Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Nuclear Carriers
Thomas    9/8/2003 6:05:35 AM
I could not find the old thread, where Shaka was arguing for return to the conventionally powered Aircraft Carrier. the argument was, that as a carrier will have to bunker fuel for their aeroplanes every four days anyhow the are not free of the "fuel-line". The Argument could be extended to the screen of other vessel, as they are not nuclear powered anyway. The explenation seems to be that a nuclear plant can deliver enough steam under all conditions to propulsion (with unshaved ship), electronics and catapults. There should be a limit to the extend a conventional carrier can do that. source: link article Steam plants.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
macawman    Nuclear Carriers their future ?   10/3/2003 6:21:24 AM
Thomas:>>The explanation seems to be that a nuclear plant can deliver enough steam under all conditions to propulsion (with unshaved ship), electronics and catapults. There should be a limit to the extend a conventional carrier can do that.<< Your point about nuclear reactors providing more steam power than conventional ship steam power plants for the accessories, then it follows that electro-magnetic catapults and JSF type classified carriers would not necessarly require nuclear reactors. So, the Nimitz class carriers could be the last of that line of ships with that single source nuclear power. I wonder if the Navy has considered 'all electric' turbo/electric power distribution system for some types of ships. It could mean doing away with steam generation for propulsion with the use of multiply electric ducted pods to drive the ship. The same type of propulsion system the cruise liners are going to now. Food for thought for this topic is way beyond my knowledge base.
 
Quote    Reply

Slade    RE:Nuclear Carriers their future ?   10/3/2003 7:09:20 AM
The Navy is going to "all electric" ships with DD(X) and the follow-on to the Nimitz class. At least eventually, I don't remember if they will have a plant ready in time for the inital ships. As an asside the Navy has been experimenting from time to time with an all electric drive system. Lex and Sara (CV2 & CV3) were turbo-electric driven. There were some WWI and early post WWI BB's that were as well. And the SSN Tubille and mabey one more SSN that I don't remember right off the top of my head.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Nuclear Carriers their future ?   10/3/2003 7:16:25 AM
You'll need the same peek power regardless of steam or electricity?
 
Quote    Reply

Slade    RE:Nuclear Carriers their future ?   10/4/2003 9:38:08 AM
You need a specific amount of power (X KW)to drive a ship at max speed and then more to run electrical equipment. A steam propulsion system means a totally independent electrical system which is both good and bad. Current ships have generators to run elec systems. If everything is electric then you can match generation to usage better. Gas-Turbines are either on or off essentally so they generate a specific KW level, the excess capacity is wasted. Also since nuc's basically don't need to be refueled (well every decade or 2) you can optomize hull form for the best propulsion efficency at max speed instead of at cruising speed as you would with a convetional plant because a ship spends more time at cruise than max. There was a article either here or www.warships1.com on this.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy