00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

According to the Youtube community post of the famous Chinese warship and warplane 3D modeler 西葛西造舰:

Rough translation:

Regarding the CV-20, there is some bit of clarification/rectification made by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Original post:

辟个谣！所谓的大连造船厂提供的图纸，其实是咸鱼号上一个实体模型卖家自己搞的，跟大连造船厂没关系！这个模型不能证明第五条是核动力！我一开始也被骗了当然中船给的这个思路和作者的发挥还是值得我们展望一下未来核动力航母的发展思路！

Roughly translated:

Refuting a rumor! The so-called Dalian Shipyard provided the drawings (for the building of the CV-20 ship model), in fact, a physical model made by the "salted fish sellers" (I assume this is the name of the ship model builder?) themselves, and Dalian Shipyard has nothing to do with it! This model can not prove that the fifth is nuclear power! I was also fooled at first. Of course this idea given by the Chinese ship and the author's play is still worth looking forward to the future development of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers!

Even though I have never mentioned about this "Dalian shipyard provided the blueprints for the ship model builder" statement thingy, but I would still like to bring this out, in case some of the members here has indeed believed that statement.

 

[by78]

Cross-posting from the shipbuilding thread, as this may be of some relevance here, but it's by no means a confirmation of the project status of a nuclear carrier.

An

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on the crashworthiness of a double-hull construction around a nuclear reactor compartment. A machine translation of the paper is attached to this post.

Abstract: This study aims to explore the crashworthiness of a nuclear power platform's double-skin side structure. Finite element models of the full platform and partial double-skin side structure are established respectively, and the collision is carried out using LS-DYNA software. Based on the simulation analysis, a scale quasi-static squeeze test model is designed, and the quasi-static squeeze test of the double-skin side structure is carried out and compared with the numerical simulation. The results show that for low-speed ship collisions, the structural response calculated using the local double-skin side structure model is basically consistent with that calculated using the whole ship model; thus, the quasi-static scaled test results are in good agreement with the numerical simulation results and can reflect the characteristics and structural deformation mode, thereby verifying the numerical simulation method. Meanwhile, the test results show that the double-skin side structure of the nuclear power platform remains intact when colliding with a 5,000-ton class ship at a speed of 2m/s, which means that it has good crashworthiness. This study shows that using a local double-skin side structure model to calculate collision response has high accuracy and greatly reduces the modelling and calculation workloads. The results of this study can provide valuable references for structural crashworthiness design in marine engineering.

 

[Intrepid]

I understand it this way: the question is not whether a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will be built, but when. Already the next ship or only at a later date.

And that's where academic research makes perfect sense one way or the other.

 

[VESSEL]

Cross-posting from the shipbuilding thread, as this may be of some relevance here, but it's by no means a confirmation of the project status of a nuclear carrier.

An

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on the crashworthiness of a double-hull construction around a nuclear reactor compartment. A machine translation of the paper is attached to this post.

HHP25(Haiyang Hedongli Pingtai 2x25MWe).
It's just a civilian FNPP designed by 719.

 

[by78]

The 701 Institute is allegedly building a new facility near Wuhan that will be used to verify the steam system of a certain marine nuclear reactor. Land based boilers will be installed at the facility to provide steam at pressures necessary to simulate and verify the design. I can't vouch for the veracity of the rumor, but the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

has been fairly reliable in the past.

 

[luosifen]

Could this be for the new SSNs/SSBNs instead? Or is it possible they'll all use the same reactor design?

 

[Blitzo]

Could this be for the new SSNs/SSBNs instead? Or is it possible they'll all use the same reactor design?

It's very very very unlikely that their new nuclear submarines will use the same reactors as the CVN.

 

[W20]

(!?)

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

View attachment 107381

(!?)

This discrepency have been clarified a long time ago.

It is a pretty common practice for Google Maps to display together satellite imageries of two locations that are right next to each other but taken on different dates.

Similarly, they only updated the lower half of the satellite imagery of the Jiangnan Shipyard (take while Fujian is fitting out in the basin on the east side of the shipyard), while leaving the upper half of the old satellite imagery of the Jiangnan Shipyard (taken while Fujian is still under construction at the drydock) in place. That's why it looks as if two Fujians are under construction in Jiangnan at the same time on Google Maps.

There's nothing big about this.

 

[W20]

This discrepency have been clarified a long time ago.

It is a pretty common practice for Google Maps to display together satellite imageries of two locations that are right next to each other but taken on different dates.

Similarly, they only updated the lower half of the satellite imagery of the Jiangnan Shipyard (take while Fujian is fitting out in the basin on the east side of the shipyard), while leaving the upper half of the old satellite imagery of the Jiangnan Shipyard (taken while Fujian is still under construction at the drydock) in place. That's why it looks as if two Fujians are under construction in Jiangnan at the same time on Google Maps.

There's nothing big about this.

Thank you very much

Mystery solved