away

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

you think all you have to worry about is radiation....theres something called bioaccumulation... that stuff will probably make it up into the local food chain (think permanent cancer cluster)... and tide dynamics can bring that stuff in land...

FYI, there have been 530 atmospheric nuclear detonations between 1945 and 1980. That's about 15 nuclear detonations per year for 35 straight years, where the most frequent detonations occurred in the 1950s and early-1960s. That's where radioactive nuclei from all those nuclear detonations were released straight into the open atmosphere and circulated around the entire globe, which touched literally everything that is on the surface of the planet - Humans, plants, animals etc, which then permeated the entirety of the world's ecological chain/web.

Has the so-called "bioaccumulation" from all those nuclear detonations resulted in the entire world's population getting cancer and died from all those nuclear detonations?

also theres a psychological component you hear nuclear contamination there goes the real estate prices...

What else can I say but lmfao.

to some a cvn is a fancy new toy but there are real risks.

In that case, you should go to all of the builders (i.e. shipyards) and operators (i.e. navies) of the following ships and boats and demand them to cease their activities immediately:
1. Ford CVNs
2. Columbia SSBNs
3. Virginia SSNs
4. Borei SSBNs
5. Khabarovsk SSNs
6. Yasen SSNs
7. 004/005 CVNs
8. 094B SSBNs
9. 095 SSNs
10. 093B SSNs
11. Dreadnought SSBNs
12. Astute SSNs
13. SNLE 3G SSBNs
14. Suffren SSNs

Let's see how they respond.

thats why a wise course is to consider conventional before nuclear if you must have a carrier. keep that nuke carrier far away

That's not a wise course. That's the opposite of a wise course.

 

[Juan B.]

A point your ignoring is that you also don't really *need* nuclear for global power projection, the United States only went full nuclear with it's carrier fleet in 2006 when the last of Kitty Hawk class of carriers were retired. In the end there is still a lot of advantages to go nuclear with larger carriers, like space saving by having only 2 nuclear reactors and not a massive fuel tank and being able to sustain flank speed for much longer than conventional carriers. It is also possibly more economical in the long run since these carriers will be in service for 50 years easily, with nuclear boats these will only need to be refueled once in their entire operational life. tl;dr No, global power projection is not the only reason why you would want to go nuclear. Although it is probably one of the factors in there.

Also it is much more ecological.

 

[Juan B.]

I don't know about a cap on how large a conventional carrier can be in terms of cost-effectiveness, but according to the findings of NSIAD-98-1, a conventional carrier is always going to be much cheaper than a CVN in life cycle cost (58% actually) while providing slightly better availability. I think you mean in terms of the design of a single hull, the space efficiency of nuclear propulsion shines when the ship is large enough and there's a break-off point somewhere at 80,000~90,000 tons or sth.

Are you sure about it?.
It depends on the engines of the ship. It is not the same running a IEP, a CODOE, a CODOG or COGOG/COGAG.
I am just especulating... but it is not the same PLAN operated COGAG carrier than US Navy hypothethical COGAG carrier where the last have access to cheap natural gas resources. A COGAG propulsion would consume natural gas during 24/365 (for example) during 40 years (at least) that is a lot $$$$ and probably much more expense in the PLAN hands that in the US Navy ones. And newer compact molten salt nuclear reactors probably change that equation costs. Just speculating.

 

[Tomboy]

Are you sure about it?.
It depends on the engines of the ship. It is not the same running a IEP, a CODOE, a CODOG or COGOG/COGAG.
I am just especulating... but it is not the same PLAN operated COGAG carrier than US Navy hypothethical COGAG carrier where the last have access to cheap natural gas resources. A COGAG propulsion would consume natural gas during 24/365 (for example) during 40 years (at least) that is a lot $$$$ and probably much more expense in the PLAN hands that in the US Navy ones. And newer compact molten salt nuclear reactors probably change that equation costs. Just speculating.

Is there even any discussion on what type of reactor the 004 will use yet? Will it be thorium molten salt or some other 4th generation reactor types China has been working on, etc sodium cooled fast reactors like the twin CFR-600 reactors that came online last year

EDIT: The HTR-PM concept seems interesting, its a small modular high temperature gas cooled reactor with a electrical output of ~100MW. It is apparently inherently safe that is to say even if power is lost to primary cooling loop, the reactor core will cool itself, it could even do that in a severely damaged state with ruptures in the primary loop or even the entire loop just came off the core. This might be good for use on naval ships due to its robustness. The HTR-PM reactor itself came online in 2021

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here's a paper analyzing how safe is the reactor concept

 

[Cloud_Nine_]

Are you sure about it?.
It depends on the engines of the ship. It is not the same running a IEP, a CODOE, a CODOG or COGOG/COGAG.
I am just especulating... but it is not the same PLAN operated COGAG carrier than US Navy hypothethical COGAG carrier where the last have access to cheap natural gas resources. A COGAG propulsion would consume natural gas during 24/365 (for example) during 40 years (at least) that is a lot $$$$ and probably much more expense in the PLAN hands that in the US Navy ones. And newer compact molten salt nuclear reactors probably change that equation costs. Just speculating.

A carrier is not running her engines 24/7 and a notional IPS carrier with GTGs has never been done on a supercarrier before so I am going off on purely NSIAD-98-1. A CVN is not only more expensive outright, but decommissioning one is way more expensive too not to mention mid-life refueling. NSIAD-98-1 is readily available with a google search. Of course this is a report based on USN experience in 1998 so ofc its not the same thing as PLAN in 2025. But it's still a good source.

 

[PiSigma]

you think all you have to worry about is radiation....theres something called bioaccumulation... that stuff will probably make it up into the local food chain (think permanent cancer cluster)... and tide dynamics can bring that stuff in land...also theres a psychological component you hear nuclear contamination there goes the real estate prices... to some a cvn is a fancy new toy but there are real risks.

thats why a wise course is to consider conventional before nuclear if you must have a carrier. keep that nuke carrier far away

China will build no more nuclear ships when the US stops building them and china catches up toUS's numbers. Ur concern trolling sounds pretty hypocritical right now. And if a nuclear chinese ship gets sunk, then China can always return the favor to make sure somewhere important in the US is glassed over and get worse nuclear contamination.

 

[Tomboy]

China will build no more nuclear ships when the US stops building them and china catches up toUS's numbers. Ur concern trolling sounds pretty hypocritical right now. And if a nuclear chinese ship gets sunk, then China can always return the favor to make sure somewhere important in the US is glassed over and get worse nuclear contamination.

It is possible China will exceed US's carrier numbers just because no overseas airbases for them to launch fighters from, so they'd need a huge carrier fleet to make up for it

 

[Maikeru]

It is possible China will exceed US's carrier numbers just because no overseas airbases for them to launch fighters from, so they'd need a huge carrier fleet to make up for it

That is actually a better way of doing it than a huge network of overseas bases I think. Less political/diplomatic issues, less dependency on possibly unreliable allies (who may even increase your risk of getting into a conflict), all the money invested is spent at home.

 

[Tomboy]

That is actually a better way of doing it than a huge network of overseas bases I think. Less political/diplomatic issues, less dependency on possibly unreliable allies (who may even increase your risk of getting into a conflict), all the money invested is spent at home.

They'd still need *some* overseas bases for logistics and potentially stationing some of their carrier fleets oversea for fast deployment worldwide, but no where near like US's hundreds of bases and airfield. In fact I'm pretty sure China has already started constructing some "Joint" operated bases overseas. Also in case anything bad happens they could just abandon those small amount of bases and just sail all the carriers home, the lost would be minimal compared to relying on hundreds of bases overseas. Plus you still get to keep projecting your power since your carriers is still there just that you lost some logistic bases so response time might take a hit.