














Comments     Threshold


RE: USA a ok?
By zmatt on 1/26/2011 4:03:52 PM , Rating: 3
Nuclear is only an option on the largest ships. You can't have nuclear powered destroyer or a nuclear powered jet. At one point we did have nuclear cruisers but they weren't any better than conventional ones and were very expensive. The air force experimented with nuclear aircraft and even put a reactor on a B-36 in the 1950's but it never powered the aircraft, and even if it did you would increase the cost significantly, and think of the repercussions if one were to crash or be shot down. nuclear power only makes sense in carries which are large enough and have a large enough power requirement and subs whose special operating parameters make them ideal.

RE: USA a ok?
By Amiga500 on 1/27/2011 5:32:05 AM , Rating: 3
You can have a nuclear powered destroyer. Easily.

There is not a substantial difference in size between the Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers and the California class missile cruisers.

Arleigh Burke:
Tonnage: 8,300 - 10,000 tons
Length: 505-509 ft
Beam: 59 ft
Draft: 30.5 ft

Tonnage: 10,800 tons
Length: 587 ft
Beam: 61 ft
Draft: 31.5 ft

Whether it is financially worthwhile or not is a different story*, but ask any Admiral, and they'll be glad to have freedom of maneuverability regardless of bunker levels.

*Oh, also probably worthwhile bearing in mind the California's were built in the early '70s; reactors have moved on a bit in the intervening 40 years. :-)

RE: USA a ok?



RE: USA a ok?

RE: USA a ok?
By Wastral on 1/27/2011 6:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
As a nuclear proponent, I hear you.

On the other hand there really hasn't been any advance in nuclear reactors in 40 years. Due to all the idiotic moron fears about nuclear materials.

The reason nuclear reactors today aren't any different than 40 years ago is because we need higher temperature materials that DON'T degrade under nuclear neutron bombardment. There has been 0, NO advancement in this area. We can burn NG, and coal on top of said nuclear fission pile to get higher temperatures for the steam turbine, but the fundamental constraint to thermal efficiency and power output of the nuclear reactor is the fission rods themselves. IE theier CLADDING on said fission rods. This is what is holding us back.

Yes, people have proposed new higher temperature liquid nuclear fission, but its drawback is that its efficiency on a mass basis and volume basis is HORRID. Where the hell are you going to put that on a ship??? Even a Carrier, it would prohibitive to place such a reactor aboard. So, we are stuck with the same ol' temperature threshold of the cladding material on nuclear rods of 40 years ago. IE 1970's.

Until a new material comes out that can withstand neutron bombardment to clad said uranium rods, there won't be any significant efficiency improvement on a power density basis unless of course we can figure out how to get said liquid uranium florium mixture to output more power in a less massive infrastructure.

Yes, I think its hopelessly stupid NOT to have far more nuclear reactors in operation in the USA, and for Pete's sake Reuse the old damned material!!! Everyone else does it, except the stupid greenies won't allow us to do it because oh horrors, it produces plutonium, as if we don't have reactors already that do so for the military... Idiots.

