As short as the tire marks are, I'm leaning towards touch&goes over full stop landings.The Fujian has returned from her 6th season trial and now with the first clearer image of the Fujian‘s deck being released I would say this clearly looks like landing - at least touch & go - markings on deck!
(Image via @Jsport_三汽 from Weibo)
View attachment 755058
View attachment 755059
View attachment 755064
I believe so.So would the 004 be the POTENTIAL nuclear powered carrier that was mentioned several posts ago?
If a nuke, I would assume two reactors, possibly four depending where China's reactor technology is at.
Ford has two reactors, one for each pair of shafts (4 MMRs and 4 AMRs) and you are correct regarding redundancy and the Fords are all electric drive, so the generators are the units which use the steam from the reactors. One reactor has plenty of power in case the other is off-line.The Ford-class CVNs have two reactors (I assume for redundancy purposes) but I won't be surprised at all if the Type-004 uses three-four reactors.
If it is to be a nuke, hopefully future images will show the reactor boxes. If a nuke, I would assume two reactors, possibly four depending where China's reactor technology is at.
Enterprise had 8.If the Type 004 uses three-four reactors it will be the first carrier to do so since the Enterprise back in the 1960s. And I would not be surprised at all if it did NMaude.
They also were not sure how many Enterprise needed as well according to a nuke buddy of mine when I was on Enterprise.Enterprise had 8.
Did not the French just use their sub reactors in CdG? I would expect similar here, with perhaps as many as four being necessary depending. Alternatively maybe there is a more powerful carrier specific reactor.
The USN made a big mistake in not utilizing reactors for CV-66 and CV-67, boilers are a pain in the ass.There were plans for four-reactor CVNs after Enterprise, though given ongoing cost pressures they were ordered as conventionally-powered ships.
The USN made a big mistake in not utilizing reactors for CV-66 and CV-67, boilers are a pain in the ass.
Eight reactors on the Enterprise was a bit overkill in my opinion, the US Navy should have just put four reactors instead but perhaps the reators at that time were not powerful enough to power all the systems on board especially at that time when the Enterprise was the worlds first carrrier to be equipped with nuclear power.
Combined response.Eight reactors on the Enterprise was a bit overkill in my opinion, the US Navy should have just put four reactors instead but perhaps the reators at that time were not powerful enough to power all the systems on board especially at that time when the Enterprise was the worlds first carrrier to be equipped with nuclear power.
Exactly. The original plan was to replace boilers with reactors 1:1.She was experimental, to some degree. Her boilers were replaced with reactors 1:1. In practice I believe only six were needed and two were kept at very low power.