00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[PiSigma]

If you were an engineer and had to build a 280,000 hp (horsepower) nuclear powered aircraft carrier would you choose:
a) 4 reactors at 70,000 hp each
b) 2 reactors at 140,000 hp each
and why?

Depending if are you going with 4x33% or 4x25%. If you are putting in a spare, then no point, I go with 2x50%.
Also comes down to your turndown ratio and what is the reliability of the system. Anything over 96% reliability needs a inline spare.

 

[Ringsword]

Apparently, the construction of this facility is in full swing. The article from 701 Institute mentions frenzied activities around the clock, partly due to the extensive use of X-ray weld inspection, which can't be carried out during daytime for fear of harming other workers.

Just a (smartass)side observation of this Chinese shipyard's engineers/techs/workers-for Chinese "slave labourers"-as per Anthony Blinken'US State Dept churning out ships for PLAN-they sure look good.

 

[BoraTas]

Just a (smartass)side observation of this Chinese shipyard's engineers/techs/workers-for Chinese "slave labourers"-as per Anthony Blinken'US State Dept churning out ships for PLAN-they sure look good.

You can't acknowledge any accomplishment of China without getting canceled in the USA nowadays. If you have to, then you must use totalitarianism tropes. More ships getting built? Slave labor. Increased number of Olympic gold medals? Athletes are afraid of getting sent to concentration camps. This is how it works nowadays.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Just a (smartass)side observation of this Chinese shipyard's engineers/techs/workers-for Chinese "slave labourers"-as per Anthony Blinken'US State Dept churning out ships for PLAN-they sure look good.

If that's what slave labor looks like in China, imagine how well off the ordinary citizens are .

 

[charles18]

2. Less manning needs and better packaging.

You are correct in that 2 reactors have cheaper Maintenance and takes up Less space. In addition to that it probably has better energy efficiency.
but...
A 140,000 hp marine nuclear reactor is a highly specialized machine. It has only one application and that is for nuclear powered carriers.
However a 70,000 hp reactor is about the right size for other applications like ice breakers, destroyers, cruisers, and fast combat support ships. Basically a smaller nuclear reactor (produced in larger numbers) opens up the possibility to creating a navy that runs mainly on nuclear power. This would greatly reduce the demands placed on logistics and also dependance on foreign nations.

 

[reservior dogs]

You are correct in that 2 reactors have cheaper Maintenance and takes up Less space. In addition to that it probably has better energy efficiency.
but...
A 140,000 hp marine nuclear reactor is a highly specialized machine. It has only one application and that is for nuclear powered carriers.
However a 70,000 hp reactor is about the right size for other applications like ice breakers, destroyers, cruisers, and fast combat support ships. Basically a smaller nuclear reactor (produced in larger numbers) opens up the possibility to creating a navy that runs mainly on nuclear power. This would greatly reduce the demands placed on logistics and also dependance on foreign nations.

Yes, I wonder if some day, the type-55 and follow on models or even their supply ships might be nuclear powered. Given the lack of logistic hubs from oversea, I think it makes sense.

 

[vincent]

Yes, I wonder if some day, the type-55 and follow on models or even their supply ships might be nuclear powered. Given the lack of logistic hubs from oversea, I think it makes sense.

Doesn’t solve the food problem.

 

[Nx4eu]

Doesn’t solve the food problem.

Not having to carry around loads of fuel gives the opportunity to free up space for other things, such as more food. Then Again I don't believe in the practicality of having an entire fleet of nuclear powered ships, they would be very expensive to acquire, maintain, and eventually decommission.

 

[reservior dogs]

Not having to carry around loads of fuel gives the opportunity to free up space for other things, such as more food. Then Again I don't believe in the practicality of having an entire fleet of nuclear powered ships, they would be very expensive to acquire, maintain, and eventually decommission.

I wouldn't say all ships are candidates for nuclear power. For example, the type 52D, type 54 and follow ons, are not good candidates for nuclear power. Only large ones.

 

[Ringsword]

You are correct in that 2 reactors have cheaper Maintenance and takes up Less space. In addition to that it probably has better energy efficiency.
but...
A 140,000 hp marine nuclear reactor is a highly specialized machine. It has only one application and that is for nuclear powered carriers.
However a 70,000 hp reactor is about the right size for other applications like ice breakers, destroyers, cruisers, and fast combat support ships. Basically a smaller nuclear reactor (produced in larger numbers) opens up the possibility to creating a navy that runs mainly on nuclear power. This would greatly reduce the demands placed on logistics and also dependance on foreign nations.

IIRC the old USS Enterprise CVN had 8 reactors and the Nimitz1/2 had 2 reactors a great improvement in every aspect from maintenance to space management to efficiency-my vote is 2 or even better 1( a leap frog in tech in all aspects-just dreaming)