|
|
От
|
HorNet
|
|
|
К
|
john1973
|
|
|
Дата
|
19.04.2011 13:17:23
|
|
|
Рубрики
|
Современность; Флот;
|
|
Цифры есть везде, а корень зла кратко описан Фридманом вот здесь
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/centennial-of-naval-aviation-the-n-in-cvn/
Квотейшн:
Enterprise was difficult to maintain because her eight reactors were closely coupled together. Like any other nuclear ship, she had to be opened up periodically so that the reactors could be refueled. In a carrier the power plant is buried deep in the ship, beneath the flight and hangar decks. These decks have to be cut open to give access to the reactors; there is no way to get at the vertical fuel rods from the side. That is why other modifications to a carrier are generally held back to refueling time. Alternatively, it might be said that much of the cost of operating a nuclear ship is spent when she is refueled. Eight closely coupled reactors required a huge refueling hole and an enormous amount of special piping.
Moreover, concentrating a ship’s power plant in one place makes her vulnerable to a single underwater hit. Since before World War II, U.S. design practice had been to split power plants so that no single hit amidships could immobilize a ship. Enterprise violated that requirement because of the need to concentrate those eight reactors (they shared important auxiliary machinery). With their single funnels, conventional carriers did suffer from some concentration, but they still had dispersed power plants. Since they needed no funnels, reactor plants could, at least in theory, be spread out more widely than their conventional predecessors, giving their ships better survivability.