CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[taxiya]

Well Carrier is not Submarine I can understand the requirement for highly enriched fuel to be used in Submarine because it will result in smaller reactor and longer period of refueling without breaking up the hull of the sub

But carrier is relatively roomy and has easier access to the reactor and it does not have to be too compact . so I would say slightly enriched uranium should be ok for carrier

CV is roomier but there are aircraft hangers and flight deck above the reactors. It will still take a lot of work and cut the ship to change the fuel. The change will put the CV out of service for months if not a year. If one has a highly enriched reactor for sub why use different tech?

 

[Hendrik_2000]

CV is roomier but there are aircraft hangers and flight deck above the reactors. It will still take a lot of work and cut the ship to change the fuel. The change will put the CV out of service for months if not a year. If one has a highly enriched reactor for sub why use different tech?

The problem is not so much as room but free height above the reactor to allow overhead crane or any other tool to remove the bolted head and unload the spent fuel. Which you clearly don't have in submarine so the only option is to remove the reactor itself
But even in commercial reactor the period is quite long not as long as submarine reactor

Mind you that the Canadian CANDU has on site refueling system that does not need removal of reactor head
But regardless of whether they use highly enriched or slightly enriched uranium, the experience in incorporating large nuclear reactor with the ship system is what count
So the statement that the experience is worthless because it use civilian reactor is not correct!

 

[taxiya]

The problem is not so much as room but free height above the reactor to allow overhead crane or any other tool to remove the bolted head and unload the spent fuel. Which you clearly don't have in submarine so the only option is to remove the reactor itself
But even in commercial reactor the period is quite long not as long as submarine reactor

Mind you that the Canadian CANDU has on site refueling system that does not need removal of reactor head

How would you do it to the CV reactor when there are at least two decks (maybe more) above the reactor compartment, aircraft hanger and flight deck? Cut them open, of course. Do you want to do that? Not unless you are desperate to have a CVN instead of a CV (conventional). Is PLAN that desperate? I don't think so. That is the base of my doubt of "CVN reactor being less-enriched or different in tech base than Sub).

Of course if you have different understanding of PLAN's desire, I would not argue.

 

[gelgoog]

AFAIK the French use low-enriched fuel both on their nuclear carrier and on their nuclear submarines. All it means is the reactor will be less compact. But it still beats diesel or fuel oil on long distance engagements. The Barracuda, for example, will only be refueled every 10 years.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

How would you do it to the CV reactor when there are at least two decks (maybe more) above the reactor compartment, aircraft hanger and flight deck? Cut them open, of course. Do you want to do that? Not unless you are desperate to have a CVN instead of a CV (conventional). Is PLAN that desperate? I don't think so. That is the base of my doubt of "CVN reactor being less-enriched or different in tech base than Sub).

Of course if you have different understanding of PLAN's desire, I would not argue.

There are more than 2 floor in aircraft carrier for sure

 

[Intrepid]

The USA has a special crane that fits into the hangar and can reach down into the reactor chamber to change the Uranium elements.

 

[taxiya]

The USA has a special crane that fits into the hangar and can reach down into the reactor chamber to change the Uranium elements.

Interesting. So there is a hatch for that purpose? No need to cut open decks? How long does it take to do a change of fuel? I believe Ford class do not need changing fuel, does it still have that hatch for inspection purpose?

 

[Orthan]

CV18 is therefore, in my expectation, simply the next incremental step. While I would expect an enhanced power plant, Cats and no Ski Jump, I anticipate the ship itself to be basically the same in layout and tonnage as the previous two.

What about all the info around about the 80000t displacement?

 

[Intrepid]

Interesting. So there is a hatch for that purpose? No need to cut open decks? How long does it take to do a change of fuel? I believe Ford class do not need changing fuel, does it still have that hatch for inspection purpose?

No hatch, the deck has to be welded on. In the 50-year service of the Ford, this must also be done. It takes many months.

 

[Intrepid]

Example CVN 79: at minute 1:56 to 2:01, there's a quick look at the roof of the rear main engine room. The front main engine room still lacks its roof. The upper end of the Superlift 1429 forms the hangar deck. In the box-shaped structures of the main engine rooms are the nuclear reactors, behind them the turbines and gearboxes for the propellers.