00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Lethe]

There is a marine variant of ACP100. Called ACP100S. It is meant for floating power plants. The main issue with ACP100 for military naval purposes is it requires refueling every 2 years.

Aren't refueling requirements dictated by the output generated, the amount of Uranium fuel in the reactor, and how enriched it is? If you have the ability to produce high-enriched Uranium (HEU) and a reactor design that can use it, are there significant further technical challenges to overcome before one can produce a reactor with e.g. >15yr refueling interval or even sealed-for-life? From the American experience it does seem that avoiding having to refuel the reactor during the anticipated service life of the ship/submarine is a worthwhile goal to pursue.

 

[weig2000]

No need to blot out faces, this picture is pretty public, as well as the story.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is about 国和一号, or CAP1400, which derives from the third-generation US AP1000 nuclear reactor that China imported from the US. 玲珑一号 or AP100 has nothing to do CAP1400.

 

[sinophilia]

well. today my friend send me this picture with some details.

The marine-type nuclear power device Linglong No. 1 has made progress, and China's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is coming!

China has made significant progress in the miniaturization of high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors, and some media have exposed the marine model of Linglong One.

The nuclear reactor has a diameter of 10 meters and a height of 15 meters, and its parameters are completely suitable for being equipped on an aircraft carrier. The output power reaches 125 megawatts, which is 25 megawatts higher than the 100 megawatts output power of the current US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Nimitz..

don't have any link. so can't confirm this information. waiting for more details.

So this is equal to the output power of the Ford-class carriers correct? Pretty awesome! I assume two being installed is the most likely conclusion?

 

[Gloire_bb]

Don't military marine reactors use highly enriched fuel to give them long endurance as opposed to the civil ones which use lower grade fuel. I'm not a nuclear physicist but could they not use highly enriched fuel in the ACP100S reactor? I'm guessing it would require a more in depth rework of the reactor design to be able to control the reaction.

Both routes are viable. Some of them use highly enriched fuels, some - don't. France and China use LEU, Russia and India - MEU, US and UK - HEU.
It's in fact a major controversy abt AUKUS.

 

[kriss]

Both routes are viable. Some of them use highly enriched fuels, some - don't. France and China use LEU, Russia and India - MEU, US and UK - HEU.
It's in fact a major controversy abt AUKUS.

But unlike on a submarine, reactor on a carrier would be very hard to access. It would require an enlengthened maintenance period measured in years and may involve cut the ship open. It's something you really don't want to do more than once nevermention every two years.

 

[Gloire_bb]

But unlike on a submarine, reactor on a carrier would be very hard to access. It would require an enlengthened maintenance period measured in years and may involve cut the ship open. It's something you really don't want to do more than once nevermention every two years.

Surface ships' reactors are in fact less size-constrained - and accessing fuels may in fact be easier; just take measures to make the reloading season correspond with the maintenance - and it works just fine.

IIRC, the most "hardworking" nuclear ships - Russian polar icebreakers, - are also not HEU.

 

[kriss]

Surface ships' reactors are in fact less size-constrained - and accessing fuels may in fact be easier; just take measures to make the reloading season correspond with the maintenance - and it works just fine.

IIRC, the most "hardworking" nuclear ships - Russian polar icebreakers, - are also not HEU.

Still an ROCH takes 46 month. I don't think any MLU for a conventional carrier would take 4 years unless you are talking about some drastic change like replacing the ramp with catapult.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Still an ROCH takes 46 month. I don't think any MLU for a conventional carrier would take 4 years unless you are talking about some drastic change like replacing the ramp with catapult.

Does it take that long to overhaul a Russian icebreaker? IDK but it seems like if you design for it, it doesn't need to take that long. How come a power plant doesn't go down for years for refueling, and why can you not design the ship like a power plant? What are the constraints?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Both routes are viable. Some of them use highly enriched fuels, some - don't. France and China use LEU, Russia and India - MEU, US and UK - HEU.
It's in fact a major controversy abt AUKUS.

Why does China choose LEU instead of MEU and HEU for their nuclear subs? Wouldn't that require more frequent refueling, i.e. less time available for patrol?

 

[gelgoog]

Does it take that long to overhaul a Russian icebreaker? IDK but it seems like if you design for it, it doesn't need to take that long. How come a power plant doesn't go down for years for refueling, and why can you not design the ship like a power plant? What are the constraints?

Land based nuclear power plants take months to refuel. It is one reason why the Russians for example build them in pairs. So you always have at least one operational power plant while the other is being refueled.