A1b reactor


  • Video: Nuclear Vs Diesel Aircraft Carriers – How do they Compare?
  • Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R.Ford set to sea trials after a long break
  • US Navy scientist invents new type of nuclear fusion reactor
  • Time to Re-Task, Downsize, and Re-Engineer the SSN, Part II
  • Javascript Required!
  • Naval Nuclear Propulsion
  • www.hotcars.com
  • Video: Nuclear Vs Diesel Aircraft Carriers – How do they Compare?

    You may have heard that there is no easy way to sink an aircraft carrier but for the US it's virtually impossible. Via: The National Interest You may have heard that there is no easy way to sink an aircraft carrier. In our case, there is almost Navy carrier!

    These expensive and advanced military ships are deployed and operate in every ocean around the globe. That means that it's really crucial for the U.

    Navy to protect them from potential threats. That's why they are built and deployed in a way that it's almost impossible to sink such a vessel. Without further ado, let's see how this is achieved. Navy is the biggest in the world, it's clear that it operates the most advanced and capable aircraft carriers. The American Navy has in total eleven active aircraft carriers. Although, a lot of people believe there are more than eleven.

    That's because they wrongly consider amphibious assault ships as aircraft carriers. The U. The Nimitz Class carriers have sailed since and are currently the second biggest carriers worldwide. It only falls short of the Gerald R Ford Class that holds the record for the biggest aircraft carrier in It's capable of carrying over 75 aircraft and is powered by one Bechtel A1B reactor.

    Its single reactor is more convenient and powerful and the vessel is equipped with advanced systems and an array of modern features. Although, these two carriers are considered the best in the world, the United Kingdom and Japan also operate excellent carriers like the Queen Elizabeth-class and the Shinano, respectively.

    Why The U. It's really a floating base that helps the navy operate an aerial attack everywhere in the world. Their contribution in tactical and strategical missions is very significant and many times decisive.

    Their purposes in battle can vary and mainly depend on the capabilities of each ship. Considering how dangerous this type of vessel could be on the battlefield, they would be big targets on the water.

    Such ships are unsurprisingly very expensive to develop and build. Besides that, operating costs aren't cheap either. It's estimated that the most advanced carriers of the U. Taking in mind that, the protection plan of these ships is really important to the navies of all nations.

    That's why the U. Navy has 'invented' the carrier strikes group. Such groups contain an aircraft carrier and usually a cruiser, a bunch of destroyers and frigates, submarines, and other auxiliary ships. The carrier strike group is one of the most powerful naval fleets composition that operates in the 21st century.

    Why They Can't Be Sunk Via: Naval News To see how hard it is to really sink a carrier, let's imagine a hypothetical scenario between a carrier strike group and an enemy fleet. First of all, let's assume that an enemy aircraft or ship tries to attack the carrier. The carrier's first move would be to deploy the air wing. The F has especially advanced systems and it's very efficient in battle. But if the air wing, for some reason, can't neutralize the danger, and the enemy gets closer, then it's time for the rest of the carrier group to take on the challenge.

    The nuclear-powered submarines in combination with the powerful destroyers like the Arleigh Burke-class can detect and eliminate everything that threatens the fleet in an impressive perimeter. Equipped with a variety of armaments, these vessels can destroy any possible threat. Plus, the auxiliary ships are always there to support and supply the front line of the fleet. Even in the case that the enemy threat approach close enough to attack the carrier, the ship has its own advanced defense systems.

    Beyond radar and other modern technology, the carriers are equipped with very efficient armament. They have automated guns, missiles, and systems that are capable of protecting the ship on their own. Okay, but in the worst case, let's assume that the enemy succeeds in attacking the carrier. Remember that aircraft carriers -and especially the U. Regardless of the hits that it will get, these ships are practically unsinkable well, we they did say that about the Titanic but the 20th century ship did not have the help of modern technology and a range of air and water support.

    Aircraft Carrier USS Gerald R.Ford set to sea trials after a long break

    Ford set to sea trials after a long Four out of 11 elevators are now functional and certified, according to the Navy. In the next sea trials phase, the crew of the ship and Huntington Ingalls Industries HII engineers will work together and shipyard employees to test the systems that were repaired at Newport News over the past year. The U. Navy commissioned the ship in July without any working elevators.

    Ford-class carriers : The Gerald R. Ford class is the future aircraft carrier replacement class for Enterprise and Nimitz class aircraft carriers for the U. The Gerald R. Ford class will be the premier forward asset for crisis response and early decisive striking power in a major combat operation.

    Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers and carrier strike groups will provide the core capabilities of forward presence, deterrence, sea control, power projection, maritime security and humanitarian assistance. The class brings improved warfighting capability, quality of life improvements for our Sailors and reduced total ownership costs. Improvements in the ship design will allow the embarked air wing to operate with approximately fewer personnel.

    New technologies and ship design features are expected to reduce watch standing and maintenance workload for the crew. Ford is the first aircraft carrier designed with all electric utilities, eliminating steam service lines from the ship, reducing maintenance requirements and improving corrosion control.

    Ford class is designed to maximize the striking power of the embarked carrier air wing.

    US Navy scientist invents new type of nuclear fusion reactor

    That's why the U. Navy has 'invented' the carrier strikes group. Such groups contain an aircraft carrier and usually a cruiser, a bunch of destroyers and frigates, submarines, and other auxiliary ships. The carrier strike group is one of the most powerful naval fleets composition that operates in the 21st century.

    Why They Can't Be Sunk Via: Naval News To see how hard it is to really sink a carrier, let's imagine a hypothetical scenario between a carrier strike group and an enemy fleet. First of all, let's assume that an enemy aircraft or ship tries to attack the carrier.

    The carrier's first move would be to deploy the air wing. The F has especially advanced systems and it's very efficient in battle. But if the air wing, for some reason, can't neutralize the danger, and the enemy gets closer, then it's time for the rest of the carrier group to take on the challenge. The nuclear-powered submarines in combination with the powerful destroyers like the Arleigh Burke-class can detect and eliminate everything that threatens the fleet in an impressive perimeter.

    Equipped with a variety of armaments, these vessels can destroy any possible threat. Plus, the auxiliary ships are always there to support and supply the front line of the fleet. Even in the case that the enemy threat approach close enough to attack the carrier, the ship has its own advanced defense systems. Beyond radar and other modern technology, the carriers are equipped with very efficient armament.

    They have automated guns, missiles, and systems that are capable of protecting the ship on their own. For those who say the Navy still cannot afford to give up the deep strike land attack mission because of now-obsolete fears of naval irrelevance in 21st century warfarewe still have all of the existing Virginia-class boats that already have been delivered, and those that have already been ordered, including those Block 5s with VPM — which still provide a robust deep strike land attack capability in the SSN fleet today and for the next 40 years.

    If it is really thought necessary that the Navy provide the deep strike land attack capability from submarines, then build new SSGNs to provide that capability starting in the early s as the existing SSGNs retire— that mission, however, does not require SSNs as platforms.

    Time to Re-Task, Downsize, and Re-Engineer the SSN, Part II

    To be ready for unmanned systems and networked warfighting capabilities the new design should account for modularity and open architecture in submarine system interfaces communications and combat data management systems to enable effective networking with off-ship platforms including unmanned undersea vessels UUVunmanned surface vessels USVand aircraft, both manned and unmanned.

    Block 2 — Next-Gen Reactor Plant Technology Insertion While developing and building the Block 1 new SSN, the Navy can launch a new reactor design program to adapt a generation four reactor plant to provide numerous advantages for naval submarine power over current technology pressurized water reactor PWR plants.

    Perhaps the most likely candidate is a molten salt reactor MSR 2, which is part of the current crop of commercial generation four reactor plants already under development in the U.

    It also provides extended hull operating lifetime without enlarging the hull to accommodate a larger reactor plant needed to yield a life-of-ship reactor.

    MSR reactors are intrinsically safe unlike PWRs there is no meltdown risk because the reactor itself, along with its fuel, is already moltenthus significantly reducing the safety requirements and operating limitations necessary with PWRs. MSR reactors also operate at one atmosphere of pressure, eliminating the need for very heavy steel reactor pressure vessels and primary coolant system components, thus significantly reducing the weight and size of the nuclear power plant.

    This greatly reduces the effects of thermal stress due to rapid cooldown associated with thickly walled steel pressure vessels. MSR reactors operate at far higher temperatures than PWRs, thus allowing the use of more efficient high temperature steam secondary plants, reducing both the size and weight of the secondary plant. This also yields a much higher overall thermal efficiency for the entire power plant, meaning that a MSR plant of a given capacity in MW thermal power MWt produces the same motive power as a much larger PWR plant.

    MSR reactors can use a wide variety of cheaper and more widely available reactor fissionable fuels, including, amazingly enough, spent fuel from conventional PWRs, lower enriched uranium fuel, depleted uranium, and thorium. When the MSR fuel is completely spent and discarded as waste, it is far less radioactive over far shorter decay timeframes than spent fuel from conventional PWRs. Overall, MSR reactors are significantly safer, smaller, lighter, simpler, more efficient, and cheaper than PWRs — all of which will contribute significantly to reducing the size and cost both construction, and operating of next gen SSNs.

    The end result of a successful integration of MSR technology into SSNs will be a much more compact, simplified, and capable sub in addition to being much less costly to build and operate. This investment in a new nuclear propulsion technology approach will undoubtedly generate lots of pushback. OKBM Afrikantov was contracted to extend the operational lifetime of Vaygach tohours, and the same was achieved for Taymyr. In Atomflot was working to extend the reactor life tohours in both vessels. In anticipation of decreasing ice and increased traffic, tenders were called for building the first of a new LK series of Russian icebreakers in mid, as Projectand the contract was awarded to Baltijsky Zavod Shipbuilding in St Petersburg.

    The keel of the new Arktika was laid in Novemberit was launched in June and it was due to be delivered to Atomflot by the end of at a cost of RUR 37 billion.

    The project cost was quoted in mid at RUR billion. Construction of the Sibir started in May and it was launched by the Baltic Shipyard in September The two RITM reactors were installed at the end of Construction of Ural started in July and it was launched in May Arktika was expected to be in service in but the date was pushed back to April due to a delay in manufacturing the steam turbines.

    It commenced sea trials in Decemberbut in February one of its propulsion motors was damaged by a short circuit, requiring complex replacement undertaken in September-October Construction of the fourth LK, Yakutia, started in mid, with the last, Chukotka, scheduled one year later.

    Sibir is to be commissioned at the end ofthen the next three inand Intended service life is 40 years.

    Javascript Required!

    The LK vessels are 'universal' dual-draught They are m long, 34 m wide, and designed to break through 2. Top speed is 22 knots. The wider 33 m beam at the waterline is to match the 70, tonne ships they are designed to clear a path for, though a few ships with reinforced hulls are already using the Northern Sea Route.

    There is scope for more use: in19, ships used the Suez Canal and only about 40 traversed the northern route. This increased in — see below. The LK is designed to operate in the western Arctic — in the Barents, Pechora and Kara Seas, as well as in shallow water of the Yenissei river and Ob bay, for year-round pilotage also as tug of tankers, dry-cargo ships and vessels with special equipment to mineral resource development sites on the Arctic shelf. The vessel has a smaller crew than its predecessors — only They will replace the older vessels Sovetskiy Soyuz and Yamal.

    It is to be capable of breaking through 4. It is for deep-sea use in the eastern Arctic and will be m long, 50 m wide and with 13 m draft, with displacement of 69, dwt. Each of three planned vessels would have a crew of A contract for the first one, Rossiya, was signed in Apriland the keel was laid in mid Commissioning is expected in The LK is too big for easy operation around the oil and gas fields, so Project is under development with an LK intended for shallow water and the Arctic shelf, with a range of uses.

    It will displace 20, t and be m long, 31 m wide, draft 8. The reactor plant mass is tonnes. Development of nuclear merchant ships began in the s but on the whole has not been commercially successful. The 22, tonne US-built NS Savannah, was commissioned in and decommissioned eight years later. The reactor used 4.

    Naval Nuclear Propulsion

    It was a technical success, but not economically viable. It had a 74 MWt reactor delivering The German-built 15, tonne Otto Hahn cargo ship and research facility sailed somenautical miles on voyages in 10 years without any technical problems.

    It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. However, it proved too expensive to operate and in it was converted to diesel. The tonne Japanese Mutsu was the third civil vessel, put into service in It was dogged by technical and political problems and was an embarrassing failure. These three vessels used reactors with low-enriched uranium fuel 3. It is a 61, tonne m long LASH-carrier taking lighters to ports with shallow water and container ship with ice-breaking bow capable of breaking 1.

    It needed refuelling only once to It was to be decommissioned aboutbut Rosatom approved overhauling it and the ship was returned to service in In it was used to ship fresh food from the Pacific across the northern sea route to Murmansk.

    Russian experience with nuclear powered Arctic ships totals about reactor-years to In August two Arktika-class icebreakers escorted thedwt tanker Baltika, carrying 70, tonnes of gas condensate, from Murmansk to China via the Northern Sea Route NSRsaving some km compared with the Suez Canal route. In November the Ob River LNG tanker withcubic metres of gas as LNG, chartered by Russia's Gazprom, traversed the northern sea route from Norway to Japan accompanied by nuclear-powered icebreakers, the route bunnings keyless entry 20 days off the normal journey and resulting in less loss of cargo.

    It has a strengthened hull to cope with the Arctic ice. There are plans to ship iron ore and base metals on the northern sea route also. In the Atomflot icebreakers supported freight transportation and emergency rescue operations along the Northern Sea Route NSRand freezing northern seas and estuaries of rivers. In the framework of the regulated activity paid for as per rates established by the Federal Tariff Service of Russia FSTsteering operations were carried out for ships with cargo and in ballast to and from ports in the aquatic area of the NSR, including steering of ships with cargo for building Sabetta Port of JSC Yamal SPG to Okskaya Bay and steering of a convoy of Navy ships under a contract with the Ministry of Defence.

    Over the summer-autumn navigation season, 71 transit steering operations were carried out, including 25 foreign-flag ships. A total of 1, tonnes of various cargoes was shipped east and west through the aquatic area of the NSR. WANO routinely carries out such reviews of nuclear power plants worldwide. Newer French reactors run on low-enriched fuel. They have long core lives, so that refuelling is needed only after 10 or more years, and new cores are designed to last 50 years in carriers and years over 1.

    The design allows for a compact pressure vessel with internal neutron and gamma shield. The Sevmorput pressure vessel for a relatively large marine reactor is 4. Thermal efficiency is less than in civil nuclear power plants due to the need for flexible power output, and space constraints for the steam system.

    www.hotcars.com

    There is no soluble boron used in naval reactors at least US ones but boron may be a burnable neutron poison in the fuel. A submarine reactor is required to withstand the shock and vibration experienced by all warships in active service due to ocean turbulence and enemy action. The long core life is enabled by the relatively high enrichment of the uranium and by incorporating a 'burnable poison' such as gadolinium — which is progressively depleted as fission products and actinides accumulate and fissile material is used up.

    These accumulating poisons and fissile reduction would normally cause reduced fuel efficiency, but the two effects cancel one another out. However, the enrichment level for newer French naval fuel has been dropped to 7.

    It needs to be changed every ten years or so, but avoids the need for a specific military enrichment line, and some reactors will be smaller versions of those on the Charles de Gaulle. Long-term integrity of the compact reactor pressure vessel is maintained by providing an internal neutron shield. This is in contrast to early Soviet civil PWR designs where embrittlement occurs due to neutron bombardment of a very narrow pressure vessel. The Russian, US, and British navies rely on steam turbine propulsion, the French and Chinese in submarines use the turbine to generate electricity for propulsion.

    Russian ballistic missile submarines as well as all surface ships since the Enterprise are powered by two reactors. Other submarines except some Russian attack subs are powered by one.

    A new Russian test-bed submarine is diesel-powered but has a very small nuclear reactor for auxiliary power. These had full-power core life of hours. The steam generator delivered 30 shaft MW.

    Reactors had to be kept running, even in harbour, since the external heating provision did not work. The design was unsuccessful and all the vessels were retired early — the lead vessel in and all but one of the others in The reactor of the last vessel to be retired K, redesignated B in was replaced with a VM-4 PWR following a accident where liquid metal coolant leaked into the steam generator.

    After a few years' service it suffered a multi-fatality reactor accident inwas laid up at Gremikha Bay, then scuttled in It now needs to be raised and dismantled there. Russian cruisers have used twin KN-3 reactors of MWt. It was highly efficient, but offsetting this, the plant had serious operational disadvantages.

    Large electric heaters were required to keep the plant warm when the reactor was down to avoid the sodium freezing. No refuelling is required for the year service life. About one-third of these are now retired. They are about dwt submerged and require no refuelling during their year service life. The reactor does not need refuelling for the year service life and can operate with convection circulation without pumps.

    The vessels are about dwt submerged, and 19 were in operation by mid, with more being built — a total of 28 from initial contracts. These are effectively a new class. These require mid-life refuelling at about 25 years. The 12 slightly larger Columbia class to replace these will require no refuelling, hence shorter mid-life maintenance 2 years instead of 4.

    They will have an S1B nuclear reactor with electric drive without reduction gears and pump jet propulsion. N has a half-life on only 7 seconds but produces high-energy gamma radiation during decay. Reactor power ranges from 10 MWt in a prototype up to MWt in the larger submarines and MWt in surface ships such as the Kirov-class battle cruisers. Accordingly, the ship has about three times the electrical capacity of Nimitz-class.


    thoughts on “A1b reactor

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *