00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[valysre]

Why are you posting a rumor that anybody who is not staggeringly ignorant would dismiss as clearly untrue?

"I mention it to bring attention to the fact that there is a legitimate risk of loss of capital ships"

Nuclear reactors can be made to fail safely, even when damaged.

Our friendly neighbors, dumping radioactive water into the sea, surely designed their reactor to fail safely, no? And of course, there is such a difference between sea-based and land-based reactors, but that difference has not stopped any comparisons in this thread.

Water is in fact an excellent radiation blocker

Such a wonderful radiation blocker, in fact, that there have been multiple diplomatic protests regarding the release of contaminated water into the sea by Japan. Doesn't matter how nicely the water shields radiation if the water carries radioactive particulate.

a nuclear reactor that is designed will sink to the bottom of the sea

Yes, because nuclear reactors famously always do exactly what they're designed to do. Especially in wartime conditions, with bombs going off nearby.

The chance of failsafe failure is low, even when being sunk, but cannot be discounted. Combined with the fact that China doesn't need the endurance capabilities of a CVN, I do not think the next carrier built will have a nuclear propulsion system. Unless Chinese power projection goals increase dramatically in the next three years.

 

[Jaym]

This thread is making me think the threat of nuclear contamination is part of the weapon system of a cvn...

 

[snake65]

It's hard to imagine how you would convert a conventional propulsion system into a nuclear propulsion system. The layouts are fundamentally different.

What exactly is "fundamentally different"? The difference is in the source of steam - boilers or reactor. Yes, the reactor compartment will be more sophisticated than a boiler compartment but it will also be smaller. Current naval reactors come in sealed containments. That's about it, nothing fundamental.

 

[valysre]

What exactly is "fundamentally different"? The difference is in the source of steam - boilers or reactor. Yes, the reactor compartment will be more sophisticated than a boiler compartment but it will also be smaller. Current naval reactors come in sealed containments. That's about it, nothing fundamental.

It's my understanding that nuclear reactors tend to be taller, while boiler compartments tend to be longer.

The physical rationale for this makes sense: a taller reactor makes it easier to moderate by inserting things vertically rather than horizontally. A longer boiler compartment makes it easier to increase fuel burn-rate because there's a substantially larger surface area at the top from which to draw off combustion products.

So, despite the compartment sizes not changing too much, the change in dimensions of the compartment will likely be too much to effectively convert between. Unless of course PLAN builds a reactor of the same dimensions as a boiler compartment, but that would be a little bit strange, and likely a one-off thing, which the PLAN I believe does try to avoid.

 

[Jaym]

Yeah now that i think about it, i read that arrestor wire and catapault systems can be upgraded in a carrier. I dont think I ever read about upgrading the engine system.

 

[gelgoog]

To upgrade the engines after the ship is built typically requires cutting the hull to access the engines. This is usually avoided.
The USS Enterprise had eight nuclear reactors because they tried to keep the design as close to that in the previous non-nuclear Forrestal class carriers as possible.

 

[Jaym]

To upgrade the engines after the ship is built typically requires cutting the hull to access the engines. This is usually avoided.
The USS Enterprise had eight nuclear reactors because they tried to keep the design as close to that in the previous non-nuclear Forrestal class carriers as possible.

I see. They put a bunch of smaller nuke reactors in parallel to fit the diesel engine space.

 

[charles18]

Combined with the fact that China doesn't need the endurance capabilities of a CVN,

You are probably right.
The likelihood that China is going to send a CVN on some type of "military adventure" all the way to the other side of the Pacific ocean 6,000 nautical miles away is very slim. However I can imagine "something" happening 3,000 nm away. At such close ranges diesel propulsion is good enough.

The reason for the construction of a CVN is not purely military. There are political reasons also. Part of it is national pride, it's a way to show off to the world that China can do anything the West can do.

I do not think the next carrier built will have a nuclear propulsion system. Unless Chinese power projection goals increase dramatically in the next three years.

Sometimes we do not buy the things that we need, instead we buy the things that we want.

 

[Jaym]

You are probably right.
The likelihood that China is going to send a CVN on some type of "military adventure" all the way to the other side of the Pacific ocean 6,000 nautical miles away is very slim. However I can imagine "something" happening 3,000 nm away. At such close ranges diesel propulsion is good enough.

The reason for the construction of a CVN is not purely military. There are political reasons also. Part of it is national pride, it's a way to show off to the world that China can do anything the West can do.


Sometimes we do not buy the things that we need, instead we buy the things that we want.

my guess is the chinese use case for a cvn would not be in the pacific but somewhere in the western indian ocean or southern atlantic. maybe south pacific for some patrol op

 

[gelgoog]

China will over the next decade turn the seas between it and the Second Island Chain into zones of its own control.
And you can pretty much bet they will have regular patrols of the trade routes into Africa and the Middle East. Maybe also South America.