PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

delft

Brigadier
An interesting read ...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


However to compare the Liaoning with the latest US Supercarriers and their air wings - and to come to the conclusion that the US are superior - is like comparing a small North Sea “Krabbenkutter” (as we call these tiny small boats) with a high-sea fishing trawler …

Deino
Some of the remarks are clearly idiotic as for example:
The Liaoning’s aircraft-launching system relies upon a ski jump-style deck instead of the steam catapults used by the United States and France, forcing the aircraft to expend considerable internal fuel during takeoff and thereby severely curtailing its payload ....
 

damitch300

Junior Member
Registered Member
If they do. How realistic will it be to make the current build a nuke version plus emals or without?
The ship seems engineless
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
They said they got the goods for nuke powered carrier(ACP100)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I don't think ACP100 or any of its variant is going to used by a CVN. Although itself is a very good design, it is a civilian SMR power plant. Its refueling cycle is 2 years, that is useless for a CVN but desirable for civilian usage. See the link
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Although the knowledge and experience from ACP100 can be used for a CVN power plant (probably China already has one ready), the CVN power plant will be a totally different design to increase the refueling cycle to something acceptable (20 years perhaps) or even remove the need for refueling (long enough to the ship's life). This means the design has to use highly enriched fuel different from ACP100.

Last note, ifeng is really not a good source for military mater or any serious mater, it acts like tabloid.
 

weig2000

Captain
I don't think ACP100 or any of its variant is going to used by a CVN. Although itself is a very good design, it is a civilian SMR power plant. Its refueling cycle is 2 years, that is useless for a CVN but desirable for civilian usage. See the link
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Although the knowledge and experience from ACP100 can be used for a CVN power plant (probably China already has one ready), the CVN power plant will be a totally different design to increase the refueling cycle to something acceptable (20 years perhaps) or even remove the need for refueling (long enough to the ship's life). This means the design has to use highly enriched fuel different from ACP100.

Last note, ifeng is really not a good source for military mater or any serious mater, it acts like tabloid.

It's the other way around - ACP100 is derived from military reactor, developed by the same institute.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
It's the other way around - ACP100 is derived from military reactor, developed by the same institute.
Thanks for the comment, though I can not say agree or disagree as I know nothing about such link.

We would be saying the same thing if I replace "can be used" with "is shared", or I should have.

I am curious about the military reactor that you mentioned, whether it is the one used on the current SSN/SSBN, or a totally different one (one that is dedicated to CVN). Considering ACP100's power rating at 310MWt and more than 100MWe, I would guess it is derived from a CVN power plant because that is the power output of reactor used on Nimitz class CVNs.
 

weig2000

Captain
Thanks for the comment, though I can not say agree or disagree as I know nothing about such link.

We would be saying the same thing if I replace "can be used" with "is shared", or I should have.

I am curious about the military reactor that you mentioned, whether it is the one used on the current SSN/SSBN, or a totally different one (one that is dedicated to CVN). Considering ACP100's power rating at 310MWt and more than 100MWe, I would guess it is derived from a CVN power plant because that is the power output of reactor used on Nimitz class CVNs.

Check out the PLAN Type 093/094/095 thread post #526, where I provided some link a while back.
 

Ali Qizilbash

Junior Member
Registered Member
CNNC small multi-purpose modular reactor ACP100 reactor passes IAEA safety review. Dated 28 April 2016.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has presented the final report of its general reactor safety review of the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC)’s ACP100, a third generation nuclear reactor developed by the CNNC. The ACP100 passed the IAEA’s review.

This is the first time Chinese self-developed small multi-purpose modular reactor technology has been reviewed by the IAEA. The ACP100 is in fact the first reactor of its kind in the world to have passed the IAEA safety review, a remarkable breakthrough in global small multi-purpose modular reactor development.

The ACP100 is designed as an innovative small pressurized water reactor, adopting a passive safety system and expected to be able to work under fierce conditions and be able to deal with multiple faults to ensure prevention of radioactivity release in the early phase or in a large scale, according to IAEA experts.

They add that the ACP100 is a small multi-purpose modular reactor relying on pressurized water reactor technology. Its design, based on previous projects and lessons of the Fukushima event, is characterized by integrated structure and safety.

IAEA shoulders the responsibility of ensuring and supervising peaceful utilization of nuclear power. Its evaluation experts come from across the world. Its review reports have great reference value for the nuclear power management organizations of its 151 member countries. The review work for the ACP100, which started in July 2015 and lasted for 10 months, was focused on the ACP100’s preliminary safety analysis report.

The successful review signals the international institution’s recognition of the ACP100’s technology as beneficial for the international market. At the same time, it is a foundation for the technology’s further upgrading and acceleration of its domestic demonstration projects. Overall, the review is an elevation of Chinese nuclear power brands’ international competitive level.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top