Shipbucket

Thanks, it's also interesting to see that reactor refuelling with specially designed equipment and flasks through the hangar is possible I was informed this was not possible, I can therefore dispense with the centreline lift and add a third deck edge lift to the opposite side....

These deck plans will come in handy, I used the top plan as my basis but I didn't see these other references that you have provided....

This also means my reactors can be separated longitudinally as apposed to side by side, as I now no longer have to provide for above access all the way up to the FD.

shippy2013 wrote:I can therefore dispense with the centreline lift and add a third deck edge lift to the opposite side....

A third deck edge lift on this 40-50 000 tons design, no, 2 were sufficient !!!

shippy2013 wrote:This also means my reactors can be separated longitudinally as apposed to side by side, as I now no longer have to provide for above access all the way up to the FD.

CdG propulsion scheme




1995-1997 early british CVF study
(ma favourite one is the 15 STOVL design, the better design for the british during 2000's-2035+ (large 27 000/35 000 tons LHD style), because when you see the economic situation of United-Kingdoom during 2000's-2035 and when you see the unit price of the F 35 ....




The 26 STOBAR or 26 CTOL design were the more closer to your current design

some modifications based on plans of CDG provided by Colombomike, and a few mods to appease Ace, ie deeper hull and lift on the other side to overcome vulnerability, although in my opinion with modern anti ship misiles if one gets through then your out of action!

Also come conceptual cdeck plans,



When she was comissioned i would suspect she would be STOVL but i would imagine the RN would purchase F18 in the 90's so a CATOBAR refit would take place and eventually the F35C would be bought. if the F18 ws not bought then no CATOBAR refit and F35B operated.

edit: CATOBAR deck modified slightly on Ace's advice to provide deck park on Bow. once ive drawn top veiw of bridge will see if it can go other side as now cats cannot be used during recovery..... Although this isnt a major concern CDG, Eagle and Ark had or have this issue.....

looking nice now. I would move the catapult a bit to the side so you can use half of that bow surface for parking space if needed, and I still think you should shorten the hangar a bit at the front end (or lessen the width over there a bit) and the general stores etc in the bow will not be able to be there, the fore peak bulkhead will be the first bulkhead aft of the bow thrusters

I still think she is a bit fat for her length and depth, but now within acceptable levels on first glance (not on my own pc now, so I cannot check my refs)

note also that the way the reactors are refueled on the CDG is not the best way, but an pretty roundabout way born about the use of basically submarine reactors (compact but heavy) and the requirement, due to the shorter ship, to not open up the flight deck. as far as I know, on USN carriers, the decks are opened up, but I have no hard evidence of this and might be wrong. check the size of the fuel elements of your chosen reactors, if these are longer then your hangar deck height (or very close to that) you will still be unable to use the CDG method, which might or might not be an problem as you only need to build in additional strength at this point and make sure no unmovable pipes and equipment is on top of it. that was what I was refering to earlier btw, not the need to put an elevator on top

may I suggest drawing an waterline top view as well? it might give some clear views on the ships arrangement as well.

all in all, getting to look really good, and I have less and less to comment on it

I linked the CVF plans ages ago mike... No need to brake the forum with hot-linking them.

I agree with ace so far, looks nice. The bow cat could well be moved to provide deck park space.

Low hangar height could be solved by developing a fuel element that could be split in two then reassembled after being partially lowered in, it would take longer but it should work fine.

explain to me how you couple 2 half RADIOACTIVE fuel elements inside an presurrised compartiment flood with radiation, bullfrog. bolting it together? or welding? I cannot think of any way that would work inside an reactor.

acelanceloet wrote:explain to me how you couple 2 half RADIOACTIVE fuel elements inside an presurrised compartiment flood with radiation, bullfrog. bolting it together? or welding? I cannot think of any way that would work inside an reactor.

Well, I'd lower the first fuel rod down into the core then seat the second rod on top of the first, there's no real need to weld or bolt them together, they're not going anywhere (and welding may block a control rod channel). There's not much of a challenge in that. The only downside is that the need to have a seat for a second rod atop the first would result in a negligible drop in the amount of fuel contained in the rod, it would also double the time taken to remove the rods but that would be made up by the time saved by not removing the flight deck.

The fuel is perfectly safe to handle before it has been in the reactor, the radioactivity isn't particularly high, it's safe to handle the fuel assembly and to hold the unsheathed fuel with bare hands. After it has been in the reactor it's a much different story, much more active, needs to be taken to a cooling pond straight away. Hence unbolting two elements would present quite a challenge without risking hazardous exposure for the worker involved.

you wouldn do that since you need the ability to take the rod out fast if the reactor is .... well pushing a bit hard.

And if it was possible to split an rod they would have don that ages ago... but they don't.

heuhen wrote:you wouldn do that since you need the ability to take the rod out fast if the reactor is .... well pushing a bit hard.

And if it was possible to split an rod they would have don that ages ago... but they don't.

You don't take fuel rods out normally, certainly not when the reactor is "pushing a bit hard", it's not an everyday procedure, US carriers are only re-fueled once in their lifetime.
They do split fuel assemblies, there's nothing particularly novel about the idea, it's not common since in most reactors there is enough height above the reactor to remove a full size rod without difficulty, thus it's quicker and more convenient to use a single rod.