Shipbucket

Use whatever helps you!

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

heres my first proof of concept drawing.

based on a design of 250m with a beam of 45m (not inc sponson for angled deck). my design uses one centerline lift located over the two reactor compartments which are located side by side seperated by a bulkhead and Biological sheild, the PWR1b (up rated personal design 15% larger than RR given dimemsions) are 4m diameter and being located under a 18.5m by 15m lift with its lower surface forming the Upper Secondary Biological shieled to the reactor compartments, the primary being the roof of the Reactor compartment that can open once the lift has been raised. The lift would be able to rise above the level of the flight deck then travers on tracks enbedded into the flight deck to reveal the top of the Reactors for Refueling or complete replacement with dockside cranes. 1 or maybe 2 deck edge lifts depending on how this evolves will be located on the port side and will be also 18.5m x 15m.
i am still working out the finarys but heres progress so far. other equipment shown are Staem turbines 4 side by side and Generator equipment again 4 side by side.

your props and rudder look to be on the small side, the hangar goes to far forward (you are never gonna be able to do so with the curvature of the bow and the lack of strength the sponsons give) but the biggest problem is this: you are going to have an constant trim backwards because of the fact that at least 25-20% of the ship (if not more) is centered very far aft, in a space that gives relatively few bouyancy.

also, that steam turbine looks way too big for the reactor next to it, and I have doubts about such a small reactor giving the power you need (or is it shown without shielding?)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Just in general, the machinery spaces are shockingly undersized. A comparison to a detailed dino-fueled steam ship is instructive, noting that nuclear machinery spaces tend, if anything, to be even a little larger.

The lack of compartmentalization and redundancy in such a major fleet unit is also rather alarming. A single relatively minor underwater hit could render her dead in the water.

Was just sorting deck heights, haven't done anything with bulkheads or compartments yet. Reactor compartment is a sheilded compartment all other equipment heat exchangers turbines etc are in there own compartments.
Steam turbine pic is just for general position have the correct size one ready but I figured chucking a bigger one in will ensure I leave adiquate space. I am infact gonna turn these vertical more like in a british submarine not only will this reduce their horizontal footprint but ease future replacement.
As for reactor they are true size. Even the real PWR 1 only has 2m of active reactor zone ( the middle part) Ive increased diameter to allow more fuel and control rods thus increasing output.
Im working on a twin rudder arangement so this will also change.

posting from a phone so excuse shocking spelling and grammar

you cannot move steam turbines vertical. this will make it impossible to connect it to prop axis or any other equipment.

I should check this when I am back home with my references, but IIRC if you enlarge the output with say... 2. then you need to quadrupple the shielding. material properties might need to enlarge this even more. I suggest you keep with existing types, fiddling with reactor design without knowing what you are doing is impossible to do right.

could you give me your reference about that reactor? I get the idea it is EXTREMELY compact, which is interesting. (an D2G has IIRC more then twice the diameter and an similar height, check the belowdeck parts thread) while, if you can fuel an carrier with it, this reactor would have more output.

you might find it interesting that I estimated the displacement of your current ship as 43800 tons.

you are not going to get an hangar of 40 meters wide in an 45 meter wide ship, especially not over an length of 193 meters. longtitudinal strength will be ok, but your sponsons will break off near the elevator. this will break your hull and open up your reactor compartiment, and then I think your ship will break in half.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Sorry to butt in here but there would be no need to increase the thickness of the shielding around the reactor, if something stops 1 gamma wave it stops another,power doesn't come into it.
Generally with reactors it's possible to increase the standard output by simply increasing the radius of it, unless you feel like core design the best way I think to estimate the increase in output is by multiplying the standard output of the original reactor by the percentage increase in area of the new radius circle compared to the original (The stated output isn't absolute, it's what reactors can sustain for an indefinite amount of time without overheating, reactors can increase their output for a limited time(until at point of overheating). Thus the standard output of most reactors is determined by their cooling systems ).

_________________
Working on: - Dekabrist-class submarine
- MV Isle of Arran

Whew. Um.

That's absolutely false. Radiation shielding is and always has been expressed, at least in engineering-fidelity calculations, in an exponential-decay sense. The decay rate is a function of both the material and the energy of the incident particle.

This is a matter of basic science and really is not up for debate.
This too is absolutely false, at least in the context of naval reactors. No less a luminary than Norman Friedman has noted (in US Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History):

Nuclear-carrier design entailed some unique problems. First the development of any given reactor was difficult and expensive enough to require ships to be designed around specific power plants... non-nuclear reactors were infinitely more elastic in their design than nuclear ones were. That is, it was far easier to design a new non-nuclear plant say, 30 percent more powerful than an existing one, than to develop a wholly new reactor...

Indeed, multiple US nuclear carrier programs (CVAN 7/57 being a notable example) failed specifically because they could not quite meet their design speed requirements based on the exact shaft horsepower produced by the nuclear plant then available.

Apologies, the first point is a bit of a screwup, shows why I shouldn't post at 2am...

You misunderstand me, the method I stated was for working out what would be the size of a new higher powered core design of a Rolls Royce PWR 1.
Obviously just increasing the core size of the existing reactor would not work as all systems in a reactor are tailored to the size of the reactor so increasing the core size would require a total redesign of the reactor systems.
Most of the work in reactor design is developing a cooling system and steam plant for the new core that has enough efficiency to produce the desired output.

EDIT That is a common problem when you Develop the ship then try to use an off the shelf reactor, I believe however that a British carrier would have a purpose designed reactor by virtue or the fact that Britain never attempted a nuclear cruiser program therefore no off the shelf solution is available save buying an American reactor (Which wouldn't happen in Britain in the 80s).

_________________
Working on: - Dekabrist-class submarine
- MV Isle of Arran

bit more work done, ive moved the reactor compartments so she isnt stern heavy, my internal layout is now based on CDG but modified slightly. two deck edge lifts have been added one towards the stern and one rowards the front of the angled deck.