Jiangnan Shipbuilding Group recently released the design news of nuclear-powered container ships, which has attracted widespread attention. Previously, the shipyard had contracted the construction of a series of military ships, including even the latest Fujian ship, so when the word "nuclear-powered" was announced, it couldn't help but be reminiscent of a "nuclear-powered aircraft carrier". In fact, this association is not unfounded. In the 50s of the last century, nuclear-powered ** began to become a reality, and gradually developed into two technical routes: nuclear-powered submarines and nuclear-powered warships. Nuclear submarines have become the standard configuration of major powers, with no less than 10 models in the world, such as Britain and France, which have even given up other nuclear delivery methods and focused on strategic nuclear submarines. In contrast, nuclear-powered surface warships have a much narrower range of applications. At present, only four nuclear-powered surface warships are still in active service in the world: the American Ford- and Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the French Charles de Gaulle-class aircraft carriers, and the Soviet Kirov-class cruisers, and only one of the latter two. However, the reason why nuclear-powered surface warships survive so hard is because of the asymmetry between their extremely high cost of use and limited returns.
For example, the U.S. Navy briefly developed several nuclear-powered cruisers, and in 1964, it dispatched three ** to form an all-nuclear-powered fleet, which shocked the world for a while. However, the US Navy did not mass-produce nuclear-powered cruisers after that, only a few, and these ships were also decommissioned after the end of the Cold War. The reason for this situation is that nuclear-powered cruisers are too expensive to build and the cost of using them is very staggering. The US Navy's "Long Beach" once followed the USS Enterprise around the world to show its force, but few people know that the actual cost of this cruiser with a displacement of less than 20,000 tons was as high as 3300 million US dollars, and the construction cost of the 80,000-ton Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier at that time was only 2$700 million. This example fully demonstrates the high cost of a nuclear-powered cruiser. As a result, the tonnage of nuclear-powered cruisers built by the US Navy later became smaller and smaller, even as low as less than 10,000 tons, but in the end they did not really form a scale. At the same time, the USSR started with nuclear-powered icebreakers, culminating in the launch of the famous Kirov-class nuclear-powered cruisers.
Despite this 2The cost of building a 50,000-ton ship is not known, but it is generally considered to be higher than the 60,000-ton Tbilisi-class aircraft carrier (now the Kuznetsov class). "Kirov"Nuclear-powered cruisers have long been bogged down in the power system. The development of nuclear reactors, whether for submarines or for civilian use, has failed to provide reliable power support. So much so that the Soviet Navy equipped it with a set of conventional power as a backup. Today, "Kirov" has left alone the last "Peter the Great". In general, nuclear-powered cruisers followed a not easy technical path, which was expensive to manufacture and inflexible in use. The United States regarded it as a show of force and a verification ship for the arms race against the Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union gave it a special combat mission due to its special national conditions. However, it is interesting that these shortcomings are completely different on nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. However, the performance of the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers is really impressive. The U.S. Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers have a displacement of more than 100,000 tons, which averages the high cost of nuclear power plants, and the rising fuel ** has also significantly improved their economy.
The U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers have flaunted their military prowess over the years, making them representatives of advanced concepts. The two domestic sliding aircraft carriers are both steam-powered, and the practice of "burning boilers" sounds a bit backward, but in fact, the US Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are also "burning boilers", but the fuel used is different. In terms of sortie rate, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are more responsive and able to sail from port in just a few hours, which is unattainable by conventionally powered carriers. However, if the time span is extended to a year, or even a decade, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers will go to sea significantly less than conventionally powered aircraft carriers. It also has its own characteristics in terms of deck operation safety, fuel space, etc. In general, the comprehensive performance of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers is more superior, and they belong to the real high-precision and sophisticated equipment, while conventional-powered aircraft carriers are slightly inferior in performance, but their simple and reliable characteristics and economic advantages cannot be ignored. The U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers have a displacement of more than 100,000 tons, which averages the high cost of nuclear power units, and the rising fuel rate** has also significantly improved their economy.
The displacement of the domestically produced Fujian ship has exceeded 80,000 tons, but the Navy will obviously not stop there, and 100,000 tons has proved to be the most balanced large-tonnage aircraft carrier displacement in all aspects under the current technical conditions. Therefore, whether to continue with conventional power or to develop surface nuclear-powered aircraft carriers from scratch is a question worth pondering. At present, the domestic accumulation in the field of nuclear-powered surface ships is still very limited, and even the development of nuclear submarines is not very ideal. Therefore, the likelihood of a hasty start of a nuclear-powered cruiser is very low, and the continuous construction of conventionally powered aircraft carriers in the short term in order to expand the size of the carrier fleet is a very reasonable option. The Shandong ship has already shown a very high sortie efficiency. The importance of nuclear-powered surface ships is indispensable in the long run. Even if we can't build it right away, we have to start building experience so that we don't find ourselves in the embarrassment that the technology can't keep up with the demand in the future. For example, the U.S. Navy's V-22 Osprey tiltrotor has suffered a series of accidents and is now grounded. The country may not be very interested in this at the moment, but the theoretical performance of the tiltrotor is extremely outstanding, and it has the potential to replace the heavy ***
Therefore, the final domestic approach is to develop the domestic tiltrotor demonstrator ZN-1 as a technical reserve. Once the technology truly meets the real needs, it can be immediately improved and mass-produced;Otherwise, it can be invested on a small scale to ensure that the technology is constantly updated. The same is true for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the construction of which may not begin immediately in the short term, but the accumulation of technology is imperative. The country will not adopt the practice of carrying two power systems like the "Kirov".