CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[AndrewS]

Some speculation on the insides compared to QE class:

QE class is powered by 2x Rolls Royce gas turbines at 36 MW each and 4x Wartsila diesels at 12 MW each. Total power ~120 MW

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(see 9L46F configuration). I doubt it can get much better than this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

But what if 003 is a CONAG configuration with an evolved version of existing HTR-10 reactors and existing QC-280 gas turbines at 28 MW each???

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

OD, 5 m3 volume, produces ~10 MW, and was put in service 20+ years ago.

An evolutionary improvement would be increasing power to 20 MW with increase in size to 4m x 1.8m OD (doubling of volume, no increase in efficiency) which is still small compared to a marine diesel which is literally 2x larger. 4x evolved HTR-10s and 2x QC-280 turbines for sprinting would produce 136 MW of energy, greater than QE class, with an engine room smaller than the 055 (which requires 4x QC-280 turbines; each turbine likely ~9m x 3m x 3m). If you accept an equal engine room as the 055 which is still small for a carrier, you can add 1x additional QC-280 for more sprinting power or more HTR-10s for baseline power.

4m x 1.8m OD wouldn't require a large hole for installation (would in fact be indistinguishable from installing some minor backup diesel) and refuelling is done by pebbles instead of whole fuel rod assemblies, meaning you can literally just cart the pebbles aboard.

This would shrink the engine room area, vastly increase fuel efficiency, while requiring 0 new technologies.

The HTR-10 is still just a prototype design.

The commercial modular Pebble Bed reactors are a larger version (250 MWth / 105 MWe) and actually take up a lot more space because of the automated pebble inspection and associated storage equipment. Plus the pebbles have a low energy density in comparison to existing nuclear rods.

But if you strip out the pebble inspection and storage equipment, you could put these larger Pebble Bed reactors in, once they've been proven out on land.

EDIT
Come to think of it, an icebreaker would be a better ship to test and prove out a new shipborne nuclear reactor design.

 

[gelgoog]

An icebreaker does not need as large a nuclear reactor as a carrier would. At best it would be a subscale version of the design.
The pebble bed reactors have much less fuel density but are supposed to need less containment structure.
I agree with you that it is unlikely they will use a pebble bed design though. I already pointed out that the ACP100 uses technologies similar to what you would need on a large naval reactor like for a carrier.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The HTR-10 is still just a prototype design.

The commercial modular Pebble Bed reactors are a larger version (250 MWth / 105 MWe) and actually take up a lot more space because of the automated pebble inspection and associated storage equipment. Plus the pebbles have a low energy density in comparison to existing nuclear rods.

But if you strip out the pebble inspection and storage equipment, you could put these larger Pebble Bed reactors in, once they've been proven out on land.

EDIT
Come to think of it, an icebreaker would be a better ship to test and prove out a new shipborne nuclear reactor design.

Basically a low cost way to get much of the advantages of nuclear without a redesign from scratch is CONAG.

In most ships there are 2 sets of engines: a high power engine like a gas turbine that provides the combat power like high speed propulsion, high power radar, etc for a short period of time, and a low speed engine like a diesel to run the base load: electricity for normal operations and cruise speed propulsion.

Replacing the diesels with SMRs while keeping the gas turbines only for peak loads (catapults, high speed maneuvers) is one way to vastly reduce fuel consumption while still having a small engine room. Gas turbines spin up quickly (~10-20 min). All nuclear on the other hand is best left permanently on because it takes hours/days for a cold start.

So you have the SMRs providing the base load, and then a the fuel is held in reserve only for combat situations.

The advantage over full nuclear is that you use lower risk, lower cost reactors and still retain almost all the advantages for when you really need them while vastly lowering everyday operating costs.

 

[The Observer]

Basically a low cost way to get much of the advantages of nuclear without a redesign from scratch is CONAG.

In most ships there are 2 sets of engines: a high power engine like a gas turbine that provides the combat power like high speed propulsion, high power radar, etc for a short period of time, and a low speed engine like a diesel to run the base load: electricity for normal operations and cruise speed propulsion.

Replacing the diesels with SMRs while keeping the gas turbines only for peak loads (catapults, high speed maneuvers) is one way to vastly reduce fuel consumption while still having a small engine room. Gas turbines spin up quickly (~10-20 min). All nuclear on the other hand is best left permanently on because it takes hours/days for a cold start.

So you have the SMRs providing the base load, and then a the fuel is held in reserve only for combat situations.

The advantage over full nuclear is that you use lower risk, lower cost reactors and still retain almost all the advantages for when you really need them while vastly lowering everyday operating costs.

Does it make such a massive difference in cost though? from my layman's PoV, a nuke is a nuke, no matter if it's an SMR or a full-size one. You still need the nuclear technician/s onboard, and that increases cost.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Does it make such a massive difference in cost though? from my layman's PoV, a nuke is a nuke, no matter if it's an SMR or a full-size one. You still need the nuclear technician/s onboard, and that increases cost.

I'm not an expert either but a main difference between SMRs and a full scale reactor is that it is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

rather than using active devices such as control rods.

In addition the heat engine portion directly runs a gas turbine rather than steam boiler, which reduces space and complexity compared to traditional reactor heat engines.

My guess is that a SMR + gas turbine won't take as many people as a full scale reactor + steam engine.

 

[Rachmaninov]

From Henri Kenhmann’s Twitter without a date tagged - judging by the presence of the ship on the right it must have been from a while ago (January 2022 at most)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1496376878961246213

 

[KampfAlwin]

New Type 003 updates and Wow... So clear! Also, can't upload pics - too large.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1497085308042903552

 

[by78]

New Type 003 updates and Wow... So clear! Also, can't upload pics - too large.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1497085308042903552

Let me help.

 

[KampfAlwin]

Let me help.

Thanks!

 

[Akame]

When will this ship be finished and launched?