PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.

[by78]

Please read the linked post I made in a different thread. Any help would be appreciated.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-breaking-news-pics-videos.t7079/page-126#post-462408

 

[Intrepid]

The US Navy needs another four years time to develop EMALS to operational status on just commissioned CVN 78!

 

[B.I.B.]

The US Navy needs another four years time to develop EMALS to operational status on just commissioned CVN 78!

source please?

 

[B.I.B.]

Sorry. I was misled by another news. Here it is,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is the Observer quoting Ma's words, not People's Daily On-line. It made thought it should have been.

can someone translate the whole article ...thanks

 

[Iron Man]

source please?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Broccoli]

Here are some reasons why Brits chose diesel over nuclear power... to me their conclusions make lot of sense, especially when you look how much Ford-class costs. I'd rather have two Elizabeth-class carriers with catobars (French PA2 design) than one Ford-class.


Also what happens if nuclear carrier get's hit and the reactor starts releasing all the bad stuff every where? Whole crew could die even if they manage to abandon the ship.

• Aircraft carriers only carry a month’s worth of aviation fuel, including the US and French nuclear beasts, so need to be refueled monthly anyway. Taking on diesel at the same time, from a tanker, is feasible.

• A reactor adds 280% to the lifetime costs of a ship.

• A reactor requires specialist personnel, and facilities, that are expensive to acquire and maintain. While diesel generators, and turbines require just a good motor mechanic.

• It's harder to resell a nuke powered design / vessel, than a conventional one, so impacts the book value of an asset.

 

[Intrepid]

Here are some reasons why Brits chose diesel over nuclear power... to me their conclusions make lot of sense, especially when you look how much Ford-class costs. I'd rather have two Elizabeth-class carriers with catobars (French PA2 design) than one Ford-class [...] Also what happens if nuclear carrier get's hit and the reactor starts releasing all the bad stuff every where? Whole crew could die even if they manage to abandon the ship.

The same discussion with the same arguments has existed since the 1970s

 

[Iron Man]

Here are some reasons why Brits chose diesel over nuclear power... to me their conclusions make lot of sense, especially when you look how much Ford-class costs. I'd rather have two Elizabeth-class carriers with catobars (French PA2 design) than one Ford-class.

• Aircraft carriers only carry a month’s worth of aviation fuel, including the US and French nuclear beasts, so need to be refueled monthly anyway. Taking on diesel at the same time, from a tanker, is feasible.

This reason makes the least sense to me. It is commonly cited as a major reason, if not THE major reason, to use nuclear carriers instead of conventional carriers, that they can carry more aviation fuel and munitions because they don't have to carry diesel fuel, which means they can sustain more sorties prior to replenishment compared to a conventional carrier.

 

[jon88]

Here are some reasons why Brits chose diesel over nuclear power... to me their conclusions make lot of sense, especially when you look how much Ford-class costs. I'd rather have two Elizabeth-class carriers with catobars (French PA2 design) than one Ford-class.


Also what happens if nuclear carrier get's hit and the reactor starts releasing all the bad stuff every where? Whole crew could die even if they manage to abandon the ship.

I kinda agree with this argument. Besides, why use an engine source that can last a century or two on a ship that can only last probably half a century? By that time, that nuclear power source would have been most certainly outdated or worse obsolete. Then people will question why the overkill on the budget to build those aircraft carriers when they could have chosen a more economical and sustainable option.

With America changing aircraft carriers every 30 years, wouldn't it make much more sense to go with a 40 years lifetime power source? I mean, what you could have done on US social security or even infrastructure with all those money saved.

 

[taxiya]

Here are some reasons why Brits chose diesel over nuclear power... to me their conclusions make lot of sense, especially when you look how much Ford-class costs. I'd rather have two Elizabeth-class carriers with catobars (French PA2 design) than one Ford-class.


Also what happens if nuclear carrier get's hit and the reactor starts releasing all the bad stuff every where? Whole crew could die even if they manage to abandon the ship.

Besides what @Iron Man has said in #228, I also think technology limit of the nuclear power plant is another main hindrance to the British.

British is less advanced in nuclear reactor design than France and USA. Today Britain is asking France and China to build nuclear power plants in UK. Yes, I know it is civilian, but the tech base is there (or not there). The current indigenous nuclear marine power plants that UK have are from Rolls Royce PWR1 and PWR2 (based on US tech transfer) on their subs. But these plants are too small in power for a 70000 ton Carrier. Using many PWR2 bundled together is not a good option, Nimitz class was the only one of its class, the power plant was one of the reason. For Rolls Royce to develop a dedicated Carrier reactor (4 times more powerful) is not a easy task, and will probably push QE class a decade later.

So, I think UK was forced to settle on the current configuration not by choice but compromise, ski jump instead of EMALS is another example of compromise than choice.