Gas reactors have low power density, so I find that very unlikely.
09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
PWRs are just too hard to beat. That is what happened. They are just very power dense, can be made very safe, very familiar and require no exotic materials and do not freeze. In fact, I don't think they will ever be replaced unless that is triggered by another technology like sCO2 turbines. There is no incentive to move as long as the prime mover is a steam turbine.
Too exotic and high risk. The plant itself however have promise. it allows much higher temperature to be attained, no pressurization needed so there is potential to use Superheated steam instead of typical PWR saturated steam.
It is also possible to entirely replace steam turbine with Brayton cycle (essentially, yes a nuclear gas turbine) But yeah too exotic.
It also promise much lower weight per Horsepower. As compared to PWR, no need for extra pressurization or secondary loop.
DARPA studies on alternate Submarine reactors, for CONFORM program which, got killed by Admiral Rickover. The DARPA studies
promised following :
Notice that HTGR and LMCR (Liquid Metal Cooled Reactor) offers low specifc weight for every horsepower generated. Thus the plant can be smaller, consume less volume and in turn allow smaller submarine or extra volume to be allocated for something else. 40000 SHP HTGR plant for example will be about 858 metric tonne, compared to 1523 metric tonne for PWR plant. LMCR plant is heavier at 1013 Metric tonne but not as heavy as PWR one.
The calculation is based on "Theory of Submarine Design" and Norman Polmar's "Cold War Submarine" book. and cover typical reactor setup
PWR itself are chosen mainly because it's working, scalable, large experience exist, it use water which easily procured. But when time comes for lightweight reactor or higher thermal efficiency, one can consider going HTGR or LMCR. Typical PWR plant due to its dual loop (primary and secondary) can only achieve typical efficiency of 33%. LMCR and HTGR can be higher as there wont be need for pressurization and primary loop.
PiSigma
"the engineer"
They have money but no brains
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I don't know if I agree with you on that. In shallower waters close to the homeland where logistics and supply chain are not at a premium , modern SSKs are equally if not even deadlier than SSNs.
Could someone translate this little tidbit from "CuteOrca"?
SSK's niche maybe replaced by unmanned full electric platforms. My guess is PLAN's underwater component may transit to large nuclear subs + small unmanned subs in the near future.
The gist of it is natural circulation reactor is already achieved in the last generation(093B?). This generation has better everything you'd want for a SSN, detection/armament/depth/speed....etc
No, this is basically outdated info based on the previous models and the early imagery of 09IIIB, where I could literally count those tubes. I should have rephrased it as "appears to carry at least 18". The initial count I think was as low as 12, but was revised quickly.
But frankly this is the result of me writing stuff on the side, not spending enough time on getting my thoughts in order on the most recent clearer imagery. In any case I will take it onboard for future reference, and yeah, I agree the most recent count should be 24 with reasonable confidence now.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Considering the US only put natural circulation started on Virginia class, it is quite achievement for China. Note: all LA class reactors are not natural circulation