INS Vishal might be nuclear-powered aircraft carrier : Naval Design Bureau

[Penguin]

Traditional steam propulsion plants don't use a nuclear reactor. They may burn coals or diesel to generate steam to drive turbines.

But, there is no boiler in :


CODAD (combined diesel and diesel) propulsion plant

Used e.g. in Type 054/A frigates

CODAG (Combined Diesel and Gas Turbine) propulsion plant.

Used e.g. in late German Koln-class frigate

CODOG (Combined Diesel or Gas Turbine) propulsion plant

Used in e.g. a great many current frigate classes.e.g. Shivalik, Halifax, Meko 200, M-frigates

COGAG (Combined Gas turbine and gas turbine) propulsion plant

Used in e.g. Invincible, Hyuga, Izumo classes carrier, Kolkata and Sejong the Great classes of destroyer, Spruance/Kidd/Tico/Burke classes

Combines Gas turbine or Gas turbine (COGOG) propulsion

Used in e.g. Elli/S-/L-frigates, Iroquois and Type 52 destroyers, Slava class cruiser

Combined diesel-electric and gas (CODLAG)

Used in e.g. Type 23, Fremm, F-125 frigates

There IS a steamturbine in

Combined steam and gas (COSAG)

This system was mainly used on first-generation gas-turbine ships such as the Royal Navy's County class destroyer and Tribal class frigate . The Spanish aircraft carrier Dédalo
also used it.

Combined gas and steam (COGAS)

Currently no naval ship uses this concept. However some modern cruise ships do.

Combined nuclear and steam propulsion system (CONAS) is used on the Kirov class Guided missile cruisers.

 

[Penguin]

 

[nvKyleBrown]

An excellent set of drawing sir!

 

[narcon]

 

[narcon]

Sorry, I can't help with the chip on your shoulder. Go look for trouble someplace else please.

Chip on the shoulder ..me?

Boy o boy..

I got four wives since 15 years, and they are still with me.
Know thy neighbor first...

 

[Penguin]

Chip on the shoulder ..me?

Boy o boy..

I got four wives since 15 years, and they are still with me.
Know thy neighbor first...

You are the one wining about the IN new carrier and steam propulsion. Obviously, it will use gasturbines, not steamturbines for propulsion. Whether or not it has one or more boilers on board for other purposes is simply irrelevant. You posts are completely besides addressing the point of my inititial post, which is explaining the different figures given for displacement, in response to a question by a fellow poster. Back to that topic, please, "baby".

 

[narcon]

You are the one wining about the IN new carrier and steam propulsion. .

This is my first post to you:

What are you talking? Steamship of 1800 centuries? Which ship do you see as steam powered baby?

Did you see that I even touch "IN new carrier" with a 10 foot pole/barge pole?
I never mentioned it.
Don't spin. People know what is being said by whom.
This is a public forum.
Anything wrong, and you will be a sitting target for them.
If you must spin, start your own blog.
Thanks for a visit.

 

[anonymus]

@Penguin

Which of the two propulsion systems among the two , Nuclear vs Conventional , is more efficient in term of weight and space?

 

[Penguin]

What are you talking? Steamship of 1800 centuries? Which ship do you see as steam powered baby?

Suggesting I am suggesting IN carrier is steam powered. Totally false. Contribute substance or LEAVE.

 

[narcon]

Suggesting I am suggesting IN carrier is steam powered. Totally false. Contribute substance or LEAVE.

No. And I never said something as such. Show me the beef on this please...
Spin again?

 

[Penguin]

@Penguin

Which of the two propulsion systems among the two , Nuclear vs Conventional , is more efficient in term of weight and space?

Depends on the reactor configuration. E.g. Enterprise had 8 reactors versus just 2 in Nimitz. Kuznetsov, Liaoning, Vikramaditya have steam turbine propulsion. Difference with nuclear is that you need to have fossil fuels available (bunkerage). In a CVN that space can be used for e.g. aviation fuel and ordnance storage.

 

[janon]

Depends on the reactor configuration. E.g. Enterprise had 8 reactors versus just 2 in Nimitz. Kuznetsov, Liaoning, Vikramaditya have steam turbine propulsion. Difference with nuclear is that you need to have fossil fuels available (bunkerage). In a CVN that space can be used for e.g. aviation fuel and ordnance storage.

And which one gives more "bang for buck"? ie, more value for money? In particular, for carriers around 65k tonnes?

On another thread about INS Vishal, the report claims that making it nuclear powered will make it a lot more expensive than a conventional one. Does that hold true over the course of its lifetime? I mean, would the fossil fuel costs over the lifetime turn out to be a lot more expensive than nuclear fuel? Enough to offset the higher cost of building and manning a CVN?

 

[Penguin]

No. And I never said something as such. Show me the beef on this please...
Spin again?

More innuendo and suggestion. Goodbye.

 

[MilSpec]

@sancho I have always said, we haven't seen the last of Sup Hornets....

 

[Penguin]

And which one gives more "bang for buck"? ie, more value for money? In particular, for carriers around 65k tonnes?

As for the BANG

Charles de Gaulle
Displacement:37,085 tonnes (standard)
42,000 tonnes (full load)[
28 – 40 aircraft
Complement:Ship's company: 1,350
Air wing: 600
Range:Unlimited distance; 20-25 years
Endurance:45 days of food

INS Vikrant
Displacement:40,000 tons (full)
(up to) 30 fixed wing, 10 Rotary wing ac
Range:8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi)[1]
Crew:1,400 (including air crew)

This suggests VIkrant has a greater degree of automation (not surprising, given she's a decade and a half newer (and French crew is probably more expensive than Indian crew as well). Not much difference in aviation complement, but if CdG has more aviation fuel and ordnance (which I can't verify) and crew , she may well have more staying power.

Note the Russians moved up from steamturbine powered 45k ton 32 aircraft Baku/Gorshkov to conas-powered 75k ton, 68 aircraft Ulyanovsk. Added size and nuclear power equate to double aircraft complement.

On another thread about INS Vishal, the report claims that making it nuclear powered will make it a lot more expensive than a conventional one. Does that hold true over the course of its lifetime? I mean, would the fossil fuel costs over the lifetime turn out to be a lot more expensive than nuclear fuel? Enough to offset the higher cost of building and manning a CVN?

Google: carrier + "life cycle cost"
Result: many interesting reports on the topic.

GAO studied the cost-effectiveness of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers,
including analyses of total life-cycle costs and the implications of an all
nuclear-powered fleet on overseas homeporting.

GAO’s analysis shows that conventional and nuclear carriers both have

been effective in fulfilling U.S. forward presence, crisis response, and
war-fighting requirements and share many characteristics and capabilities.
Conventionally and nuclear-powered carriers both have the same standard
air wing and train to the same mission requirements. Each type of carrier
offers certain advantages. For example, conventionally powered carriers
spend less time in extended maintenance, and as a result, they can provide
more forward presence coverage. By the same token, nuclear carriers can
store larger quantities of aviation fuel and munitions and, as a result, are
less dependent upon at-sea replenishment. There was little difference in
the operational effectiveness of nuclear and conventional carriers in the
Persian Gulf War.

Investment, operating and support, and inactivation and disposal costs are
greater for nuclear-powered carriers than conventionally powered
carriers. GAO’s analysis, based on an analysis of historical and projected

costs, shows that life-cycle costs for conventionally powered and
nuclear-powered carriers (for a notional 50-year service life) are estimated
at $14.1 billion and $22.2 billion (in fiscal year 1997 dollars), respectively.

www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98001.pdf
full report
books.google.nl/books?isbn=1428976647

Of course, as DoD pointed out, the conventional carriers in this report represent old technologies. ANd DoD also disagreed on the methodology.