00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Idk, I'm not the one who brought up that idea. I would think that if one is to use a dual-use reactor a pebble bed type SMR would be better suited for naval use due to its ability to continuously refuel and it's ability to use civilian grade fuel.
okay..
i read some articles about ACP100S.. CNNC designed this specifically for marine purpose like floating nuclear powerplant , oil and gas drilling platforms. it is very much possible they redesign this reactor for Military purpose with high enrich uranium.
waiting for more information. this is just the beginning of 004 propulsion..
Let's assume in the near future Chinese engineers build an all - nuclear navy, so there's no need to worry about fueling ships.
Despite this sailors still need to eat, they need toilet paper, and jet engines require a constant supply of spare parts to operate.
I agree 100%
In the future.....China will need overseas military bases to create a military global logistics system. China will need to maintain "diplomatic relations" with certain foreign countries that happen to be in geographically strategic locations. I'm sure there's lots of countries that would love to do business with China.
However...
That does not mean China has to attack over Two dozen different nations and overthrow governments unlike the USA or the former European colonial powers.
Global power projection requires Global Logistics but that does NOT necessarily equal global empire
That's like "redesigning" the J-35 to use WS-15s. You're really making a new reactor at that point.
yeah. it will be totally new reactor. lol
honestly, i m waiting for more information regarding 004 propulsion.
A ship is not a stable platform, it will rock back and forth with the ocean waves.
Wouldn't the pebble balls get shaken and damaged? I don't think a pebble bed reactor is a good choice for naval propulsion.
BTW I think China's pebble bed HTR-PM reactor will have a very important future. It's going to open the door to hydrogen production which will be used for military aviation.......but that's off topic.
I questioned if your response is worth responding to. The discussion is modifying a civilian reactor for naval application and specifically you are suggesting the naval version could be using highly enriched uranium. What I am reading wrong?
He's saying a completely new reactor design would be used fueled with HEU. Personally, I think commercial reactor doesn't make much sense considering they'd have to be refueled every 18-24 months which will ruin a CVN's ready rate. It might be good for commercial purposes where the reactor isn't under a heavy flight deck and completely sealed. I'm not sure what type of naval reactor modern Chinese SSN/SSBNs(096/095/093B) use but I assume they'll use HEU going forward so the reactors would be good for the entire lifespan of the submarine while also offering more power density. IIRC, older Chinese nuclear subs only used LEU due to China being a poor country with no significant nuclear infrastructure back then can't afford HEU fuel.
No, the train of discussion is to modify the commercial version of ACP100 for naval application that I responded to tphuang's post.
There is no talk of a new reactor design, but a naval version of the commercial design, even discussed in his/her own post.
If you know anything about reactor design, a commercial reactor cannot be modified to use highly enriched uranium. Even if you use the same reactor pressure vessel and secondary side, the core itself would be a different design and cannot be considered the same family.
It degrades the quality of the site if people express opinions outside their areas of expertise.