NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently, Imperial Navy fleets lack dedicated anti-submarine support, which means that ships like the Gaea guided missile destroyers and Alexandria class gun cruisers have to split their armament between what the ship was designed to use and secondar ASW weapons. To alleviate this problem, the Imperial Navy has commissioned the Revenge class nuclear-powered escort destroyers, whose sole purpose will be to provide ASW support to the fleet, freeing up ships that can be used more effectively in other roles. The first batch of 96 will begin construction immediately and the second batch one year before the first batch exist their drydocks.

[Now for some stats]

Revenge class DDEN
Displacement: Classified (was 14,000 metric tons, but I don't know how much weight the reactors will add)
Dimensions: 190m L, 50m W, 7.5m D
Power Plants: 2 Modular Pebble Bed Reactors rated at 110MW each
Propulsion Arrangement: 6 high pressure water jets, four in outer hull and two in inner hull
Speed: 22 knots cruising, 42 knot conventional top speed, 48 knots sprint speed
Endurance: Limited to crew endurance

Crew: 175 minimum, 233 standard
Accomodations: Total of 254 people can be housed in one ship, accomodations variable depending on rank
Marine Compliment: 44
Marine Accomodations: Total of 59, accomodations variable depending on rank

Radar:
APAR-12C Air/Search (Long Range Air Search/Tracking)
PDI ASL-1 (Mod 1) (Short Range/CIWS Air Search/Tracking LIDAR)
PDI SAMPSON-NPI Air/Search (Long Range Air Search/Tracking)

Fire Control:
Falltech GSWDC Control Bloc (Ship Control)
Falltech NG04A (Mod 2) (Gunfire Control)
Host arrays for multilink combat systems (such as AEGIS)

EW:
Falltech Mk.602 Intercept/Jamming Unit
3 x Falltech Type 5 MR Chaff/Flare Dispensers
SLQ-25A Nixie torpedo countermeasure
Mk53 SRBOC decoy RL
Host arrays for ELINT equipment

LIDAR:
PDI NSL-1A (Hull mounted, medium range)
PDI NSL-2A (Multiple line towed LIDAR array, medium range)

Aviation: A large, 1,200 m2 squared landing pad is spread over all three hulls. Two landing spots with a ‘bear trap’ recovery system are installed, along with a spacious hangar. Like the original Thatcher, the ship can carry four medium sized helicopters such as the (UE) EA-24H naval helicopters for anti-submarine work, or five smaller craft such as the Westland Super Lynx, though the ASW role of the Revenge means that the latter option limits the effectiveness of the vessel.

Boats: Four individual 5-ton rated divots house the four fifteen foot rigid-inflatable craft the ships carry. Retractable panels provide protection against the elements as well increasing the stealthy profile of the ship.

Armament:
2x 6"/52 Mk3 ETC Naval Gun Systems
2x 32-cell Strategic Single-Load Mk72 VLS
1x 96-cell Tactical Dual-Load Mk72 VLS
4x Quad PDI Seahawk SSM Launchers
3x Mk45 CAMDS
2x PDI Dual 30mm ETC Cannons
2 x Twin ML 324 mm/12.75 inch MR Torpedo Tubes (36 Torpedoes/Mines/Depth Charges)
4 x Mk2 12-Cell Unguided ASW Mortars

Armour: 125mm-150mm Reinforced Treated Steel over Reinforced Titanium Frame

Protective Measures:
-Double Bottomed hull
-Reinforced Keel
-Extensive firefighting and NBC equipment and filters.
-Pressure release systems to reduce missile damage.
-Multiple lateral and vertical bulkheads
-Ultra-modern damage detection and reporting equipment
-Heavy pressure flooding and anti-flooding pumps
-Heavily protected operation areas and additional armour for vulnerable systems.
-Reserve radar and communication arrays.
-Effective resistance to EMP attack through numerous design features.
-Limited Stealth features throughout design.

Life Preservation:
-4 rigid inflatable boats (15 people each, see embarked craft above)
-25 ‘Tile’ 12-man inflatable life rafts
-Sufficient life jackets and floats for the entire crew

Purchase Cost: 1.5 Billion USD

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/The_Freethinkers/RevengeDD.gif

[My appologies to Freethinker for hijacking bandwidth, I'll host the pic on my own pic host if bandwidth is limited.]

[Come on, no comments?]

[Come on, no comments?]

While pebblebed reactors increase power production a little bit - they also increase the amount of waste. The only advantage to pebblebed reactors is the supposed safety above the water and other reactors in service around the world today.

[Oh? What do you mean by that? Do you propose I use traditional reactors like the A4W?]

I'm a fan of pebblebeds myself.... They don't produce more waste, the fuel is actually burned more efficiently, so there is less waste uranium Admitedly, the fuel packages are bulkier, but that's a small price to pay, considering you can have online refueling, meltdowns are physically impossible, and the safety systems are gravity based, and negative feedback triggered. Aditionally they reduce the price of the power by about 2 cents per kilowatt, and they last longer because helium doesn't corrode the piping.

[Thanks. I didn't want to go with a traditional design but didn't know if I could get away with doing something like bubble fusion design, so I just went with a pebble bed. I'm glad I did.]

I'm a fan of pebblebeds myself.... They don't produce more waste, the fuel is actually burned more efficiently, so there is less waste uranium Admitedly, the fuel packages are bulkier, but that's a small price to pay, considering you can have online refueling, meltdowns are physically impossible, and the safety systems are gravity based, and negative feedback triggered. Aditionally they reduce the price of the power by about 2 cents per kilowatt, and they last longer because helium doesn't corrode the piping.

Forgive me, I was thinking of a totally different reactor *yawn* I need sleep.

Personally, Doujin powerplants on land use two kinds of reactors - Supercritical water-cooled fast / thermal reactors and lead-cooled fast reactors.

I'm a fan of pebblebeds myself.... They don't produce more waste, the fuel is actually burned more efficiently, so there is less waste uranium Admitedly, the fuel packages are bulkier, but that's a small price to pay, considering you can have online refueling, meltdowns are physically impossible, and the safety systems are gravity based, and negative feedback triggered. Aditionally they reduce the price of the power by about 2 cents per kilowatt, and they last longer because helium doesn't corrode the piping.

Ok - I have an issue. At least three sites I have just read said pebble bed reactors produce more radioactive waste than their traditional counterparts, and that it's a trade-off for the substantially reduced meltdown risk.

[IMG http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/doujincorp/RevengeDD.gif[/IMG]

^^ Just use that, I never use my photobucket.

[Somehow I doubt that pebble beds are any worse than normal reactors, the Germans and South Africans seem to have made an artform out of making first-class pebble beds.]

[Somehow I doubt that pebble beds are any worse than normal reactors, the Germans and South Africans seem to have made an artform out of making first-class pebble beds.]

http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/coated_part.gif

PBMR's fuel is apparently easier to store, but from what I'm reading it indeed produces more waste. *shrug* Just going by what i'm reading.

Hmm. From what I've read, pebble beds reduce the amount of waste volume per unit of power production - but due to the fuel size and composition apparently it increases the amount of waste. Hm

I'm mostly going on a feasibility study done by a bunch of MIT graduate students... each fuel pellet is run through the reactor many times, so though the pellets come out of the reactor more often, they're just dumped back in... the carbon shell may be bulkier, but it's also a very good radiation shield, and the actual uranium is 'burned' more thoruoughly. On the other hand, it can't be reprocessed into either enriched uranium or plutonium so once the pellets are used up, they're used up. That may be what you're thinking of. Frankly, I view this as an advantage... it prevents terrorists or rogue states from using your waste as a weapon. And either way, it's considerably cheaper... I think it drops the price of nuclear power from 37 cents per kilowatt hour to 33... but don't quote me on that.

I'm mostly going on a feasibility study done by a bunch of MIT graduate students... each fuel pellet is run through the reactor many times, so though the pellets come out of the reactor more often, they're just dumped back in... the carbon shell may be bulkier, but it's also a very good radiation shield, and the actual uranium is 'burned' more thoruoughly. On the other hand, it can't be reprocessed into either enriched uranium or plutonium so once the pellets are used up, they're used up. That may be what you're thinking of. Frankly, I view this as an advantage... it prevents terrorists or rogue states from using your waste as a weapon. And either way, it's considerably cheaper... I think it drops the price of nuclear power from 37 cents per kilowatt hour to 33... but don't quote me on that.

I'd rather use Fast reactors and recycle the fuel *shrug*

They can be reused, you just don't get much out of reusing it.

Also, pebble beds have their own safety vulnerabilities, so I wouldn't call them inheretenly safe or anything. *shrug*

I am not sure how much reactors today use, but for a mere 110 MWe reactor you would need 4 billion microspheres - 360,000 fuel balls. And like I said earlier, while there is a reduction in the amount of waste volume per unit of power production - the end waste product is actually more than that of a traditional reactor. *shrug* tradeoffs.. and I'm just jumping about here, arne't I - I need sleep!