DCS
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2016
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
I have been rooting for EM catapult configuration all along. Good news, if it's a valid rumor, it will gain steam over the coming months (pun intended).
In my opinion, at >100,000 tonnes displacement, it will likely have to be nuclear. Conventional power plants will not be able to sustain speeds much above 25 knots without compromising range significantly. Top speed will be much lower than what nuclear propulsion could provide. Payload will be eaten up by fuel oil stores, in addition to aviation fuel, munitions, aircraft, and other stores. Endurance will be compromised, and will require an increase in the frequency of underway replenishment, which in conflict presents an additional window of vulnerability. Lastly, future power requirements will only increase, and that will require some overhead. At higher displacements, it doesn't make sense to remain conventional outside of budgetary reasons.
Overall, if we can be sure of the displacement, we will have a very good idea of what the power plant will be. I will check BBS, because even more interesting than the catapult news is the possibility of the Type 003 being pushed forward and the Type 002 essentially being canned in all but name. It will put 001A into perspective.
The Type 002 will use the EMALS and displace over 100,000 tonnes.
The only remaining question is: will it have the nuclear propulsion?
Since China has also revealed its shipborne nuclear reactor.
http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2016/1/336376.shtm
In my opinion, at >100,000 tonnes displacement, it will likely have to be nuclear. Conventional power plants will not be able to sustain speeds much above 25 knots without compromising range significantly. Top speed will be much lower than what nuclear propulsion could provide. Payload will be eaten up by fuel oil stores, in addition to aviation fuel, munitions, aircraft, and other stores. Endurance will be compromised, and will require an increase in the frequency of underway replenishment, which in conflict presents an additional window of vulnerability. Lastly, future power requirements will only increase, and that will require some overhead. At higher displacements, it doesn't make sense to remain conventional outside of budgetary reasons.
Overall, if we can be sure of the displacement, we will have a very good idea of what the power plant will be. I will check BBS, because even more interesting than the catapult news is the possibility of the Type 003 being pushed forward and the Type 002 essentially being canned in all but name. It will put 001A into perspective.