CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Mirabo]

I "love" the confidence in ignorance.

Risk with EMALS, risk with nuclear power, risk with tonnage of the ship are completely independent from each other. For a multi year, even multi decade project (carrier project of PLAN) risk analysis requires literally thousands of man hour work. It is complex calculation. There is simply no way you can know this. Even the admiral of PLAN does not know it before the feasibility work is done.

So far, the blurry satellite pictures we have do not prove anything either way.

Frankly, I think it is 50-50. I have my own reasons pro-against for both. The arrogance in tone for conventional believers here are trumpian I like to actually discuss the propulsion options pros and cons but in this type of toxic board where words like "retard" is used freely, what is the point.

You can go back and re-read my post if you've missed my point. Nowhere have I written or implied that the systems are not independent. Like @silentlurker said, if any of these new systems miss the deadline, the carrier is useless. Look at the catapult - switching from steam to EM delayed the entire project for a year.

And like you said, there are thousands of man-hours of risk analysis that goes into every project. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we can't speculate, and speculating on nuclear vs conventional propulsion is all we've done for the last 2 years.

It's a dead horse, we should all stop beating it but people keep jumping out and saying "003 will be nuclear!" without any evidence or logical hypotheses to back up their claim. I don't even want evidence because we all know there is no evidence, neither were there any substantial rumours from reputable sources. I just want to hear a good explanation for such an idea, but guess what, it's been 2 years and still the same wishful thinking fanboy bullshit! Nuclear 003 is an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof (or explanation) is entirely on those claiming such. Saying "it's either nuclear or conventional, two possibilites, but we have no evidence of either, so it's 50-50" is rather fallacious as it doesn't account for the feasibility of entire project as a whole. If you ask me, it's more like 10-90.

Sorry if you think I'm coming off as arrogant. But I stand by my belief that nuclear 003 is a retarded idea. Also note that I've never called anyone a retard. We're all rather enlightened here but smart people can have dumb beliefs sometimes and I consider nuclear 003 a dumb and retarded belief, that's my opinion and my opinion only.

If someone can give me a persuasive argument in favour of nuclear 003 I'll change my mind. Haven't seen any reasonable explanation so far though.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

How did you come up with the conclusion that that a nuclear reactor has an upper limit temperature in billions of degrees? Even a fission bomb can only reach on the order of 100 million K. Fission fragments can have energies on the order of 100MeV, which theoretically can be equated to billions of degrees, but at any instance the number of fissions is miniscule compared to number of at atoms in the core and so it is impossible to reach billions of degrees (even if you have a way to keep all in heat in and prevent all the fuel from vaporizing). What you are suggesting is that every atom in the reactor fission at the same time, an efficiency even the best of fission bombs cannot achieve. At a practical level, a reactor cannot operate at temperatures higher than the materials can handle, For all practical purposes, a PWR is limited to the water cycle and if I remember correctly, the saturation temperature is 360°C.

My post was about the size of heat exchanger , conventional vs nuclear. How your picking on the exact theoretical upper limit of the temperature affecting the size of the heat exchanger in a reactor ,and the analysis of the purpose of heat exchangers in the shipyard/in the ship?

Best part of this is pointless theoretical calculation - its just showing the reactor not constrained by any exhaust temperature like a conventional plant - and in need it can reach billions of degree in highly hypothetical gas configurations using fission fragments as source of propulsion example. Yes, it is theoretical, as in practice the temperature can easily exceed the melting point of all materials in the periodic table.

Point is (what doesn't realised by many) the nuclear reactor hasn't got any practical upper limit for temperature/efficiency.

 

[steve_rolfe]

This thing about whether the 003 Carrier will have nuclear propulsion or not, is turning into some sort of mental illness. Its about as bad as people fretting over the length of the carrier, as the number of posts on this matter is vast. I think its just some sort of one up man ship, in that ok the Americans have a 100,000 ton carrier at say 300m long, then China should build one that is 101,000 tonnes at 301m long. It doesn't really matter does it? Its only for the sake of bragging rights. OK nuclear power has some clear advantages, but you can have highly capable non nuclear, technically advanced carriers as shown by the UK QE class, and having nuclear power has drawbacks as well. Look at the French with their nuclear powered carrier, it has given them nothing but trouble, and apart from Subs and Carriers even the US doesn't use nuclear power for any other surface combatant like it used to. People need to remember its all down to many things like politics, geography, future strategic goals, technical abilities, as to what path a country will take in its military choices.

For now China has taken an evolutionary strategy, which has so far worked very well for them........and i'am sure in the not too distant future, China will build a nuclear powered Carrier, if she deems it necessary.

 

[hkky]

My post was about the size of heat exchanger , conventional vs nuclear. How your picking on the exact theoretical upper limit of the temperature affecting the size of the heat exchanger in a reactor ,and the analysis of the purpose of heat exchangers in the shipyard/in the ship?

Best part of this is pointless theoretical calculation - its just showing the reactor not constrained by any exhaust temperature like a conventional plant - and in need it can reach billions of degree in highly hypothetical gas configurations using fission fragments as source of propulsion example. Yes, it is theoretical, as in practice the temperature can easily exceed the melting point of all materials in the periodic table.

Point is (what doesn't realised by many) the nuclear reactor hasn't got any practical upper limit for temperature/efficiency.

You must know some weird science the rest of the nuclear industry is not aware of then. It is clearly you are living in your own world and responding to your comments is of diminishing return and waste of time.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

You must know some weird science the rest of the nuclear industry is not aware of then. It is clearly you are living in your own world and responding to your comments is of diminishing return and waste of time.

Interesting, why you define as "weird science" the difference between gas-water and water - water heat exchangers ?

And you pointed to the fact the fission fragments has a temperature of several billion degree, so where is the disagreement ?

 

[foxmulder]

You can go back and re-read my post if you've missed my point. Nowhere have I written or implied that the systems are not independent. Like @silentlurker said, if any of these new systems miss the deadline, the carrier is useless. Look at the catapult - switching from steam to EM delayed the entire project for a year.

And like you said, there are thousands of man-hours of risk analysis that goes into every project. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we can't speculate, and speculating on nuclear vs conventional propulsion is all we've done for the last 2 years.

It's a dead horse, we should all stop beating it but people keep jumping out and saying "003 will be nuclear!" without any evidence or logical hypotheses to back up their claim. I don't even want evidence because we all know there is no evidence, neither were there any substantial rumours from reputable sources. I just want to hear a good explanation for such an idea, but guess what, it's been 2 years and still the same wishful thinking fanboy bullshit! Nuclear 003 is an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof (or explanation) is entirely on those claiming such. Saying "it's either nuclear or conventional, two possibilites, but we have no evidence of either, so it's 50-50" is rather fallacious as it doesn't account for the feasibility of entire project as a whole. If you ask me, it's more like 10-90.

Sorry if you think I'm coming off as arrogant. But I stand by my belief that nuclear 003 is a retarded idea. Also note that I've never called anyone a retard. We're all rather enlightened here but smart people can have dumb beliefs sometimes and I consider nuclear 003 a dumb and retarded belief, that's my opinion and my opinion only.

If someone can give me a persuasive argument in favour of nuclear 003 I'll change my mind. Haven't seen any reasonable explanation so far though.

Simple: You are thinking a one-ship program. I am thinking a multi-ship program.

Someone easily can say claiming China is building **the** largest conventional powered naval ship **ever** is a retard idea.

 

[Blitzo]

Simple: You are thinking a one-ship program. I am thinking a multi-ship program.

Someone easily can say claiming China is building **the** largest conventional powered naval ship **ever** is a retard idea.

You've been doing PLA watching for a while. You've had an account on here and on CDF for a while.

This entire discussion has been about carrier 003 -- the ship that is currently being visibly built at JN. Not any potential future ships.


What we are saying is that ship currently being built is going to be conventionally powered and there is no reasonable way to argue it could be nuclear powered at this stage.

 

[Temstar]

Again, I don't know how people can tell all these info from so much noise and so few pixels, but whatever. Here's someone who thinks he see the start of the smokestack.

 

[Deino]

View attachment 68229
View attachment 68230

Again, I don't know how people can tell all these info from so much noise and so few pixels, but whatever. Here's someone who thinks he see the start of the smokestack.

I fully agree with you. I'm happy to identify this as an aircraft carrier under construction and I'm happier if I can see some internal details like the number of decks or so, but to assume these might be tunnels for a smokestack is beyond my imagination.

 

[Tam]

View attachment 68229
View attachment 68230

Again, I don't know how people can tell all these info from so much noise and so few pixels, but whatever. Here's someone who thinks he see the start of the smokestack.