CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Untoldpain]

Why is nuclear reactor on a warship is not practical or economical, please educate me.

Is it too complex and expensive or safety reason? Why nuclear on subs is widely available even much smaller than a warship and China had the first SSN commissioned in 1974 ... almost 50 years ago. At that time Chinese economy and military power were very small and weak and the technology level was very very low. In 2020, Chinese economy like "1,000" times bigger and the military and technology strength like "500" times better

There are fundamental differences between using nuclear power for submarine as opposed to surface warship. SSNs, by definition, are able to remain submerged for months at a time because its source of propulsion is air independent, something critical to the operation and doctrine of submarine warfighting. One can argue that the recent invention of conventional AIP submarine partly accomplishs this goal as well.

Surface warship on the other hand gains no such obvious benefits from nuclear propulsion. And in the special case of USN, where global footprint is paramount, nuclear propulsion may offer advantages as a cost saving measure over the entire operating life of a warship. Even so, USN have stopped operating nuclear powered cruisers since the late cold war, and only rely on nuclear power for its fleet of aircraft carriers.

One might also argue that a nuclear powered aircraft carrier is able to take on more jet fuel and munition compare to a conventional one. But once you factor in the extra tonnage and engineering space required for nuclear propulsion as opposed to conventional propulsion, the comparison is not so one sided after all.

 

[foxmulder_ms]

Currently I agree that nuclear power does not make sense *but* in the future if railguns and lasers become the backbone of the weapon suit then suddenly nuclear may become a necessity for the electricity demand.

 

[ougoah]

Some of you keep saying it doesn't make sense without justifying it with any engineering principles or numbers. Like antiterror, I'd also like to learn why nuclear power isn't realistic for surface warships around the displacement of the type 055. Ignore the SSN example. Yes it is more important for submarines due to requirement of not surfacing for as long as possible but this doesn't even begin to explain why surface warships have some mysterious cost of entry for nuclear power.

 

[foxmulder_ms]

Bad:
1. It is expensive, an order of magnitude more expensive.
2. It requires many more highly trained personal.
3. It has additional risks and related cumbersome shielding/cooling systems and emergency protocols.

Good:
1. Very high energy production potential so you can go at full speed for a very long time and power all the high energy weapons/systems you want.


fun video:

 

[Zool]

Some of you keep saying it doesn't make sense without justifying it with any engineering principles or numbers. Like antiterror, I'd also like to learn why nuclear power isn't realistic for surface warships around the displacement of the type 055. Ignore the SSN example. Yes it is more important for submarines due to requirement of not surfacing for as long as possible but this doesn't even begin to explain why surface warships have some mysterious cost of entry

Moderate damage to a sub usually means its lost, and there is little alternative if you require speed and endurance. A carrier has a lot of tonnage and armored deck to protect the reactors from damage, and needs the power particularly with emals. Destroyers don't (currently) have the same level of power requirements, with IEP as an option, and they are frontline vessels that expect to suffer some damage. A reactor hit on a destroyer I expect means the end of the crew and ship, where a standard turbine powered DD would still be able to fight or atleast not be an immediate writeoff.

 

[Intrepid]

Nuclear aircraft carriers can even fuel destroyers because the destroyers use the same fuel as aircraft:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[asif iqbal]

as Untoldpain stated SSN needs a nuclear power plant by the nature their operations

a warship does not, nuclear power plants are immensely complicated complex and expensive pieces of kits to run, let alone the refuelling they require which puts them out of action for years, you can argue that modern core nuclear technology doesnt need refuelling for the life of the ship but that still doesnt give the advantage

there was a feasibility study done few years ago which found that any warship or carrier less than 75,000 tons doesnt justify to be nuclear powered based on cost and price of the barrel, this was forecasted over a 50 year period

which would explain why there isn't any in production or even planed nuclear powered warships

Currently I agree that nuclear power does not make sense *but* in the future if railguns and lasers become the backbone of the weapon suit then suddenly nuclear may become a necessity for the electricity demand.

No electrical propulsion produces enough excess electricity and power that even the 65,000 ton HMS Prince of Wales which was planned for EMALS could run without nuclear power

 

[Hendrik_2000]

as Untoldpain stated SSN needs a nuclear power plant by the nature their operations

a warship does not, nuclear power plants are immensely complicated complex and expensive pieces of kits to run, let alone the refuelling they require which puts them out of action for years, you can argue that modern core nuclear technology doesnt need refuelling for the life of the ship but that still doesnt give the advantage

there was a feasibility study done few years ago which found that any warship or carrier less than 75,000 tons doesnt justify to be nuclear powered based on cost and price of the barrel, this was forecasted over a 50 year period

which would explain why there isn't any in production or even planed nuclear powered warships

Who said that Russian or former Soviet Union built 6 X 28000 Ton Ice breaker

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Arktika is a double-hulled icebreaker; the outer hull is 48 mm (1.89 in) thick, the inner 25 mm (0.98 in) thick, with the space in between utilized for water ballasting. At the strongest point, the cast steel prow is 50 cm (19 ¾ in) thick and bow-shaped to aid in icebreaking, the curve applying greater dynamic force to fracture the ice than a straight bow would. The maximum ice thickness it can break through is approximately 5 meters (16.4 ft). Like many icebreakers, Arktika also has an air bubbling system (ABS) which delivers 24 m3/s of steam from jets 9 m (29.5 ft) below the surface to further aid in the breakup of ice.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The ship is divided by eight bulkheads, providing nine watertight compartments in the event of disaster, and can undergo short towing operations when needed. It also comes equipped with a helicopter pad and hangar at the aft of the ship.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Hoplite", dubbed ptichka (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for "little bird"), or

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Helix" helicopters are used for scouting expeditions to find safe routes through the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[banjex]

I thought nuclear feasibility started at 19k tons

 

[asif iqbal]

Hendrik the Chinese fanboy is back with his silly posts

maybe you didn't know but a ice breaker is not considered a warship

in basic English a ice breaker does not constitute a warship