PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: Aircraft Carriers II
French showing the Brits the value of a carrier, they have really made use of thier carrier in the recent times they deployed it off Libya coast too, we need two operatioal Queen Elizabeth carriers not two under construction
Imagine the slack RN could cut USN with two operational carriers, the force they could deploy the timing is right too with recent world events
Europe will be able to deploy a total of 6 aircraft carriers, with RN leading the pack with the largest and two most powerful carriers
If France didn't cancel thier second carrier that would mean 7 flat tops with 4 huge carriers between UK and France
Never the less the timing of the deployment of the French carrier is interesting, looks like a lot of assets are being being deployed ahead of a possible attack which could mean more than just tomahawks
French showing the Brits the value of a carrier, they have really made use of thier carrier in the recent times they deployed it off Libya coast too, we need two operatioal Queen Elizabeth carriers not two under construction
Imagine the slack RN could cut USN with two operational carriers, the force they could deploy the timing is right too with recent world events
Europe will be able to deploy a total of 6 aircraft carriers, with RN leading the pack with the largest and two most powerful carriers
If France didn't cancel thier second carrier that would mean 7 flat tops with 4 huge carriers between UK and France
Never the less the timing of the deployment of the French carrier is interesting, looks like a lot of assets are being being deployed ahead of a possible attack which could mean more than just tomahawks
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN Carrier Construction
I'm not talking about re-fitting the Powerplant from a SSBN to a carrier I'm talking specifically about the miniaturisation technology for nuclear power plant
If they can design and build one for a submarine then sure why not for a carrier, SSBN nuclear reactor is not easy task
Main point about the Astute Class SSN for Royal Navy is that it's nuclear reactor produces huge amounts of energy in form of heat which is used to boil water which is turned into steam which is used for propulsion, essentially going back 100 years but using 21st century technology, in that sense nuclear submarine propulsion hasnt changed much from steam power
How you mange the energy is down to what the energy requirements are i.e the vessel
I'm not talking about re-fitting the Powerplant from a SSBN to a carrier I'm talking specifically about the miniaturisation technology for nuclear power plant
If they can design and build one for a submarine then sure why not for a carrier, SSBN nuclear reactor is not easy task
Main point about the Astute Class SSN for Royal Navy is that it's nuclear reactor produces huge amounts of energy in form of heat which is used to boil water which is turned into steam which is used for propulsion, essentially going back 100 years but using 21st century technology, in that sense nuclear submarine propulsion hasnt changed much from steam power
How you mange the energy is down to what the energy requirements are i.e the vessel
Re: Aircraft Carriers II
NATO/West answer to Putin threatening to reinforce his vessels in the Syrian area. With four Burkes, two or more US SSNs, one or two UK SSNs, and an entire French carrier group, it will be hard for Russia to match that, and you can imagine that Italy also has vessels in the area and Turkey too.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: Aircraft Carriers II
There's a guy who keeps a tally on Russian warships through the Bosphoruos and it's said that this year around 30 ships have sailed south bound and around 50 north bound in 2013 alone so far
The south bound ships enter the Mediterranean and usually go onto Syria or Cyprus then Syria
The most frequent passage is by Aligator class landing cargo ships and Ropucha Class cargo vessels they seem lighter when they are on way back up the Black Sea meaning loads have been taken off
Russia has been supporting Syria right down to the last man, they have really backed up Assad and supported his regime dating back to when Assads father was a trainees fighter pilot in the Soviet Union
There's a guy who keeps a tally on Russian warships through the Bosphoruos and it's said that this year around 30 ships have sailed south bound and around 50 north bound in 2013 alone so far
The south bound ships enter the Mediterranean and usually go onto Syria or Cyprus then Syria
The most frequent passage is by Aligator class landing cargo ships and Ropucha Class cargo vessels they seem lighter when they are on way back up the Black Sea meaning loads have been taken off
Russia has been supporting Syria right down to the last man, they have really backed up Assad and supported his regime dating back to when Assads father was a trainees fighter pilot in the Soviet Union
Re: PLAN Carrier Construction
A few numbers:
PWR max temp about 650 Kelvin
Fuel burning steam plant about 850 Kelvin
Thorium reactor about 1000 Kelvin.
At a minimum cycle temperature of about 350 Kelvin the thermal efficiency of the Thorium cycle will be about 60%, that of the PWR about 30%, so for the same mechanical power the thermal power of the Thorium reactor will be about halve of that of a PWR.
The energy produced splitting a U233 atom is about that produced splitting a U235 atom and in both cases about 2.5 neutrons will be produced. One neutron will be consumed splitting the next U235, leaving 1.5 neutrons to be adsorbed by lead shielding for the PWR. For the Thorium reactor also one is used splitting the next U233, one absorbed by a Th232 to produce the next U233 and 0.5 to be absorbed by the shielding.
Together for the same mechanical power the PWR has to absorb six times as many neutrons as the the Thorium reactor.
The Thorium reactor will therefore be smaller and is inherently lighter than a PWR and needs much less lead shielding so can be a practical power plant for a much smaller vessel.
China expects to have the technology for Thorium reactors developed by 2020 - first for civilian power plants or first for naval vessels?
It might be attractive for PLAN to have more smaller flattops rather than half as many 100k CVN's as USN.
P.S. Does someone know more accurate numbers?
A pressurized water reactor is a relatively inefficient way of producing power and therefore it makes sense not to use them in relatively small vessels. That must be one of the factors why USN CVN's are 100k.
A few numbers:
PWR max temp about 650 Kelvin
Fuel burning steam plant about 850 Kelvin
Thorium reactor about 1000 Kelvin.
At a minimum cycle temperature of about 350 Kelvin the thermal efficiency of the Thorium cycle will be about 60%, that of the PWR about 30%, so for the same mechanical power the thermal power of the Thorium reactor will be about halve of that of a PWR.
The energy produced splitting a U233 atom is about that produced splitting a U235 atom and in both cases about 2.5 neutrons will be produced. One neutron will be consumed splitting the next U235, leaving 1.5 neutrons to be adsorbed by lead shielding for the PWR. For the Thorium reactor also one is used splitting the next U233, one absorbed by a Th232 to produce the next U233 and 0.5 to be absorbed by the shielding.
Together for the same mechanical power the PWR has to absorb six times as many neutrons as the the Thorium reactor.
The Thorium reactor will therefore be smaller and is inherently lighter than a PWR and needs much less lead shielding so can be a practical power plant for a much smaller vessel.
China expects to have the technology for Thorium reactors developed by 2020 - first for civilian power plants or first for naval vessels?
It might be attractive for PLAN to have more smaller flattops rather than half as many 100k CVN's as USN.
P.S. Does someone know more accurate numbers?
Re: PLAN Carrier Construction
Here's all of them, with pictures, names, designations, their commissioning and decomissioning dates, as well as their displacement:
Long Beach Class Cruiser
USS Long Beach, CGN-9, 1961-1995, 15,500 tons
Bainbridge Class Destroyer/Cruiser
USS Bainbridge, CGN-25, 1962-1996, 9,100 tons (Initially commissioned a destoryer, then changed to cruiser)
Truxton Class Destroyer/Cruiser
USS Truxton, CGN-35, 1967-1995, 8,700 tons (Initially commissioned a destoryer, then changed to cruiser)
Califronia Class Cruisers
USS California, CGN-36, 1974-1999, 10,800 tons
USS South Carolina, CGN-37, 1975-1999, 10,800 tons
Virginia Class Cruisers
USS Virginia, CGN-38, 1976-1994, 11,700 tons
USS Texas, CGN-38, 1977-1993, 11,700 tons
USS Mississippi, CGN-38, 1978-1997, 11,700 tons
USS Akransas, CGN-38, 1980-1998, 11,700 tons
So, the US operated a total of nine nuclear powered surface combatants ranging in displacement from 8,100 tons up to 15,500 tons, for a total of 38 years. None of them had any helo hanger, just a landing spot.
The later Virginia Class would still be operating today, but it was too costly to upgrade their armament (double arm launchers and missle stores) along with their sensors to the VLS AEGIS standard. Those AEGIS vessels were simply much more effective in excorting the carriers.
So they were all decommissioned early (between 1993 and 1996) and replaced by conventionally powered AEGIS cruisers (and now detroyers) all of which had far stronger anit-air and anti-missile defense, stronger ASW defense, and were built to be able to be upgraded with the newer technology.
Actually, outside of Nuclear carriers (which came along with the Nimitz class in the 1970s), and the nuclear submarine force, the US Navy did operate quite a few smaller nuclear powered surface combatants for several decades.
Here's all of them, with pictures, names, designations, their commissioning and decomissioning dates, as well as their displacement:
Long Beach Class Cruiser
USS Long Beach, CGN-9, 1961-1995, 15,500 tons
Bainbridge Class Destroyer/Cruiser
USS Bainbridge, CGN-25, 1962-1996, 9,100 tons (Initially commissioned a destoryer, then changed to cruiser)
Truxton Class Destroyer/Cruiser
USS Truxton, CGN-35, 1967-1995, 8,700 tons (Initially commissioned a destoryer, then changed to cruiser)
Califronia Class Cruisers
USS California, CGN-36, 1974-1999, 10,800 tons
USS South Carolina, CGN-37, 1975-1999, 10,800 tons
Virginia Class Cruisers
USS Virginia, CGN-38, 1976-1994, 11,700 tons
USS Texas, CGN-38, 1977-1993, 11,700 tons
USS Mississippi, CGN-38, 1978-1997, 11,700 tons
USS Akransas, CGN-38, 1980-1998, 11,700 tons
So, the US operated a total of nine nuclear powered surface combatants ranging in displacement from 8,100 tons up to 15,500 tons, for a total of 38 years. None of them had any helo hanger, just a landing spot.
The later Virginia Class would still be operating today, but it was too costly to upgrade their armament (double arm launchers and missle stores) along with their sensors to the VLS AEGIS standard. Those AEGIS vessels were simply much more effective in excorting the carriers.
So they were all decommissioned early (between 1993 and 1996) and replaced by conventionally powered AEGIS cruisers (and now detroyers) all of which had far stronger anit-air and anti-missile defense, stronger ASW defense, and were built to be able to be upgraded with the newer technology.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN Carrier Construction
Why did the US Navy decided to decommissioned those nuclear powered surface combatants? It would make sense to have it because they are a part of the CVN battle group therefore don't have to rely on fuel for conventional power.
Why did the US Navy decided to decommissioned those nuclear powered surface combatants? It would make sense to have it because they are a part of the CVN battle group therefore don't have to rely on fuel for conventional power.